We have located links that may give you full text access.
Uterine rupture during induced trial of labor among women with previous cesarean delivery.
American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology 2000 November
OBJECTIVE: This study was undertaken to compare the rates of uterine rupture during induced trials of labor after previous cesarean delivery with the rates during a spontaneous trial of labor.
STUDY DESIGN: All deliveries between 1992 and 1998 among women with previous cesarean delivery were evaluated. Rates of uterine rupture were determined for spontaneous labor and different methods of induction.
RESULTS: Of 2119 trials of labor, 575 (27%) were induced. The overall rate of uterine rupture was 0.71% (15/2119). The uterine rupture rate with induced trial of labor (8/575; 1.4%) was significantly higher than with a spontaneous trial of labor (7/1544; 0.45%; P =.0004). Uterine rupture rates associated with different methods of induction were compared with the rate seen with spontaneous labor and were as follows: prostaglandin E(2) gel, 2.9% (5/172; P =.004); intracervical Foley catheter, 0.76% (1/129; P =.47); and labor induction not requiring cervical ripening, 0.74% (2/274; P =.63). The uterine rupture rate associated with inductions other than with prostaglandin E(2) was 0.74% (3/474; P =.38). The relative risk of uterine rupture with prostaglandin E(2) use versus spontaneous trial of labor was 6.41 (95% confidence interval, 2. 06-19.98).
CONCLUSION: Induction of labor was associated with an increased risk of uterine rupture among women with a previous cesarean delivery, and this association was highest when prostaglandin E(2) gel was used.
STUDY DESIGN: All deliveries between 1992 and 1998 among women with previous cesarean delivery were evaluated. Rates of uterine rupture were determined for spontaneous labor and different methods of induction.
RESULTS: Of 2119 trials of labor, 575 (27%) were induced. The overall rate of uterine rupture was 0.71% (15/2119). The uterine rupture rate with induced trial of labor (8/575; 1.4%) was significantly higher than with a spontaneous trial of labor (7/1544; 0.45%; P =.0004). Uterine rupture rates associated with different methods of induction were compared with the rate seen with spontaneous labor and were as follows: prostaglandin E(2) gel, 2.9% (5/172; P =.004); intracervical Foley catheter, 0.76% (1/129; P =.47); and labor induction not requiring cervical ripening, 0.74% (2/274; P =.63). The uterine rupture rate associated with inductions other than with prostaglandin E(2) was 0.74% (3/474; P =.38). The relative risk of uterine rupture with prostaglandin E(2) use versus spontaneous trial of labor was 6.41 (95% confidence interval, 2. 06-19.98).
CONCLUSION: Induction of labor was associated with an increased risk of uterine rupture among women with a previous cesarean delivery, and this association was highest when prostaglandin E(2) gel was used.
Full text links
Related Resources
Trending Papers
The 'Ten Commandments' for the 2023 European Society of Cardiology guidelines for the management of endocarditis.European Heart Journal 2024 April 18
Challenges in Septic Shock: From New Hemodynamics to Blood Purification Therapies.Journal of Personalized Medicine 2024 Februrary 4
A Guide to the Use of Vasopressors and Inotropes for Patients in Shock.Journal of Intensive Care Medicine 2024 April 14
Prevention and treatment of ischaemic and haemorrhagic stroke in people with diabetes mellitus: a focus on glucose control and comorbidities.Diabetologia 2024 April 17
Diagnosis and Management of Cardiac Sarcoidosis: A Scientific Statement From the American Heart Association.Circulation 2024 April 19
Eosinophilic Esophagitis: Clinical Pearls for Primary Care Providers and Gastroenterologists.Mayo Clinic Proceedings 2024 April
Essential thrombocythaemia: A contemporary approach with new drugs on the horizon.British Journal of Haematology 2024 April 9
Get seemless 1-tap access through your institution/university
For the best experience, use the Read mobile app
All material on this website is protected by copyright, Copyright © 1994-2024 by WebMD LLC.
This website also contains material copyrighted by 3rd parties.
By using this service, you agree to our terms of use and privacy policy.
Your Privacy Choices
You can now claim free CME credits for this literature searchClaim now
Get seemless 1-tap access through your institution/university
For the best experience, use the Read mobile app