1 / 23

Baby by Ap p ointment?

Baby by Ap p ointment?. NURS 350~ Ferris State University Amanda Badgley Christine Demler Mariah Lab Tracie Strand Denise VanderWeele F erris State University, NURS 350. Spontaneous Onset of Labor VS. Elective Induction of Labor. Spontaneous Onset of Labor starts naturally

marvel
Download Presentation

Baby by Ap p ointment?

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Baby by Appointment? NURS 350~ Ferris State University Amanda Badgley Christine Demler Mariah Lab Tracie Strand Denise VanderWeele Ferris State University, NURS 350

  2. Spontaneous Onset of Labor VS. Elective Induction of Labor Spontaneous Onset of Labor • starts naturally • usually occurs between 38-42 weeks gestation Elective IOL • no medical reason • 1/3 of all deliveries • http://www.123rf.com/photo

  3. Expectant Management of Labor • C/section Trends 53% Incr. between 1996-2007 32.8% • Of all deliveries in 2010 • OB nurse observations(Menacker, & Hamilton, 2010).

  4. PICO Statement P (Population) • normal pregnant women at > 38 weeks gestation I (Intervention) • having an elective IOL C (Comparison) • waiting for the spontaneous onset of labor O (Outcome) • have a higher c/s rate as a result of a “failed” induction

  5. Literature Search • High level of evidence • Peer reviewed • Recent research • Reliable publications

  6. Article #1 Overview Elective IOLs • full term pregnancies (37-41 weeks) • frequency of emergency c/section using different induction methods. Conclusion: • Elective IOLs = 2x chance of emergency c/section • Cervical ripening = 3x chance of emergency c/section (Jonsson, Cnattingius, & Wikström, 2012)

  7. Article #1 Evidence • 13,980 births • 7973 met criteria • 7630 women had spontaneous labor • 343 had elective IOL • Prolonged labor: • stress on baby • non-reassuring fetal • emergency c/section (Jonsson et al., 2012).

  8. Article #1 Conclusions • The information in this article can help doctors and patients make a more informed choice on whether or not to induce labor especially if there is no medical need to induce.

  9. Article #2 Overview • 13 hospitals in FingerLakes, NY. • 14,500 deliveries per year. • New York State birth-certificate database from 2004-2008. • 38,000 women • low-risk • singleton • vertex presentation • labored and delivered between 37 0/7 and 42 6/7 weeks (Glantz, 2010).

  10. Article #2 Evidence • Spontaneously laboring women (n=10, 608) • Elective induction (n=1,241) • were determined to have an increase chance of intrapartum interventions and adverse maternal outcomes. • higher rates of NICU admissions • maternal length of stay increased by 0.34 days (Glantz, 2010).

  11. Article #2 Conclusions • risk for cesarean deliveries by 1-2 deliveries per 25 elective IOLs v. spontaneous labor or expectant management. • One million inductions in U.S.per year • could mean as many as 40,000 cesarean deliveries could be potentially avoided (Glantz, 2010).

  12. Article #3 Overview • Birth between 2006-2008 • Chosen by a data base after the computer filtered through the women who met the inclusion criteria. • Divided into either the control group or the test group (Osmundson, Ou-Yang, and Grobman, 2010).

  13. Article #3 Evidence Test Group & Control Group • 294 women in each group • Nulliparity (first pregnancy), • Gestational age >39 0/7 weeks • A singleton vertex presentation • Known cervical status at 38 0/7–38 6/7 weeks of gestation, • A modified Bishop Score of at least 5 (Osmundsonet al., 2010).

  14. Article #3 Evidence (cont) • All data are mean +/- standard deviation or %. (Osmundson et al., 2010, p. 603)

  15. Article #3 Conclusion • Peer reviewed and has been approved by Northwestern University (Osmundson et al., 2010). • Without bias • Research information 1975 to present • Different results with larger sample size?

  16. Article #4 • Stanford -SCSF Evidence-Based Practice Center • Maternal risk in elective IOL • vs. Expectant management & Spontaneous onset of Labor • 3,722 published articles reviewed 76 met criteria (Caughey et al., 2009). • further classified by gestational age

  17. Article #4Evidence • “The overall cesarean delivery rate among the women who were induced and those who were expectantly managed was 11 percent and 14 percent, respectively,” (Caughey et al., 2009) • 20% reduction in c/sect rate for women induced at > 41 0/7 wks. gestation. • < 41 weeks - no difference in C/sect rate (Caughey et al., 2009)

  18. Article #4 Evidence “These findings are consistent with other meta-analysis of induction of labor in post term and term pregnancies but are contrary to many observational studies.” (Caughey et al., 2009).

  19. Article #4Conclusions • 9 RCTs =20 % c/s rate for elective IOLs at > 41 wks. gest. v. expectant management of labor • Observational studies = C/s rate for patients who choose elective IOL • No difference in c/s rate for those elective IOLs < 41 wks. gest

  20. Analysis & Application Elective induction? C/section? Gestational age? Expectant Management? Bishop score? Favorable Cervix? Spontaneous Labor?

  21. Reference • Caughey , A., Sundaram , V., Kaimal , A., Cheng , Y., Gienger , A., Little , S., Lee , J., & Wong , L. (2009). Maternal and neonatal outcomes of elective induction of labor. 176(1), 1-257. Retrieved from http://0-www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov.libcat.ferris.edu/books/NBK38679/ • Glantz, J. (2010). Term labor induction compared with expectant management. Obstetrics & Gynecology,115(1), 70-76. doi:10.1097/AOG.0b013e3181c4ef96

  22. Reference • Jonsson, M., Cnattingius , S., & Wikström , A. (2012). Elective induction of labor and the risk of cesarean section in low-risk parous women: a cohort study. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand, 92(2), 198-203. doi: 10.1111/aogs.12043 • Menacker, F. &Hamilton, B. (2010).Recent trends in cesarean delivery in the United States. NCHS Data Brief 35. Retrieved from: http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/fastats/delivery.htm

  23. Reference • Osmundson, S., Ou-Yang, R., & Grobman, W. (2010). Elective induction compared with expectant management in nulliparous women with a favorable cervix. Obstetrics & Gynecology, 116(3), 601-605. doi:10.1097/AOG.0b013e3181eb6e9b

More Related