Predicting cesarean delivery for failure to progress as an outcome of labor induction in term singleton pregnancy
Rasha A Kamel,Sherif M Negm,Aly Youssef,Luca Bianchini,Elena Brunelli,Gianluigi Pilu,Mahmoud Soliman,Kypros H Nicolaides
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajog.2020.12.1212
Abstract:Background: Induction of labor is one of the most common interventions in modern obstetrics, and its frequency is expected to continue to increase. There is inconsistency as to how failed induction of labor is defined; however, the majority of studies define success as the achievement of vaginal delivery. Induction of labor in nulliparous women poses an additional challenge with a 15% to 20% incidence of failure, ending in emergency operative deliveries. The Bishop score has been traditionally used before decisions for induction of labor. Nonetheless, it is subjective and prone to marked interobserver variation. Several studies have been conducted to find alternative predictors, yet a reliable, objective method still remains to be introduced and validated. Hence, there is still a need for the development of new predictive tools to facilitate informed decision making, optimization of resources, and minimization of potential risks of failure. Furthermore, a peripartum transperineal ultrasound scan has been proven to provide objective, noninvasive assessment of labor. Objective: This study aimed to assess the feasibility of developing and validating an objective and reproducible model for the prediction of cesarean delivery for failure to progress as an outcome of labor induction in term singleton pregnancies. Study design: This was a prospective observational cohort study conducted in Cairo University Hospitals and University of Bologna Hospitals between November 2018 and November 2019. We recruited 382 primigravidae with singleton term pregnancies in cephalic presentation. All patients had baseline Bishop scoring together with various transabdominal and transperineal ultrasound assessments of the fetus, maternal cervix, and pelvic floor. The managing obstetricians were blinded to the ultrasound scan findings. The method and indication of induction of labor, the total duration of stages of labor, mode of birth, and neonatal outcomes were all recorded. Women who had operative delivery for fetal distress or indications other than failure to progress in labor were excluded from the final analysis, leaving a total of 344 participants who were randomly divided into 243 and 101 pregnancies that constituted the model development and cross-validation groups, respectively. Results: It was possible to perform transabdominal and transperineal scans and assess all the required parameters on all study participants. Univariate and multivariate analyses were used for selection of potential predictors and model fitting. The independent predictive variables for cesarean delivery included maternal age (odds ratio, 1.12; P=.003), cervical length (odds ratio, 1.08; P=.04), angle of progression at rest (odds ratio, 0.9; P=.001), and occiput posterior position (odds ratio, 5.7; P=.006). We tested the performance of the prediction model on our cross-validation group. The calculated areas under the curve for the ability of the model to predict cesarean delivery were 0.7969 (95% confidence interval, 0.71-0.87) and 0.88 (95% confidence interval, 0.79-0.97) for the developed and validated models, respectively. Conclusion: Maternal age and sonographic fetal occiput position, angle of progression at rest, and cervical length before labor induction are very good predictors of induction outcome in nulliparous women at term.