PREVENTIVE
INDUCTION OF LABOR IN AN EFFORT TO REDUCE CESAREAN SECTION RATE
You are listening to ReachMD, The Channel for Medical
Professionals. Welcome to Advances In Women's Health. Your host is Dr. Lisa
Mazzullo, Assistant Professor of Obstetrics and Gynecology at Northwestern
University Medical School, The Feinberg School of Medicine.
Cesarean section is the most common operative procedure
that women undergo in the United States today. From 1990 to 1999, the National
Cesarean Section rate was approximately 22%, but in the last decade a steady
increase in cesarean rates have been noted as high as 30% in some areas of the
country. Are there ways to reduce the incidents of cesarean delivery while
ensuring the safety of maternal and neonatal health?
Welcome to Advances in Women's Health on ReachMD XM 157,
The Channel for Medical Professionals.
Today we are being joined by Dr. James Nicholson, the
Assistant Professor of Family Practice and Community Medicine at the University
of Pennsylvania in Philadelphia. He is also a co-author of a number of studies
looking at reducing the incidents of operative delivery by prevented induction
of labor known as AMOR-IPAT or the active management of risk in pregnancy at term.
DR. LISA MAZZULLO:
Welcome Dr. Nicholson.
DR. JAMES NICHOLSON:
Thank you very much, thanks for having me.
DR. LISA MAZZULLO:
My pleasure. So, why do you think the C-section rate has
risen so much in the last 10 years.
DR. JAMES NICHOLSON:
Well, there are a variety of factors. It's really a
multifactorial issue. I think one has to do with a changing population so
there is more and more women who are delaying childbirth into their later
years, there is a higher rate of obesity in our population, but I think also
driving it has to do with medicolegal issues and physicians being concerned
about poor outcome so they are less likely to tolerate troubles during labor
and then, of course, with more section in the higher primary section rate comes
a higher secondary section rate with fewer and fewer physicians being willing
to do VBAC or vaginal birth after cesarean delivery, so it's kind of a snowball
effect where we are having a higher primary cesarean delivery rate and a higher
secondary cesarean delivery also.
DR. LISA MAZZULLO:
You know, I totally agree you know a few years ago in the
New England Journal when the article came out talking about uterine rupture
rates being double, what we thought they were in VBAC, everyone took a complete
step backwards, though our personal rates have not been anything like what had
been reported. You know, what's interesting with all that in mind is, do you
think the higher section rate really has reduced medicolegal situations or
improved maternal and fetal morbidity and mortality.
DR. JAMES NICHOLSON:
Well, I think there is a broader question, which has it
improved maternal or fetal as well as maternal outcomes and I think probably
the answer to that is it has not, for example, one of the most concerning thing
I see is that the actual US maternal mortality rate is actually rising so while
it was 7 women per 100,000 death rate back in 1998, now it's risen up through
to 13 and now up to 15 out of 100,000 and I would love to change that answer if
I could, the bottom line is the maternal mortality rate in our country,
although it's still quite low, has increased fairly significantly over the past
5 years. Along with that is I think our term birth in NICU or Neonatal
Intensive Care Unit admission rate probably has gone up, although that's a
statistic that's very hard to pull out of the preterm NICU admission rate, but
lastly the medical liability situation I don’t think has improved a whole lot
even though we are doing more cesareans, so we are using this procedure more
and more, but I am not sure that we are seeing better outcomes as a result, I
think probably we are seeing worst outcomes.
DR. LISA MAZZULLO:
But I think, I totally agree, certainly not the first
cesarean section, but the second is where you really start to have an
increasing maternal risk from that. Well, you know traditional protocols in
the OB-GYN community have always encouraged induction of labor when it is an
absolute medical necessity because we felt that induction of labor would
increase the cesarean risk for a patient.
DR. JAMES NICHOLSON:
Correct.
DR. LISA MAZZULLO:
And it seems like the tenets of your plan are the opposite
of that.
DR. JAMES NICHOLSON:
That's right.
DR. LISA MAZZULLO:
Can you explain a little bit why?
DR. JAMES NICHOLSON:
Sure. So, it's a pretty classic case of confounding by
indication in that if inductions are safe for only those cases where there are
major problems, for example, significant postdatism or high blood pressure or a
fetus that looks unusually large. If those are the cases where induction of
labor is being used and usually in this day and age, most people only do
inductions when there is an ACOG indication, if you compare those cases to
cases where labor develops more naturally and somewhat earlier in the term
period, then the induction cases will always have worst outcomes than the
spontaneous labor cases, but the question that I've raised is it the induction
itself or is it the reason that the induction was necessary that caused the worst
outcomes in the induced group and I can, you know, point out a 100 different
studies where they've shown that induction is linked with higher cesarean
delivery rates, but again all those studies have involved women with increased
risk for cesarean delivery before the induction even started. So what I do
which is different is to use preventive induction in what I call the optimal
time of delivery before problems develop and in that setting, it seems that
induction or higher use of induction is actually linked with lower C-section
rates and better other outcomes in childbirth.
DR. LISA MAZZULLO:
So Dr. Nicholson, how do you decide what the risk profile is
for a patient when you are looking at your AMOR-IPAT study?
DR. JAMES NICHOLSON:
Well, basically it comes straight after the problem list
that most physicians keep on their patients so the risk factors that women have
for cesarean delivery and other problems usually is in the chart in a specific
place, but the risk scoring sheet is based on the two most common reasons for
primary cesarean delivery which is (1) cephalopelvic disproportion or baby
that's too large to fit through the pelvis and (2) uteroplacental insufficiency
where the placenta doesn’t support the baby during labor and there is fetal intolerance
and then a C-section, so the 2 risk categories are used in my scoring sheet to
determine the optimal time of delivery. So, for example, for uteroplacental
factors things like chronic hypertension, sickle cell trait, cigarette abuse,
advanced maternal age and anemia, all of those risk factors have an odds ratio
for their impact on cesarean delivery risk and I convert those odds ratios into
a number of days using a conversion formula that I developed about 6 years ago
and then you can take any lady from your practice and add up her number of days
based on her risk profile in the uteroplacental category, you get a number of
days and you subtract that number of days from 41 weeks 0 days gestation and
you get what is the upper limit of the optimal time of delivery for the
placental group so might be 38 weeks and 6 days, for example.
DR. LISA MAZZULLO:
So if you were going to look at a patient in your practice,
can you just give us an example of one patient and how that works out?
DR. JAMES NICHOLSON:
Sure. So, let's say we have a patient who comes in for her
first visit. She is 5 feet 1 inches tall, she already weighs 200 pounds and
with the previous baby she had a vacuum delivery for a baby that was somewhat
large, let's say 8 pounds, that gives her 2 days for her elevated BMI; it gives
her 6 days for her short stature; and it gives her 9 days for her previous
vacuum delivery which gives a total of 17 days and if you subtract that from 41
days, that would give you 38 weeks and 4 days for her upper limit of the
optimal time of the delivery and in this multiparous woman, I would want her
delivering by 38 and 4.
DR. LISA MAZZULLO:
So, that makes more sense, it makes it very easy to say.
DR. JAMES NICHOLSON:
Sure, if the same lady had, for example, cigarette abuse and
sickle cell trait, that would give her 2 days plus 3 days, which is 5 days, so
her uteroplacental optimal time would be 40 weeks and 2 days, but we would pick
the lower of the two groups so the 38 weeks and 4 days time, so you always pick
the lower of the two groups because you want to get the baby out before one of
those two risk group is going to be negatively impacting the delivery.
DR. LISA MAZZULLO:
Okay so if patients have multiple risk factors, you take the
one that gives you the earliest delivery date.
DR. JAMES NICHOLSON:
Correct, in the two groups.
DR. LISA MAZZULLO:
If you're just tuning in, you're listening to ReachMD,
The Channel for Medical Professionals. I am Dr. Lisa Mazzullo and we are
speaking to Dr. James Nicholson and we are talking about some advantages of
elective preventive labor induction for patients to reduce the cesarean section
risk.
So, Dr. Nicholson we were talking about the risk factors you
look at and in the study that you had originally done, it looks like you've
combined both first time parents as well as second or third time parents in the
same risk factor criteria, is that true?
DR. JAMES NICHOLSON:
Yes.
DR. LISA MAZZULLO:
Okay, you know, typically in the obstetrical community, we
feel the risk of induction in a patient who has had a baby already vaginally is
much less than inducing someone who is a nulligravid patient, so how do you
attribute both of those people being in the same study?
DR. JAMES NICHOLSON:
Well, it had to do with the fact that the way the study was
developed, which was when I came to University of Pennsylvania we were allowed
to do a study of women in the practice that I was working in and basically in
order to get a study that was large enough to develop results on, we included
both first birth moms and moms that had babies before. Within the study, there
clearly was a difference in cesarean rate reduction in the first birth moms and
the multiparous moms, but both were significant reductions. So, for example,
the first birth moms they just had a much lower section rate, I don’t have that
information right here in front of me.
DR. LISA MAZZULLO:
My other question was that in looking at this, it wasn’t
clear when I was reviewing the study, if the patient had a Bishop score of less
than 5, did you find that that affected your outcome for successful vaginal
delivery.
DR. JAMES NICHOLSON:
Yes, and traditionally an un-ripened cervix has been a major
impediment to induction of labor, however, about 25 years ago, we started to
develop a variety of methods to ripen the cervix prior to induction of labor.
The main group has been prostaglandin medications, prostaglandin E1 and
prostaglandin E2, but there have also been mechanical methods like Foley bulb
insertion and laminaria and other things that ripen the cervix, these
medications specifically the prostaglandins have been essential in the research
I am doing in that many women in the first birth category need to have their cervix
ripened prior to induction and I would not have been able to do what I have
done without the use of these medications so it's an essential piece, but
having that piece available in my mind isn't being utilized as much as we could
to help moms get into labor a little earlier and safer.
DR. LISA MAZZULLO:
Thanks to Dr. Nicholson who has been with us as our guest
and we've been discussing in preventive induction of labor in an effort to
reduce cesarean section rate.
I am Dr. Lisa Mazzullo. You've been listening to
Advances in Women's Healthon ReachMD, The Channel for Medical
Professionals.
Please visit our website at www.reachmd.com which features our complete
library through demand podcasts or call os toll-free with your comments and
suggestions at 888-MD-XM-157.
Thank you for listening.
Thank you for listening to Advances in Women's Health,
sponsored in part by Eli Lilly with your host Dr. Lisa Mazzullo. For more
details on the interviews and conversations in this week's show or to download
the segment, please go to www.reachmd.com/women'shealth.
DOCTOR:
So, Rachel.
RACHEL:
Hmm. hmm.
DOCTOR:
Now that you are past menopause and we have determined
you have osteoporosis, I would like to start you on prescription only Evista,
raloxifene-hydrochloride tablets.
RACHEL:
Why Evista?
DOCTOR:
Because it's the only medicine that reduces the risk of
osteoporotic fractures and invasive breast cancer in women like you. It's
important to note that Evista does not treat breast cancer, prevent its return,
or reduce the risk of all forms of breast cancer.
RACHEL:
Am I really at risk for invasive breast cancer?
DOCTOR:
Based on my risk assessment, you may be. Some risk
factors for breast cancer include advancing age, family history, and personal
history.
RACHEL:
So even though no one in my family has ever had breast
cancer, I am still at risk for other reasons including my advancing age?
DOCTOR:
Exactly, and I think the benefits outweigh the potential
risks for you. It's the one medicine that treats osteoporosis and reduces the
risk of invasive breast cancer in postmenopausal women with osteoporosis. Individual
results may vary, of course, but that's exciting news.
RACHEL:
Exciting? I would have to take your word on that doctor.
DOCTOR:
Evista increases the risk of blood clots. It should not
be used by women who have or have had blood clots in the legs, lungs, or eyes.
Evista may increase the risk of dying from stroke in women at high risk for
heart disease or stroke; talk to your doctor about all your medical
conditions. Seek care immediately if you have leg pain or warmth, swelling of
the legs, hands, or feet, chest pain, shortness of breath, or a sudden vision
change. Do not use Evista if you are pregnant, nursing, or may become pregnant
as it may cause fetal harm. Women with liver or kidney disease should use
Evista with caution. Evista should not be taken with estrogens. Side effects
may include hot flashes, leg cramps, and swelling. For more information about
Evista, contact your Lilly sales representative. Visit www.evista.com. See
our ad in good housekeeping or call 1-888-44-EVISTA.
