Download PDF
Am J Perinatol 2015; 32(14): 1298-1304
DOI: 10.1055/s-0035-1563717
Original Article
Thieme Medical Publishers 333 Seventh Avenue, New York, NY 10001, USA.

Maternal Obesity Class as a Predictor of Induction Failure: A Practical Risk Assessment Tool

Stefania Ronzoni
1   Division of Feto Maternal Medicine, Department of Obstetric and Gynecology, Mount Sinai Hospital, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada
,
Hadar Rosen
1   Division of Feto Maternal Medicine, Department of Obstetric and Gynecology, Mount Sinai Hospital, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada
,
Nir Melamed
2   Division of Feto Maternal Medicine, Department of Obstetric and Gynecology, Sunnybrook Health Science Center, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada
,
Shay Porat
3   Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Hadassah-Hebrew, University Medical Center, Mt Scopus Campus, Jerusalem, Israel
,
Dan Farine
1   Division of Feto Maternal Medicine, Department of Obstetric and Gynecology, Mount Sinai Hospital, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada
,
Cynthia Maxwell
1   Division of Feto Maternal Medicine, Department of Obstetric and Gynecology, Mount Sinai Hospital, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada
› Author Affiliations
Further Information

Publication History

15 July 2015

21 July 2015

Publication Date:
09 September 2015 (online)

    Permissions and Reprints

Abstract

Objective To assess the impact of body mass index (BMI) on the rate of cesarean section (rCS) in induction of labor (IOL).

Study Design A total of 7,543 singleton term pregnancies undergoing IOL (cervical dilatation at admission, CDA ≤ 3 cm) were divided according to BMI: underweight (n = 325); normal weight (NW) (n = 4,633); overweight (OW) (n = 1,610); and obese (n = 975). Age, parity, macrosomia, gestational age (GA), gestational weight gain (GWG), CDA, and IOL indications were considered.

Results A higher rate of macrosomia (15.0 vs. 11.1%; p < 0.0001), earlier induction (GA 39.7 ± 1.3 vs. 40.1 ± 1.3 weeks; p < 0.0001) for maternal indications (39.1 vs. 21.1%; p < 0.001), and lower CDA (≤1cm; 66.4 vs. 61.4%; p < 0.005) were observed in obese versus NW. The rate of weight gain above the recommended range was higher in obese (obese 70.6% vs. NW 43.9%; p < 0.001), despite a significantly lower mean GWG compared with NW (14 ± 7.5 vs. 16.5 ± 5.6 kg; p < 0.001). Compared with NW, OW and obese demonstrated a significantly higher rCS (OW 31.1% and obese 36.9% vs. NW 24.7%; p < 0.001). BMI represented an independent factor affecting the rCS (vs. NW; OW odds ratio [OR] 1.4; confidence interval [CI] 1.2–1.7; p < 0.001; obese OR 2.3; CI 1.9–2.7 p < 0.001).

Conclusion In the case of IOL, obesity represents an independent factor associated with a significant increase of CS to be considered during induction counselling.

Keywords

body mass index - cesarean section - induction of labor - obesity

Note

Findings presented at SMFM 35th Annual Meeting—The Pregnancy Meeting, San Diego, CA, February 2–7, 2015, Abstract #229.


 

  • References

  • 1 Yogev Y, Catalano PM. Pregnancy and obesity. Obstet Gynecol Clin North Am 2009; 36 (2) 285-300 , viii
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 2 Davies GAL, Maxwell C, McLeod L , et al; Society of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists of Canada. Obesity in pregnancy. J Obstet Gynaecol Can 2010; 32 (2) 165-173
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 3 Wolfe KB, Rossi RA, Warshak CR. The effect of maternal obesity on the rate of failed induction of labor. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2011; 205 (2) 128.e1-128.e7
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 4 Dietz PM, Callaghan WM, Morrow B, Cogswell ME. Population-based assessment of the risk of primary cesarean delivery due to excess prepregnancy weight among nulliparous women delivering term infants. Matern Child Health J 2005; 9 (3) 237-244
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 5 Zelig CM, Nichols SF, Dolinsky BM, Hecht MW, Napolitano PG. Interaction between maternal obesity and Bishop score in predicting successful induction of labor in term, nulliparous patients. Am J Perinatol 2013; 30 (1) 75-80
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 6 Pevzner L, Powers BL, Rayburn WF, Rumney P, Wing DA. Effect of maternal obesity on duration and outcomes of prostaglandin cervical ripening and labor induction. Obstet Gynecol 2009; 114 (6) 1315-1321
    Google Scholar
  • 7 Kominiarek MA, Vanveldhuisen P, Hibbard J , et al; Consortium on Safe Labor. The maternal body mass index: a strong association with delivery route. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2010; 203 (3) 264.e1-264.e7
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 8 Leduc D, Biringer A, Lee L, DY J. SOGC clinical practice guideline: Induction of labor. Review J Obstet Gynaecol Can 2013; 35 (9) 840-857
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 9 Gunatilake RP, Smrtka MP, Harris B , et al. Predictors of failed trial of labor among women with an extremely obese body mass index. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2013; 209 (6) 562.e1-562.e5
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 10 Heffner LJ, Elkin E, Fretts RC. Impact of labor induction, gestational age, and maternal age on cesarean delivery rates. Obstet Gynecol 2003; 102 (2) 287-293
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 11 El-Chaar D, Finkelstein SA, Tu X , et al. The impact of increasing obesity class on obstetrical outcomes. J Obstet Gynaecol Can 2013; 35 (3) 224-233
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 12 Crane JMG, White J, Murphy P, Burrage L, Hutchens D. The effect of gestational weight gain by body mass index on maternal and neonatal outcomes. J Obstet Gynaecol Can 2009; 31 (1) 28-35
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 13 Vahratian A, Zhang J, Troendle JF, Savitz DA, Siega-Riz AM. Maternal prepregnancy overweight and obesity and the pattern of labor progression in term nulliparous women. Obstet Gynecol 2004; 104 (5, Pt 1): 943-951
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar