Delayed versus immediate pushing in the second stage of labor in women with neuraxial analgesia: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials
- PMID: 32067972
- DOI: 10.1016/j.ajog.2020.02.002
Delayed versus immediate pushing in the second stage of labor in women with neuraxial analgesia: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials
Abstract
Objective: The aim of this systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials was to evaluate the effect of delayed versus immediate pushing in the second stage of labor on mode of delivery and other outcomes in women with neuraxial analgesia.
Data sources: The research was conducted using MEDLINE, EMBASE, Web of Sciences, Scopus, ClinicalTrial.gov, OVID, and the Cochrane Library as electronic databases, from the inception of each database to August 2019. No restrictions for language or geographic location were applied.
Study eligibility criteria: Selection criteria included only randomized controlled trials in pregnant women randomized to either delayed or immediate pushing during the second stage of labor.
Study appraisal and synthesis methods: The primary outcome was mode of delivery. The summary measures were reported as relative risk or as mean difference with 95% confidence intervals using the random effects model of DerSimonian and Laird. An I2 (Higgins I2) value of greater than 0% was used to identify heterogeneity.
Results: Twelve randomized controlled trials, including 5445 women with neuraxial analgesia randomized to delayed versus immediate pushing during the second stage of labor, were included in the meta-analysis. Of the 5445 women included in the meta-analysis, 2754 were randomized to the delayed pushing group and 2691 to the immediate pushing group. No significant difference between delayed and immediate pushing was found for spontaneous vaginal delivery (80.9% versus 78.3%; relative risk, 1.05; 95% confidence interval, 1.00-1.10; 12 randomized controlled trials, 5540 women), operative vaginal delivery (12.8% versus 14.6%; relative risk, 0.89; 95% confidence interval, 0.75-1.08; 11 randomized controlled trials, 5395 women), and cesarean delivery (6.9% versus 7.9%; relative risk, 0.89; 95% confidence interval, 0.73-1.07; 11 randomized controlled trials; 5395 women). Women randomized to the delayed pushing group had a significantly shorter length of active pushing (mean difference, -27.54 minutes; 95% confidence interval, -43.04 to -12.04; 7 randomized controlled trials, 4737 women) at the expense of a significantly longer overall duration of the second stage of labor (mean difference, 46.17 minutes; 95% confidence interval, 32.63-59.71; 8 studies; 4890 women). The incidence of chorioamnionitis (9.1% versus 6.6%; relative risk, 1.37, 95% confidence interval, 1.04-1.81; 1 randomized controlled trial, 2404 women) and low umbilical cord pH (2.7% versus 1.3%; relative risk, 2.00; 95% confidence interval, 1.30-3.07; 5 randomized controlled trials, 4549 women) were significantly higher in the delayed pushing group.
Conclusion: In women with spontaneous or induced labor at term with neuraxial analgesia, delayed pushing in the second stage does not affect the mode of delivery, although it reduces the time of active pushing at the expense of a longer second stage. This prolongation of labor was associated with a higher incidence of chorioamnionitis and low umbilical cord pH. Based on these findings, delayed pushing cannot be routinely advocated for the management of the second stage.
Keywords: delayed pushing; immediate pushing; labor; second stage.
Copyright © 2020 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
Comment in
-
Reply.Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2021 Jan;224(1):128-129. doi: 10.1016/j.ajog.2020.09.018. Epub 2020 Sep 17. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2021. PMID: 32950478 No abstract available.
-
Improving systematic reviews in obstetrics and gynecology.Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2021 Jan;224(1):128. doi: 10.1016/j.ajog.2020.09.015. Epub 2020 Sep 20. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2021. PMID: 32966802 No abstract available.
-
Regarding Delayed vs immediate pushing in the second stage of labor in women with neuraxial analgesia: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2021 Oct;225(4):468-469. doi: 10.1016/j.ajog.2021.06.072. Epub 2021 Jun 24. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2021. PMID: 34174202 No abstract available.
-
Reply to Delayed versus immediate pushing in the second stage of labor in women with neuraxial analgesia: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2021 Oct;225(4):470-471. doi: 10.1016/j.ajog.2021.06.073. Epub 2021 Jun 23. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2021. PMID: 34174203 No abstract available.
Similar articles
-
Effect of Immediate vs Delayed Pushing on Rates of Spontaneous Vaginal Delivery Among Nulliparous Women Receiving Neuraxial Analgesia: A Randomized Clinical Trial.JAMA. 2018 Oct 9;320(14):1444-1454. doi: 10.1001/jama.2018.13986. JAMA. 2018. PMID: 30304425 Free PMC article. Clinical Trial.
-
Comparison of maternal and fetal outcomes between delayed and immediate pushing in the second stage of vaginal delivery: systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.Arch Gynecol Obstet. 2021 Feb;303(2):481-499. doi: 10.1007/s00404-020-05814-w. Epub 2020 Sep 29. Arch Gynecol Obstet. 2021. PMID: 32990782
-
A meta-analysis of passive descent versus immediate pushing in nulliparous women with epidural analgesia in the second stage of labor.J Obstet Gynecol Neonatal Nurs. 2008 Jan-Feb;37(1):4-12. doi: 10.1111/j.1552-6909.2007.00205.x. J Obstet Gynecol Neonatal Nurs. 2008. PMID: 18226152 Review.
-
A randomised clinical trial comparing the effects of delayed versus immediate pushing with epidural analgesia on mode of delivery and faecal continence.BJOG. 2002 Dec;109(12):1359-65. doi: 10.1046/j.1471-0528.2002.02109.x. BJOG. 2002. PMID: 12504971 Clinical Trial.
-
Comparison of delayed versus immediate pushing during second stage of labor for nulliparous women with epidural anesthesia.J Obstet Gynecol Neonatal Nurs. 2010 Nov-Dec;39(6):635-44. doi: 10.1111/j.1552-6909.2010.01195.x. J Obstet Gynecol Neonatal Nurs. 2010. PMID: 21044148 Clinical Trial.
Cited by
-
Obstetric protocols in the setting of a pandemic.Semin Perinatol. 2020 Oct;44(6):151295. doi: 10.1016/j.semperi.2020.151295. Epub 2020 Jul 24. Semin Perinatol. 2020. PMID: 32829954 Free PMC article.
-
The use of bubble charts in analyzing the global second-stage cesarean delivery rates: a systematic review.AJOG Glob Rep. 2024 Jan 19;4(1):100312. doi: 10.1016/j.xagr.2024.100312. eCollection 2024 Feb. AJOG Glob Rep. 2024. PMID: 38380079 Free PMC article. Review.
-
Counseling in maternal-fetal medicine: SARS-CoV-2 infection in pregnancy.Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2021 May;57(5):687-697. doi: 10.1002/uog.23628. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2021. PMID: 33724545 Free PMC article.
-
Labor and delivery guidance for COVID-19.Am J Obstet Gynecol MFM. 2020 May;2(2):100110. doi: 10.1016/j.ajogmf.2020.100110. Epub 2020 Mar 25. Am J Obstet Gynecol MFM. 2020. PMID: 32518901 Free PMC article. Review.
-
Assessing the robustness of results from clinical trials and meta-analyses with the fragility index.Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2023 Mar;228(3):276-282. doi: 10.1016/j.ajog.2022.08.053. Epub 2022 Sep 6. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2023. PMID: 36084702 Free PMC article. Review.
Publication types
MeSH terms
LinkOut - more resources
Full Text Sources
Medical