IMR Press / CEOG / Volume 49 / Issue 8 / DOI: 10.31083/j.ceog4908171
Open Access Original Research
Induction of Labor According to Medical Indications: A Critical Evaluation through a Prospective Study
Show Less
1 Department of Medical and Surgical Sciences, Obstetrics Unit, Mother Infant and Adult, University Hospital Policlinico of Modena, 41125 Modena, Italy
2 Department of Biomedical, Metabolic and Neural Sciences, International Doctorate School in Clinical and Experimental Medicine, University of Modena, and Reggio Emilia, 41121 Modena, Italy
*Correspondence: (Francesca Monari)
Academic Editor: Laura Avagliano
Clin. Exp. Obstet. Gynecol. 2022, 49(8), 171;
Submitted: 26 February 2022 | Revised: 2 April 2022 | Accepted: 6 April 2022 | Published: 22 July 2022
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Stillbirth: Improving Knowledge, Understanding, and Patient Care)
Copyright: © 2022 The Author(s). Published by IMR Press.
This is an open access article under the CC BY 4.0 license.

Background: The induction of labor (IOL) is a common obstetric intervention, steadily increasing (one out four pregnancies) in the last years. This procedure should be considered only when there is a medical indication, and when the benefits outweigh the maternal and/or fetal risks of waiting for spontaneous onset of labor. Therefore, this study aims to compare the efficacy of the IOL in terms of induction to delivery time, mode of delivery, and neonatal well-being among different evidence-based and non-evidence-based indications. Methods: This prospective study was conducted at the University Hospital of Modena, between January and December 2020. We included singleton pregnant women undergoing IOL, at the term. Intrauterine deaths, small for gestational age fetuses <5th centile as well women with hypertensive disorders were excluded. Women have been subdivided into 3 groups based on the indication to IOL: premature rupture of membranes (PROM), post-date pregnancy (>41 weeks + 3 days), and non-evidence-based indications (NEBI). The primary outcome is the time occurring between IOL and delivery (TIME), analyzing separately by parity. Moreover, mode of delivery and neonatal well-being were evaluated. Results: A total of 585 women underwent IOL in the study period. Overall, the median TIME between IOL and delivery was 19 hours, and the mean cesarean section CS rate was 15.5% (91/585). Pregnancies induced for postdate and non-evidence-based indications registered respectively a significantly higher mean time (p< 0.001), compared with women induced for PROM. This occurred both in nulliparous and multiparous women. Moreover, at multivariate analysis, the IOL TIME 24 hours was significantly influenced by Bishop score (p = 0.000) and NEBI (p = 0.02) in nulliparous and by gestational age (p = 0.000) and NEBI (p = 0.02) in multiparous. Moreover, CS rate was significantly influenced by Bishop score (p = 0.003) in nulliparous and by gestational age (p = 0.01) in multiparous. Finally, neonatal intensive care unit (NICU) admission resulted significantly influenced only by gestational age (p = 0.002) in multiparous. Conclusions: Our study confirms that IOL in non-evidence-based indications, leads to an increase in induction to delivery time comparing with women induced for PROM, both in nulliparous and multiparous women, thus it should be justified and carefully evaluated. Further randomized controlled trials (RCT) conducted in European/Italian settings are needed to determine the perinatal outcomes of IOL in non-evidence-based indications.

induction of labor
non-evidence-based indication
post-term pregnancy
ARRIVE trial
cesarean section
the time between induction and delivery
NICU admission
Fig. 1.
Back to top