Abstract

Current literature evaluating the role of induction of labor (IOL) following successful external cephalic version (ECV) attempt as compared to expectant management is limited. We aim to assess the risk of cesarean delivery in those undergoing immediate IOL following successful ECV as compared to those who were expectantly managed. A retrospective cohort study of successful external cephalic versions. The study group included 57 women that were induced after procedure in the lack of maternal or fetal indications for induction of labor. These women were compared to 341 expectantly managed women. Maternal and fetal characteristics and outcomes were compared. Gestation age at delivery was higher among the expectant management group (401/7 vs. 384/7, median, p=0.002) as compared to the induction group. Cesarean delivery rates were similar between both groups (28 [8.2%] vs. 3 [5.3%], p=0.44). In a multivariate logistic regression analysis, only nulliparity was significantly associated with cesarean delivery (adjusted odds ratio 3.42, confidence interval 1.61-7.24, p=0.001). No correlation was found between the version-to-delivery interval and the risk for cesarean delivery. Induction of labor after successful ECV was not shown to influence cesarean delivery rates. As immediate IOL may result in higher rate of early-term deliveries, and in light of the lack of clinical benefit, we advocate against elective IOL following successful ECV.

Full Text
Paper version not known

Talk to us

Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have

Schedule a call

Disclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.