Labor Induction Reduced Caesarean Section Risk

Professor Khalid Khan MMEd, MRCOG, MSc, FCPS, MBBS Women's Health Research Unit | Multi-disciplinary Evidence Synthesis Hub The Blizard Institute | 58 Turner Street | London | E1 2AB MedicalResearch.com Interview with:
Professor Khalid Khan

MMEd, MRCOG, MSc, FCPS, MBBS
Women’s Health Research Unit | Multi-disciplinary Evidence Synthesis Hub
The Blizard Institute | 58 Turner Street | London | E1 2AB

MedicalResearch.com: What are the main findings of the study?

Prof. Khan: The risk of cesarean section was 12% lower among women undergoing induction of labor in comparison to the one that were managed expectantly. The subgroup comparison showed that the effect was significant in term and post-term however not in preterm gestations. Furthermore, induction of labor was associated with 50% and 14% reduction in risk of fetal death and admission to a neonatal intensive care unit, respectively.


MedicalResearch.com: Were any of the findings unexpected?

Prof. Khan: The findings of this systematic review contrasts with common beliefs of health and information presented in guidelines and textbooks that induction increases caesarean. According to evidence coming from 157 clinical trials included in our study, labor induction reduced caesarean risk while also accruing benefits for the fetus.

MedicalResearch.com: What should clinicians and patients take away from your report?

Prof. Khan: With this systematic we provide a robust evidence base to address the ongoing dispute on whether induction of labor increases the risk of cesarean section. The take home message is: Women whose labor are induced are at lower risk of cesarean section than the ones managed expectantly.

MedicalResearch.com: What recommendations do you have for future research as a result of this study?

​​Prof. Khan: Trials of routine induction near term gestation should be undertaken to examine the generalisability of our findings.
Citation:

Use of labour induction and risk of cesarean delivery: a systematic review and meta-analysis
Ekaterina Mishanina, Ewelina Rogozinska, Tej Thatthi,

Rehan Uddin-Khan,Khalid S. Khan, and Catherine Meads
CMAJ cmaj.130925; published ahead of print April 28, 2014,doi:10.1503/cmaj.130925