Relationship between induction success and Bishop Score in pregnant women who referred to Besat hospital in Sanandaj, 2013

Document Type : Original Article

Authors

1 Associate professor, Department of Midwifery, School of Nursing and Midwifery, Kurdistan University of Medical Sciences, Sanandaj, Iran

2 PhD Student in Reproductive Health, School of Nursing and Midwifery, Shahid Beheshti University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran

3 Instructor, Department of Midwifery, School of Nursing and Midwifery, Kurdistan University of Medical Sciences, Sanandaj, Iran

4 Assistant Professor, Department of Statics and Epidemiology, School of Medicine, Kurdistan University of Medical Sciences, Sanandaj, Iran

Abstract

Abstract
Introduction: Induction of labor is a common procedure in modern obstetrics. Studies showed that success of induction is related to maternal age, body mass index, parity, gestational age, cervical dilatation, cervical ripening before induction, and cervical length. This study was performed with aim to investigate the relationship between induction success and Bishop score.
Methods: This cross-sectional study was performed on 539 pregnant women referred to Beasat hospital in Sanandaj and were hospitalized for labor induction between 2012- 2013. Data collection tools included a questionnaire containing the questions about demographic characteristics, obstetric history, information about Bishop score, induction of labor, mode of delivery, birth weight and first and fifth minutes Apgar score. Das was analyzed by SPSS software (version 20) and Chi-square test, t-test and logistic regression. PResults: There was no significant difference between induction success and Bishop score (P=0.286). There was significant difference between induction success and cervical dilatation (P<0.001), effacement (P=0.004), birth weight, method of induction (P=0.000), and gravidity (P=0.002), but had no difference with fetal decent (P=0.433), maternal age (P=0.433) and parity (P=0.286). A total of 218 women (70.8%) were nuliparous and 83 (35.99%) multiparous, and 412 women (76.43%) had vaginal delivery and the others had cesarean due to failure of induction. Based on logistic regression model, there was significant difference between effacement, dilatation of cervix, gravidity, method of induction (P=0.000) and birth weight (P=0.001) with success of induction.
Conclusion: Cervical dilatation, effacement and birth weight have higher predictive value than age, gravidity and fetal decent.
 

Keywords

References

  1. Vrouenrates FP, Roumen FJ, Dehing CJ, Vanden Akker ES, Aarts MJ, Scheve EJ. Bishop score and risk of cesarean delivery after induction of labor in nulliparous women. Obstet Gynecol 2005; 105(4):690-7.
  2. ACOG Committee on Practice Bulletins--Obstetrics. ACOG practice bulletin no 107: induction of labor. Obstet Gynecol 2009; 114(2 Pt 1):386-97.
  3. Caughey AB, Sundaram V, Kaimal AJ, Cheng YW, Gienger A, Little SE, et al. Maternal and neonatal outcomes of elective induction of labor. Evid Rep Technol Assess 2009; 176:1-257.
  4. Guerra GV, Cecatti JG, Souza JP, Faundes A, Morais SS, Gulmezoglu AM, et al. Factors and outcomes associated with induction of labor in Latin America. BJOG 2009; 116(13):1762-72.
  5. Vellekoop J, Vrouenraets FP, van der Steeg JW, Mol BW, Roumen FJ. Indications and results of labor induction in nulliparous women: an interview among obstetricians, residents and clinical midwives. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol 2009; 146(2):156-9.
  6. Glantz JC. Elective induction vs. spontaneous labor association and outcomes. J Reprod Med 2005; 50(4):235-40.
  7. Vahratian A, Zhang J, Troendle JF, Sciscione AC, Hoffman MK. Labor progression and risk of cesarean delivery in electively induced nuliparas. Obstet Gynecol 2005; 105(4):698-704.
  8. Vardo JH, Thornburg LL, Glantz JC. Maternal and neonatal morbidity among nulliparous women undergoing elective induction of labor. J Reprod Med 2011; 56(1-2):25-30.
  9. Kaufman KE, Bailit JL, Grobman W. Elective induction: an analysis of economic and health consequences. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2002; 187(4):858-63.
  10. Caughey AB, Sundaram V, Kaimal AJ, Gienger A, Cheng YW, McDonald KM. Systematic review: elective induction of labor versus expectant management of pregnancy. Ann Intern Med 2009; 151(4):252-63.
  11. Peregrine E, Obrien P, Omar R, Jauniaux E. Clinical and ultrasound parameters to predict the risk of cesarean delivery after induction of labor. Obstet Gynecol 2006; 107(2 Pt 1):227-33.
  12. Bueno B, San-Frutos L, Salazar F, Pérez-Medina T, Engels V, Archilla B, et al. Variables that predict the success of labor induction. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand 2005; 84(11):1093-7.
  13. Hatfield AS, Sanchez-Ramos L, Kaunitz AM. Sonographic cervical assessment to predict the success of labor induction: a systematic review with meta-analysis. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2007; 197(2):186-92.
  14. Crane JM. Factors predicting labor induction success: a critical analysis. Clin Obstet Gynecol 2006; 49(3):573-84.
  15. Mackenzie IZ. Induction of labor at the start of the new millennium. Reproduction 2006; 131(6):989-98.
  16. `Sanchez- Ramos L. Induction of labor. Obstet Gynecol Clin N Am 2005; 32(2):181-200.
  17. Cengiz H, Yajvac S, Yavuzcan A, Kandemir O, Haberal A. Prediction of successful induction of labor with dinoprostone in homogeneous group of patients. South Afr J Obstet Gynaecol 2012; 18(1):19-22.
  18. Naderi T, Haydari Z. Correlation between Bishop score and success of induction of labor in term pregnancies. Sci J Hamadan Univ Med Sci Health Ser 2003; 9(4):18-22. (Persian).
  19. Tan PC, Vallikkannu N, Suguna S, Quek KF, Hassan J. Transvaginal sonography of cervical length and Bishop score as predictors of successful induction of term labor: the effect of parity. Clin Exp Obstet Gynecol 2009; 36(1):35-9.
  20. Tanir HM, Sener T, Yildiz Z. Digital and transvaginal ultrasound cervical assessment for prediction of successful labor induction. Int J Gynecol Obstet 2008; 100(1):52-5.
  21. Uyar Y, Erbay G, Demir BC, Baytur Y. Comparison of the Bishop score, body mass index and transvaginal cervical length in predicting the success of labor induction. Arch Gynecol Obstet 2009; 280(3):357-62.
  22. Keepanasseril A, Suri V, BaggaR, Aggarwal N. Pre-induction sonographic assessment of the cervix in the prediction of successful induction of labor in nulliparous women. Aust N Z J Obstet Gynecol 2007; 47(5):389-93.
  23. Eggebo TM, Heien C, Okland I, Gjessing LK, Romundstad P, Salvesen KA. Ultrasound assessment of fetal head-perineum distance before induction of labor. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 2008; 32(2):199-204.
  24. Pevzner L, Rayburn WF, Rumney P, Wing DA. Factors predicting successful labor induction with dinoprostone and misoprostol vaginal inserts. Obstet Gynecol 2009; 114(2 Pt 1):261-7.
  25. Al-Shaikh G, Wahabi HA, Fayed AA, Esmaeil SA, Al-Malki GA. Factors associated with successful induction of labor. Saudi Med J 2012; 33(3):298-303.
  26. Rayamajhi RT, Karki C, Shrestha N, Padhye SM. Inductions for labor induction and predictors for failed induction at KMCTH. Kathmandu Univ Med J 2009; 7(25):21-5.
  27. Amini L, Akbari A, Sadegi H, Bahri N. Factors affecting prediction of successful induction. J Sabzevar Univ Med Sci 2011; 18(2):118-24. (Persian).
  28. Syed S, Chaudhri R, Rizvi F, Afzal M. Oral misoprostol for induction of labor. J Coll Physicians Surg Pak 2010; 20(2):102-5.
  29. Nuthalapaty FS, Rouse DJ, Owen J. The association of maternal weight with cesarean risk, labor duration and cervical dilation rate during labor induction. Obstet Gynecol 2004; 103(3):452-6.
The Iranian Journal of Obstetrics, Gynecology and Infertility
Volume 19, Issue 18
July 2016
Pages 1-8

Files

Share

How to cite

Statistics