Elective induction of labor at 39 weeks in low-risk nulliparous patients does not increase the risk of adverse perinatal outcomes, according to ARRIVE trial investigators. ILLUSTRATION: KIMBERLY MARTENS FOR OBG MANAGEMENT MARTENS KIMBERLY ILLUSTRATION: 36 OBG Management | January 2019 | Vol. 31 No. 1 mdedge.com/obgyn Obstetrics UPDATE Jaimey M. Pauli, MD Dr. Pauli is Associate Professor and Attending Perinatologist, Division of Maternal-Fetal Medicine, Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Penn State Health, Milton S. Hershey Medical Center, Hershey, Pennsylvania. The author reports no financial relationships relevant to this article. What are the clinical implications of trial results on these 2 delivery-related issues: timing of elective induction of labor and timing of pushing in the second stage? Plus, ACOG’s new recommendations for optimizing postpartum care. he past year was an exciting one in Finally, the American College of Obstetri- obstetrics. The landmark ARRIVE trial cians and Gynecologists (ACOG) placed new T presented at the Society for Mater- emphasis on the oft overlooked but increas- nal-Fetal Medicine’s (SMFM) annual meet- ingly more complicated postpartum period, ing and subsequently published in the New offering guidance to support improving care IN THIS England Journal of Medicine contradicted a for women in this transitional period. ARTICLE long-held belief about the safety of elective Ultimately, this was the year of the labor induction. In a large randomized trial, patient, as research, clinical guidelines, and Labor induction Cahill and colleagues took a controversial education focused on how to achieve the best at 39 weeks but practical clinical question about second- in safety and quality of care for delivery plan- This page stage labor management and answered it for ning, the delivery itself, and the so-called the practicing obstetrician in the trenches. fourth trimester. Immediate vs delayed pushing page 39 ARRIVE: Labor induction at Optimizing postpartum care 39 weeks reduces CD rate with page 40 no difference in perinatal death or serious outcomes Grobman WA, Rice MM, Reddy UM, et al; for the Eu- he term “elective induction of labor” nice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health has long had a negative connota- and Human Development Maternal–Fetal Medicine T tion because of its association with Units Network. Labor induction versus expectant man- increased CD rates and adverse perinatal out- agement in low-risk nulliparous women. N Engl J Med. comes. This view was based on results from 2018;379:513-523. older observational studies that compared mdedge.com/obgyn Vol. 31 No. 1 | January 2019 | OBG Management 37 UPDATE obstetrics outcomes for labor induction with those of requested for an unfavorable cervix (63% of spontaneous labor. In more recent obser- participants had a modified Bishop score <5), vational studies that more appropriately and 2) a duration of at least 12 hours after compared labor induction with expectant cervical ripening, rupture of membranes, management, however, elective induction of and use of uterine stimulant was requested labor appears to be associated with similar before performing a CD for “failed induc- CD rates and perinatal outcomes. tion” (if medically appropriate). To test the hypothesis that elective The primary outcome was a composite of induction would have a lower risk for peri- perinatal death or serious neonatal complica- natal death or severe neonatal complications tions. The main secondary outcome was CD. than expectant management in low-risk nul- liparous women, Grobman and colleagues conducted A Randomized Trial of Induction Potentially game-changing Versus Expectant Management (ARRIVE).1 findings The investigators found that there was no statistically significant difference between Study population, timing of the elective induction and expectant man- delivery, and trial outcomes agement groups for the primary composite This randomized controlled trial included perinatal outcome (4.3% vs 5.4%; P = .049, 6,106 women at 41 US centers in the Mater- with P<.046 prespecified for significance). nal–Fetal Medicine Units Network of the In addition, the rate of CD was significantly Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of lower in the labor induction group than in Child Health and Human Development. Study the expectant management group (18.6% vs participants were low-risk nulliparous women 22.2%; P<.001). with a singleton vertex fetus who were ran- Other significant findings in secondary domly assigned to induction of labor at 39 to outcomes included the following: 39 4/7 weeks (n = 3,062) or expectant manage- • Hypertensive disorders of pregnancy were ment (n = 3,044) until 40 5/7 to 42 2/7 weeks. significantly lower in the labor induction “Low risk” was defined as having no group compared with the expectant man- maternal or fetal indication for delivery prior agement group (9.1% vs 14.1%; P<.001). to 40 5/7 weeks. Reliable gestational dating • The labor induction group had a longer was required. length of stay in the labor and delivery unit While no specific protocol for induction but a shorter postpartum hospital stay. of labor management was required, there • The labor induction group reported less were 2 requests: 1) Cervical ripening was pain and more control during labor. WHAT THIS EVIDENCE MEANS FOR PRACTICE Results refute negative notion of elective labor induction After publication of the ARRIVE trial findings, both ACOG and SMFM The authors concluded that in a low-risk nul- released statements supporting elective labor induction at or be- liparous patient population, elective induc- yond 39 weeks’ gestation in low-risk nulliparous women with good tion of labor at 39 weeks does not increase 2,3 gestational dating. They cited the following as important issues: the risk for adverse perinatal outcomes and adherence to the trial inclusion criteria except for research pur- decreases the rate of CD and hypertensive poses, shared decision-making with the patient, consideration of the disorders of pregnancy. Additionally, they logistics and impact on the health care facility, and the yet unknown impact on cost. Finally, it should be a priority to avoid the primary CD noted that induction at 39 weeks should not for a failed induction by allowing a longer latent phase of labor, as be avoided with the goal of preventing CD, long as maternal and fetal conditions allow. as even women with an unfavorable cervix In my practice, I actively offer induction of labor to most of my had a lower rate of CD in the induction group patients at 39 weeks after a discussion of the risks and benefits. compared with the expectant management group. 38 OBG Management | January 2019 | Vol. 31 No. 1 mdedge.com/obgyn Immediate pushing in second stage offers benefits and is preferable to delayed pushing Cahill AG, Srinivas SK, Tita AT, et al. Effect of immedi- that is, instructed to wait 60 minutes before ate vs delayed pushing on rates of spontaneous vaginal starting to push (n = 1,204). The obstet- delivery among nulliparous women receiving neur- ric provider determined the rest of the axial analgesia: a randomized clinical trial. JAMA. labor management. 2018;320:1444-1454. The primary outcome was the rate of spontaneous vaginal delivery. Secondary n a randomized trial of 2,414 women, outcomes included duration of the second Cahill and colleagues sought to answer stage of labor, duration of active pushing, I a seemingly simple question: What is the operative vaginal delivery, CD, and several best timing for pushing during the second maternal assessments (postpartum hemor- stage of labor—immediate or delayed? rhage, chorioamnionitis, endometritis, and Practical management of the second perineal lacerations). stage of labor (defined as complete cervical dilation to the delivery of the infant) varies by provider and setting, and previous data Both groups had similar vaginal on pushing efforts are conflicting. Delayed delivery rates, differences in pushing, or “laboring down,” has been sug- some measures FAST gested to allow passive fetal rotation and to There was no difference in the primary out- TRACK conserve maternal energy for pushing. Older come between the 2 groups: The spontaneous studies have shown that delayed pushing vaginal delivery rate was 85.9% (n = 1,031) in In nulliparous decreases the rate of operative delivery. More the immediate pushing group and 86.5% (n = women with recent study data have not demonstrated a 1,041) in the delayed pushing group (P = .67). neuraxial difference between immediate and delayed Analysis of secondary outcomes revealed anesthesia pushing techniques on vaginal delivery rates several significant differences: assigned to and have noted that increased maternal and • decreased total time for the second stage either immediate neonatal morbidities are associated with a of labor in the immediate pushing group pushing or delayed longer second stage of labor. compared with the delayed pushing group pushing, there was The recent trial by Cahill and colleagues (102.4 vs 134.2 minutes) but longer active no difference in was designed to determine the effect of pushing time (83.7 vs 74.5 minutes) the spontaneous these 2 techniques on spontaneous vaginal • a lower rate of postpartum hemorrhage, vaginal delivery delivery rates and on maternal and neonatal chorioamnionitis in the second stage, neo- rate—85.9% vs morbidities.4 natal acidemia, and suspected neonatal 86.5%, respectively sepsis in the immediate pushing group • a higher rate of third-degree perineal lac- Large study population erations in the immediate pushing group. This randomized pragmatic trial was con- No difference was found between groups ducted at 6 centers in the United States. in rates of operative vaginal deliveries, CDs, Study participants (2,404 women completed endometritis, overall perineal lacerations, or the study) were nulliparous women at 37 or spontaneous vaginal delivery by fetal station more weeks’ gestation with neuraxial anes- or occiput position. thesia who were randomly assigned at com- plete cervical dilation either to immediate Authors’ takeaway pushing (n = 1,200) or to delayed pushing, The authors concluded that since delayed mdedge.com/obgyn Vol.