Search

Background Hyperemesis gravidarum (HG) is a common complication during pregnancy, however, HG associated simultaneous onset of blood cell destruction due to electrolyte abnormalities is rare. In this case, a woman with refeeding syndrome (RFS) secondary to electrolyte abnormalities caused by severe HG was diagnosed and managed in our hospital. Case presentation A 29-year old woman was sent to the local hospitals because of severe HG with appetite loss, weight reduction, general fatigue, and she was identified to have severe electrolyte abnormalities. However, the electrolyte abnormalities were not corrected promptly, and then she had the symptoms of stillbirth, altered mental status, visual hallucination, hemolytic anemia and thrombocytopenia. After transferred to our hospital, we continued to correct the electrolyte abnormalities and the labor induction was performed as soon as possible. The symptoms of blood cell destruction were relieved obviously, and the patient discharged four days later. The electrolyte disturbances and physio-metabolic abnormalities caused by HG helped us diagnose this case as RFS. Conclusions This case emphasizes that patients with RFS should be diagnosed appropriately and intervened promptly in order to prevent electrolyte imbalance induced blood cell destruction.

Background Although labor induction is a commonly used procedure in obstetrical care, there are limited data on its psycho-emotional effects on the woman. This study analysed the expectations and experiences of women in different routes of labor induction. The study’s primary aim was to compare women’s delivery experience if induced by orally administrated misoprostol (OMS) compared with misoprostol vaginal insert (MVI). Secondly, an evaluation of women’s general satisfaction with induced labor was made, and factors associated with a negative experience. Methods Primiparous women (n = 196) with a singleton fetus in cephalic presentation, ≥ 37 weeks of gestation, with a Bishop’s score ≤ 4 planning labor induction were randomly allocated to receive either OMS (Cytotec®) or MVI (Misodel®). Data were collected by validated questionnaires, the Wijma Delivery Expectation/Experience Questionnaire (A + B). The pre-labor part of the survey (W-DEQ version A) was given to participants to complete within 1 hour before the start of induction, and the post-labor part of the questionnaire (W-DEQ version B) was administered after birth and collected before the women were discharged from hospital. Results It was found that 11.8% (17/143) reported a severe fear of childbirth (W-DEQ A score ≥ 85). Before the induction, women with extreme fear had 3.7 times increased risk of experiencing labor induction negatively (OR 3.7 [95% CI, 1.04–13.41]). Conclusion No difference was identified between OMS and MVI when delivery experience among women induced to labor was analysed. Severe fear of childbirth before labor was a risk factor for a negative experience of labor induction. Trial registration Clinical trial register number NCT02918110. Date of registration on May 31, 2016.

BackgroundThe rate of induction of labor in the U.S. has risen from 9.6% in 1990 to 25.7% in 2018, including 31.7% of first-time births. Recent studies that have examined inductions have been small qualitative studies or relied on either medical records or administrative data. This study examines induction from the perspective of those women who experienced it, with a particular focus on the prevalence and predictors of inductions for nonmedical indications, women’s experience of pressure to induce labor and the relationship between the attempt to medically initiate labor and cesarean section.MethodsStudy data are drawn from the 2119 respondents to theListening to Mothers in Californiasurvey who were planning to have a vaginal birth in 2016. Mothers were asked if there had been an attempt to medically initiate labor, if it actually started labor, if they felt pressured to have the induction, if they had a cesarean and the reason for the induction. Reasons for induction were classified as either medically indicated or elective.ResultsAlmost half (47%) of our respondents indicated an attempt was made to medically induce their labor, and 71% of those attempts initiated labor. More than a third of the attempts (37%) were elective. Attempted induction overall was most strongly associated with giving birth at 41+ weeks (aOR 3.28; 95% C.I. 2.21–4.87). Elective inductions were more likely among multiparous mothers and in pregnancies at 39 or 40 weeks. The perception of being pressured to have labor induced was related to higher levels of education, maternal preference for less medical intervention in birth, having an obstetrician compared to a midwife and gestational ages of 41+ weeks. Cesarean birth was more likely in the case of overall induction (aOR 1.51; 95% C.I. 1.11–2.07) and especially following a failed attempt at labor induction (aOR 4.50; 95% C.I. 2.93–6.90).ConclusionClinicians counselling mothers concerning the need for labor induction should be aware of mothers’ perceptions about birth and engage in true shared decision making in order to avoid the maternal perception of being pressured into labor induction.

Background Labor induction is among the common and widely practiced obstetric interventions aiming at achieving vaginal delivery. However, cesarean section (CS) delivery incidences have been reported following its use. This study aimed at determining the prevalence and risk factors for caesarean delivery following labor induction among women who gave birth at a tertiary hospital in north-Tanzania. Methods A hospital-based retrospective cohort study was designed using maternally-linked data from Kilimanjaro Christian Medical Centre (KCMC) birth registry among women who gave birth to singleton babies from the year 2000 to 2015. All induced deliveries done in this period were studied. Women with multiple pregnancy, missing information on delivery mode and those with history of CS delivery were excluded. Relative risk and 95% Confidence Interval for risk factors for CS delivery following labor induction were estimated using log-binomial regression models. Robust variance estimation was used to account for repeated deliveries from the same subject. Results A total of 1088 deliveries were analysed. The prevalence of CS following labour induction was 26.75%. Independent risk factors for CS delivery were; primiparity (RR = 1.46; 95% CI: 1.18–1.81), high birthweight (RR =1.28; 95% CI: 1.02–1.61), post-term pregnancy (RR = 1.45; 95% CI: 1.09–1.93), and urban residence (RR =1.29; 95%CI: 1.05–1.58). Conclusion In patients undergoing labor induction, primiparity, high birthweight, post dates and urban residence were found to associate with an elevated risk of caesarean delivery. Assessment of these factors prior to labor induction intervention is warranted to reduce adverse pregnancy outcomes associated with emergency caesarean delivery.

Background Antenatal cervical length measurement has paramount importance in the prediction of labor. It was compared to the Bishop Score and incorporated in the modified Bishop score due to its relevance and convenience. It is a more accurate tool that imposes no harm or distress to the patients. The study aimed to evaluate the role of antenatal cervical length measurement in the prediction of a successful vaginal birth and its relation to the duration of labor. Methods This was a prospective cohort study, conducted at the emergency ward of obstetrics and gynecology department. We recruited 162 women over 1 year from January 2018 to January 2019. Women eligible for the study had a transvaginal ultrasound for the examination of the cervical length before the onset of labor. The success of vaginal delivery was evaluated. Results The mean cervical length (mm) was 43.3 ± 8.0. The majority of the patients labored spontaneously [102 (63.0%)] while the remaining ones required induction of labor due to different causes. One hundred and eight patients (66.7%) had a successful vaginal delivery. The cervical length was significantly shorter among patients who delivered vaginally than those delivered by CS (P-value Conclusion Antenatal cervical length measurement predicted the mode of delivery as well as the gestational age at which delivery ensued. It can be used in patients’ counseling regarding the mode of delivery.

Background Healthy women with low risk singleton pregnancies are offered a midwife-led birth model at our department. Exclusion criteria for midwife-led births include a range of abnormalities in medical history and during the course of pregnancy. In case of complications before, during or after labor and birth, an obstetrician is involved. The purpose of this study was 1) to evaluate the frequency of and reasons for secondary obstetrician involvement in planned midwife-led births and 2) to assess the maternal and neonatal outcome. Methods We analyzed a cohort of planned midwife-led births during a 14 years period (2006-2019). Evaluation included a comparison between midwife-led births with or without secondary obstetrician involvement, regarding maternal characteristics, birth mode, and maternal and neonatal outcome. Statistical analysis was performed by unpaired t-tests and Chi-square tests. Results In total, there were 532 intended midwife-led births between 2006 and 2019 (2.6% of all births during this time-period at the department). Among these, 302 (57%) women had spontaneous vaginal births as midwife-led births. In the remaining 230 (43%) births, obstetricians were involved: 62% of women with obstetrician involvement had spontaneous vaginal births, 25% instrumental vaginal births and 13% caesarean sections. Overall, the caesarean section rate was 5.6% in the whole cohort of women with intended midwife-led births. Reasons for obstetrician involvement primarily included necessity for labor induction, abnormal fetal heart rate monitoring, thick meconium-stained amniotic fluid, prolonged first or second stage of labor, desire for epidural analgesia, obstetrical anal sphincter injuries, retention of placenta and postpartum hemorrhage. There was a significantly higher rate of primiparous women in the group with obstetrician involvement. Arterial umbilical cord pH Conclusion A midwife-led birth in our setting is a safe alternative to a primarily obstetrician-led birth, provided that selection criteria are being followed and prompt obstetrician involvement is available in case of abnormal course of labor and birth or postpartum complications.

Background This study attempts to evaluate the safety and effectiveness of 50μgm intracervical misoprostol in comparison with intravaginal and sublingual for the induction of labor at term pregnant women. Methods This study is designed as a parallel clinical trial study. Three hundred and fifteen term pregnancies requiring induction of labor were treated with the maximum used misoprostol intracervical, sublingual, and vaginal doses. Participants were randomly allocated into three groups of 105. The dose was repeated every 4 h until adequate uterine contraction and Bishop Score were achieved. The duration of induction to births, time to the active phase, the rate of births, and the need for caesarean section were compared in three groups. Additionally, labor course and side effects were recorded and analyzed. Data were analyzed using SPSS software. A significance level of p Findings Labor was successfully induced in all cases most (63%) of which required a single dose of misoprostol. Ninety-three (93.0%, p p p = 0.05). No significant differences were observed between the study groups in terms of Apgar score and meconium-stained amniotic fluid. Furthermore, no maternal and neonatal complications were observed. Conclusion In addition to the sublingual and intravaginal routes of administration, intracervical misoprostol at a single dose of 50μgm appears to be an effective method for induction of labor in women with an unfavorable cervix. Like all medical interventions, a discussion of the risks, benefits, and alternatives to induction of labor with this medication in each woman should be undertaken before treatment. Trial registration This clinical study was approved by the Iranian Registry of Clinical Trials with IRCT ID: IRCT20190415043278N1. Registration date was on May 13, 2019 and May 27, 2019 respectively (http://www.irct.ir).

Background To evaluate the effect of dexamethasone administration on the interval between initiation of labor induction and active phase of labor. Methods The databases including PubMed, Cochrane Library, Embase, Scopus and Web of Science were searched for studies published up to June 27, 2021. Two types of articles were included: a) full-text articles published in English or any other languages, and b) Randomized Controlled Trials (RCTs). Participants were primi- or multigravida women with term or post-term pregnancy. The intervention group received parenteral or extra-amniotic dexamethasone whereas the control group received normal saline or no treatment before initiation of labor induction. All data were analyzed using Review Manager 5.3. Results Seventeen studies involving 1879 patients were included in the meta-analysis. Administration of dexamethasone reduced the interval between the initiation of labor induction and the beginning of active phase by about 70 min [MD: - 1.17 (− 1.37, − 1.00); P Conclusions Dexamethasone could significantly reduce the length of induction-active phase interval, and length of the first stage of labor, with no difference in maternal or fetal adverse effects.

Background Prolonged latent phase of labor is associated with adverse maternal and neonatal outcomes. Preliminary data indicate that labor induction for prolonged latent phase may reduce cesarean delivery. We performed a study powered to Cesarean delivery to evaluate labor induction compared to expectant management in full term nulliparas hospitalized for persistent contractions but non-progressive to established labor after an overnight stay. Methods From 2015 and 2017, nulliparas, ≥ 39 weeks’ gestation with prolonged latent phase of labor (persistent contractions after overnight hospitalization > 8 h), cervical dilation ≤3 cm, intact membranes and reassuring cardiotocogram were recruited. Participants were randomized to immediate induction of labor (with vaginal dinoprostone or amniotomy or oxytocin as appropriate) or expectant management (await labor for at least 24 h unless indicated intervention as directed by care provider). Primary outcome measure was Cesarean delivery. Results Three hundred eighteen women were randomized (159 to each arm). Data from 308 participants were analyzed. Cesarean delivery rate was 24.2% (36/149) vs. 23.3%, (37/159) RR 1.0 95% CI 0.7–1.6; P = 0.96 in induction of labor vs. expectant arms. Interval from intervention to delivery was 17.1 ± 9.9 vs. 40.1 ± 19.8 h; P P P P P = 0.01 in IOL compared with expectant arms respectively. Intrapartum oxytocin use, epidural analgesia and uterine hyperstimulation syndrome, postpartum hemorrhage, patient satisfaction on allocated intervention, during labor and delivery and baby outcome were not significantly different across trial arms. Conclusions Induction of labor did not reduce Cesarean delivery rates but intervention to delivery and to hospital discharge durations are shorter. Patient satisfaction scores were similar. Induction of labor for prolonged latent phase of labor can be performed without apparent detriment to expedite delivery. Trial registration Registered in Malaysia National Medical Research Register (NMRR-15-16-23,886) on 6 January 2015 and the International Standard Randomised Controlled Trials Number registry, registration number ISRCTN14099170 on 5 Nov 2015.

Background The objectives of this study were to explore the course of labor and the risk of obstetric anal sphincter injury at the first vaginal birth after cesarean section (fVBAC) in comparison to primiparous vaginal birth (PVB) in women without epidural analgesia and to assess if laboring before the previous cesarean affected these outcomes. Methods All fVBACs without epidural analgesia and the subsequent PVBs (controls) between 2012 and 2016 were included in this retrospective cohort study. Data were collected from health records and included maternal demographics, gestational age, and labor details (duration of 1st and 2nd stages, labor induction or augmentation, birthweight, operative vaginal birth, estimated blood loss, extent of childbirth trauma) in both groups as well as cervical dilation at the time of previous cesarean in the fVBAC group. Wilcoxon and Chi-square tests were used for data analyses. Results The study comprised 510 women; 255 fVBACs and 255 controls. The majority of fVBACs were after a pre-labor cesarean section – 177 (69.4%). There was a statistically significant difference in the recorded duration of first stage between the fVBACs and controls (289 vs. 347 min respectively, p

Introduction Failed induction of labor affects maternal and neonatal outcomes as well as the cost of healthcare, especially in low-resource setting regions in which the prevalence of failed induction is higher despite the incidence of labor induction is low. This study aimed to assess the prevalence of failed induction of labor in southwest Ethiopia. Method A hospital-based cross-sectional study was conducted among 441 induced women from March 1 to August 30, 2018. A systematic random sampling technique was used to select study participants. Data were collected using a pretested and structured questionnaire. Bivariable and multivariable logistic regression models were done and fitted to identify predictors of failed induction. An adjusted odds ratio with 95% confidence interval (CI) was calculated to determine the level of significance. Result Premature rupture of membrane was the most common cause of labor induction and the commonly used method of labor induction were oxytocin infusion. Cesarean section was done for 28.1% of induced women. Failed induction of labor was found to be 21%. Primiparous [AOR = 2.35 (1.35–4.09)], analgesia/anesthesia [AOR = 4.37 (1.31–14.59)], poor Bishop Score [AOR = 2.37 (1.16–4.84)], Birth weight ≥ 4 k grams [AOR = 2.12 (1.05–4.28)] and body mass index [AOR = 5.71 (3.26–10.01)] were found to be significantly associated with failed induction of labor. Conclusion The prevalence of failed induction of labour was found to be high. Preparation of the cervix before induction in primi-parity women is suggested to improve the success of induction. To achieve the normal weight of women and newborns, proper nutritional interventions should be given for women of reproductive age. It is better to use analgesia/anesthesia for labor induction when it becomes mandatory and there are no other optional methods of no- pharmacologic pain management.

Background Induction of labor is an artificial initiation of uterine contractions after fetal viability with the aim of vaginal delivery prior to the onset of spontaneous labor. Prevalence of induction of labor is increasing worldwide with subsequent increase in failure rate. However, there is limited evidence on labor induction in Ethiopia. Therefore, this study was aimed at assessing the prevalence and associated factors of failed induction of labor among women undergoing induction of labor at referral hospitals of Amhara national regional state, Ethiopia, 2016. Method A multicenter cross-sectional study was conducted at referral hospitals found in Amhara national regional state from February 01 to September 30, 2016. Multistage sampling technique was employed to select a total of 484 women who underwent labor induction. Pre-tested structured questionnaires and checklists were used to collect the data. Data were entered into EPI info version 7 and analyzed using SPSS version 20 software. Stepwise Binary Logistic regression model was fitted to identify factors associated with failed induction of labor. The level of significance was determined based on the adjusted odds ratio with 95% confidence interval at the p-value of ≤0.05. Result The prevalence of failed induction of labor among women undergoing induction of labor was 31.4% (95% CI: 27.0, 36.0). Failed induction of labor was independently predicted by a Bishop score of ≤5 (AOR = 2.1; 95% CI: 1.3, 3.6), prolonged latent first stage of labor (AOR = 2.0; 95% CI: 1.2, 3.5), induction with oxytocin alone (AOR = 4.2; 95% CI: 2.2, 8.1), nulliparity (ARO = 1.9; 95% CI: 1.2, 2.9), post term pregnancy (AOR = 4.1; 95% CI: 1.8, 9.3) and hypertensive disorder of pregnancy (AOR = 2.4; 95% CI: 1.5, 5.1). Conclusion Failed induction of labor was high in the study area compared to the reports of previous studies done in Ethiopia. The majority of the determinants of failed induction of labor were connected with unjustifiable and inconsistent indication of induction of labor. Thus, preparing standardized practical guidelines and preventing unjustifiable case selection may help reduce the current high failure rates.

Background Being one of the most common indications of labor induction, postdate pregnancy can lead to serious maternal and fetal complications. In this study we aimed to compare vaginal misoprostol with intracervical Foley catheter (FC) for cervical ripening in postdate primigravid women. Methods This randomized clinical trial included 120 primigravid women aged 18–35 years with singleton, postdate pregnancies, and Bishop score ≤ 4. Participants were randomized into two equal groups. The first group received 25 µg vaginal misoprostol and the second group had an 18 Fr FC inserted into their cervical canal. Labor induction was performed using oxytocin in both groups if progression of labor or true contractions did not occur within 6 h of the interventions. In case of nonreassuring fetal heart rate, fetal distress, placental abruption, or prolonged labor, C-section was performed. Results The frequency of normal vaginal delivery, Cesarean section, meconium-stained amniotic fluid, and neonatal intensive care unit admission did not differ significantly between groups. Placental abruption and uterine tachysystole occurred more frequently in the misoprostol group (15.0 vs. 1.7%, P = 0.008 and 21.7 vs. 0.0%, P P P = 0.001). Conclusions Due to the lower rate of placental abruption and uterine tachysystole observed with FC, it appears to be superior to vaginal misoprostol for cervical ripening in postdate primigravid women; however, its longer labor duration and higher oxytocin requirement should be taken into consideration. Trial registration Iranian Registry of Clinical Trials, IRCT20181218042033N4. Registered 19/04/2020. Retrospectively registered, https://www.irct.ir/trial/47037

Background Induction of labor by Oxytocin is a routine obstetric procedure. However, little is known regarding the optimal dose of oxytocin so as to bring successful induction. This study was aimed at comparing the effects of high dose versus low dose oxytocin regimens on success of labor induction. Methods Hospital-based comparative cross-sectional study was conducted in four selected hospitals in Ethiopia prospectively from October 1, 2017 to May 30, 2018. A total of 216 pregnant women who undergo induction of labor at gestational age of 37 weeks and above were included. Data were entered into Epi-data version 3.1 and then exported to SPSS version 20 for cleaning and analysis. Chi-square test and logistic regression were done to look for determinants of successful induction. The result was presented using 95% confidence interval of crude and adjusted odds ratios. P-value Result The mean “Induction to delivery time” was 5.9 h and 6.3 h for participants who received high dose Oxytocin and low dose Oxytocin respectively. Higher successful induction (72.2% versus 61.1%) and lower Cesarean Section rate (27.8% vs. 38.9) were observed among participants who received low dose Oxytocin compared to high dose. Favourable bishop score [AOR 4.0 95% CI 1.9, 8.5], elective induction [AOR 0.2 95% CI 0.1, 0.4], performing artificial rupture of membrane [AOR 10.1 95% CI 3.2, 32.2], neonatal birth weight of Conclusions In this study, Different oxytocin regimens didn’t show significant association with success of induction. But, high dose oxytocin regimen was significantly associated with slightly shorter induction to delivery time. Favourable bishop score, emergency induction, performing artificial rupture of membrane and delivery to non-macrosomic fetuses were positive determinants of successful induction. We recommend researchers to conduct multicenter research on a large number of patients that controls confounders to see the real effects of different oxytocin regimens on success of labor induction.

Background Evidence for the relationship between maternal and perinatal factors and the success of vaginal birth after cesarean section (VBAC) is conflicting. We aimed to systematically analyze published data on maternal and fetal factors for successful VBAC. Methods A comprehensive search of Medline, Embase, and the Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature, from each database’s inception to March 16, 2018. Observational studies, identifying women with a trial of labor after one previous low-transverse cesarean section were included. Two reviewers independently abstracted the data. Meta-analysis was performed using the random-effects model. Risk of bias was assessed by the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale. Results We included 94 eligible observational studies (239,006 pregnant women with 163,502 VBAC). Factors were associated with successful VBAC with the following odds ratios (OR;95%CI): age (0.92;0.86–0.98), obesity (0.50;0.39–0.64), diabetes (0.50;0.42–0.60), hypertensive disorders complicating pregnancy (HDCP) (0.54;0.44–0.67), Bishop score (3.77;2.17–6.53), labor induction (0.58;0.50–0.67), macrosomia (0.56;0.50–0.64), white race (1.39;1.26–1.54), previous vaginal birth before cesarean section (3.14;2.62–3.77), previous VBAC (4.71;4.33–5.12), the indications for the previous cesarean section (cephalopelvic disproportion (0.54;0.36–0.80), dystocia or failure to progress (0.54;0.41–0.70), failed induction (0.56;0.37–0.85), and fetal malpresentation (1.66;1.38–2.01)). Adjusted ORs were similar. Conclusions Diabetes, HDCP, Bishop score, labor induction, macrosomia, age, obesity, previous vaginal birth, and the indications for the previous CS should be considered as the factors affecting the success of VBAC.

Background To determine the risk of cesarean delivery after labor induction among patients with prior placenta-mediated pregnancy complications (pre-eclampsia, late pregnancy loss, placental abruption or intrauterine growth restriction). Methods The AFFIRM database includes patient level data from 9 randomized controlled trials that evaluated the role of LMWH versus no LMWH during pregnancy to prevent recurrent placenta-mediated pregnancy complications. The primary outcome of this sub-study was the proportion of women who had an unplanned cesarean delivery after induction of labor compared to after spontaneous labor. Results There were 512 patients from 7 randomized trials included in our sub-study. There was no difference in the risk of cesarean delivery between women with labor induction (21/148, 14.2%) and spontaneous labor (79/364, 21.7%) (odds ratio (OR) 0.60, 95% CI, 0.35–1.01; p = 0.052). Among 274 women who used LMWH prophylaxis during pregnancy, the risk of cesarean delivery was lower among those that underwent labor induction (9.8%) compared to spontaneous labor (22.4%) (OR 0.38, 95% CI, 0.17–0.84; p = 0.01). Conclusions The risk of cesarean delivery is not increased after labor induction among a higher risk patient population with prior pregnancy complications. Our results suggest that women who receive LMWH during pregnancy might benefit from labor induction.

Background The rates of cesarean section (CS) are increasing worldwide leading to an increased risk for maternal and neonatal complications in the subsequent pregnancy and labor. Previous studies have demonstrated that successful trial of labor after cesarean (TOLAC) is associated with the least maternal morbidity, but the risks of unsuccessful TOLAC exceed the risks of scheduled repeat CS. However, prediction of successful TOLAC is difficult, and only limited data on TOLAC in women with previous failed labor induction or labor dystocia exists. Our aim was to evaluate the success of TOLAC in women with a history of failed labor induction or labor dystocia, to compare the delivery outcomes according to stage of labor at time of previous CS, and to assess the risk factors for recurrent failed labor induction or labor dystocia. Methods This retrospective cohort study of 660 women with a prior CS for failed labor induction or labor dystocia undergoing TOLAC was carried out in Helsinki University Hospital, Finland, between 2013 and 2015. Data on the study population was obtained from the hospital database and analyzed using SPSS. Results The rate of vaginal delivery was 72.9% and the rate of repeat CS for failed induction or labor dystocia was 17.7%. The rate of successful TOLAC was 75.6% in women with a history of labor arrest in the first stage of labor, 73.1% in women with a history of labor arrest in the second stage of labor, and 59.0% in women with previous failed induction. The adjusted risk factors for recurrent failed induction or labor dystocia were maternal height

The cumulative risk of term stillbirth, i.e., the death of a fetus in utero on or after 37 weeks 0 days of gestation, increases with increasing gestational age throughout the term period (37 weeks 0 days – 41 weeks 6 days)[1]. Despite this fact, a rule – called the 39-week rule – was established in 2009 that restricts labor induction in the 37 and 38 week of pregnancy (i.e., in the “earlyterm period”) unless an accepted/approved “indication” is present (Table 1). [2] The 39-week rule is now a strict clinical guideline that is enforced by professional organizations, governmental agencies and the medical insurance industry[3-5]. The 39-week rule means that a pregnant woman who has an identifiable risk factor for stillbirth but who does not have an accepted “indication” for labor induction has no choice but to wait until at least 39 weeks 0 days before she can be delivered. Unfortunately, the strict application of the 39-week rule has probably led to hundreds early-term stillborn infants in the US over the past few years[6,7]. The purpose of this presentation was to disclose major problems with the development, application and ethics of the 39-week rule. Firstly, the evidentiary foundation of the 39-week rule is composed almost entirely of observational studies (i.e., Level 2 evidence) that contain a variety of serious flaws including confounding by indication, [8-10] confounding by situation, [10-12] selection bias, [13] misclassification bias, [14] incorrect modelling, [8-10] and the use of data from pre-37 week deliveries [10,15] and/or pre-labor cesarean deliveries.[16,17]. Secondly, these observational studies report magnitudes of association between early-term non-indicated labor induction and adverse birth outcomes (as measured in relative risk [RR], odds ratio [OR]) that are not large enough to be used to claim the identification of an underlying “truth” (i.e., that early-term non-indicated labor inductions per se cause adverse birth outcomes). [18] Thirdly, the evidentiary foundation ignores recent higher-quality research that suggests that early-term non-indicated labor induction might provide significant benefits[19-21]. Fourthly, the 39-week rule was created by a process that chose the relatively arbitrary “cutpoint” of 39 weeks 0 days of gestation [22], failed to consider the potential importance of intermediate levels of prenatal risk [23], ignored the opinions and experience of non-academic providers [24], and excluded input from the general public. Fifthly, the 39-week rule ignores the primary importance of the medical ethical principle of Autonomy [25,26]. Autonomy represents the concept that a patient, given that she has a reasonably good understanding of risk and benefit, has the right to either request or refuse any given reasonable medical therapy. The 39-week rule prevents a woman from requesting and receiving a non-indicated induction Correspondence: jnicholson@hmc.psu.edu Department of Family and Community Medicine, Hershey Medical Center, Pennsylvania State University, Hershey, Pennsylvania, USA Table 1 Accepted Indications for Labor Induction

Between 40,000 and 80,000 pregnant women die annually from pre-eclampsia and eclampsia. Although magnesium sulphate and anti-hypertensive therapies can reduce the morbidity and mortality associated with pre-eclampsia, the only cure comes with delivery. Prompt delivery of the baby, preferably by vaginal route, is vital in order to achieve good maternal and neonatal outcomes. Induction of labour is therefore a critical intervention in order to prevent morbidity to both mother and baby. Two low cost interventions – oral misoprostol tablets and transcervical Foley catheterization – are already used by some in low resource settings, but their relative risks and benefits are not known. The trial will compare the risks, benefits, and trade-offs in efficacy, safety, acceptability and cost of misoprostol and Foley catheter for induction in women with preeclampsia or uncontrolled hypertension. A total of 602 women with an ongoing pregnancy with a live fetus requiring delivery because of pre-eclampsia or uncontrolled hypertension will be randomly assigned to labor induction with a transcervical Foley catheter or oral misoprostol 25 micrograms. Women will be recruited at two hospitals in Nagpur, India. The misoprostol group will receive oral misoprostol 25 microgram every 2 hours for a maximum of 12 doses or until active labor commences. The Foley group will undergo induction using a Foley catheter (silicone, size 18 F with 30 ml balloon) which will remain until active labor starts, the Foley catheter falls out, or 12 hours have elapsed. The primary outcome will be the attainment of vaginal delivery within 24 hours. Providers administering the treatment and those assessing the outcomes will not be blinded to group assignment. NCT01801410 (ClinicalTrials.gov).

Background This secondary analysis for the Twin Birth Study, an international, multicenter trial, aimed to compare the cesarean section rates and safety between methods of induction of labor in twin pregnancies. Methods Women with twin pregnancies where the first twin was in a cephalic presentation and who presented for labor induction, were non-randomly assigned to receive prostaglandin or amniotomy and/or oxytocin. Main outcome measures were the rates of unplanned cesarean section and neonatal and maternal mortality or serious morbidity. Results 153 (41.5%) were induced by prostaglandin (prostaglandin group) and 215 (58.5%) were induced by amniotomy and/or oxytocin alone (no prostaglandin group). Induction using prostaglandin was more common in countries with a low perinatal mortality rate