Skip to main content
Key Specialties
Cardiology Diabetology Endocrinology Gastroenterology Geriatrics and Gerontology Gynecology and Obstetrics Hematology Infectious Disease Internal Medicine Nephrology Neurology Oncology Pediatrics Respiratory Medicine Rheumatology Surgery
Congress Coverage
2024 ACC Congress 2023 ESMO Congress 2023 EASD Congress 2023 ERS Congress 2023 ESC Congress 2023 EHA Congress 2023 ASCO Annual Meeting
Clinical Collections
Advances in Alzheimer’s

Keynote webinar | Spotlight on sleep in brain health

LIVE: Thursday 2nd May 2024, 18:00-19:30 (CEST)

Quality sleep is essential for health. But what happens to our brains when sleep patterns are disturbed? Join our experts to explore the interplay between sleep disruption and neurological diseases, and the questions that you need to be asking your patients to help you prevent the harmful effects of sleep deprivation.
ADVANCED SEARCH
Log in
Top
BMC Pregnancy and Childbirth
Published in: BMC Pregnancy and Childbirth 1/2017

Open Access 01-12-2017 | Study protocol

Study protocol: the Labor Progression Study, LAPS - does the use of a dynamic progression guideline in labor reduce the rate of intrapartum cesarean sections in nulliparous women? A multicenter, cluster randomized trial in Norway

Authors: Stine Bernitz, Rebecka Dalbye, Pål Øian, Jun Zhang, Torbjørn Moe Eggebø, Ellen Blix

Published in: BMC Pregnancy and Childbirth | Issue 1/2017

Login to get access

Abstract

Background

The increasing rate of intrapartum cesarean sections is subject of attention and concern as it is associated with adverse outcomes. Labor dystocia is one of the most frequent indications for cesarean sections even though there is no consensus on criteria for labor dystocia. Traditionally the progression of labor follows guidelines based on Friedman’s curve from the mid 1950s. In 2010 Zhang presented a new labor curve and a dynamic guideline for labor progression based on contemporary research. The main aim of this trial is to evaluate whether adhering to Zhang’s guideline for labor progression, changes the intrapartum cesarean section rate in nulliparous women without jeopardising maternal and neonatal outcomes compared to a traditional guide line called the 4-h action line based on Friedman’s curve.

Methods/design

A multicenter cluster randomized trial including 14 birth care units in Norway is conducted. Seven units are randomized to use the 4-h action line guideline for labor progression and seven units are randomized to use Zhang’s new dynamic guideline for labor progression, for all nulliparous women with a singleton fetus in a cephalic presentation and spontaneous onset of labor at term. Clinical outcomes are compared between the groups. The determination of the sample size (number of clusters and individuals) is based on a power calculation of intrapartum cesarean section, which is 9.2% in the study population (p1). Further, we expect that the intrapartum cesarean section rate will be 6.7% (p2) which is a 25% reduction, when using the new guideline. With a chosen significance level of 0.05, a power of 80% and p1 = 9.2% and p2 = 6.9%, we should include at least 14 clusters and 6582 individuals.

Discussion

Clinical consequences when using the guideline by Zhang have, to the best of our knowledge, not been investigated earlier. The results will provide a strong basis to make a qualified decision on whether it is beneficial to introduce a dynamic labor progression curve in contemporary obstetrics both nationally and internationally.

Trial registration

Clinicaltrials, NCT02221427
Literature
1.
Bragg F, Cromwell DA, Edozien LC, Gurol-Urganci I, Mahmood TA, Templeton A, van der Meulen JH. Variation in rates of caesarean section among English NHS trusts after accounting for maternal and clinical risk: cross sectional study. BMJ (Clinical research ed). 2010;341:c5065.CrossRefPubMedCentral
2.
Mawdsley SD, Baskett TF. Outcome of the next labour in women who had a vaginal delivery in their first pregnancy. BJOG. 2000;107(7):932–4.CrossRefPubMed
3.
Kolas T, Hofoss D, Daltveit AK, Nilsen ST, Henriksen T, Hager R, Ingemarsson I, Oian P. Indications for cesarean deliveries in Norway. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2003;188(4):864–70.CrossRefPubMed
4.
Jackson S, Fleege L, Fridman M, Gregory K, Zelop C, Olsen J. Morbidity following primary cesarean delivery in the Danish National Birth Cohort. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2012;206(2):139.e131–5.CrossRef
5.
Lobel M, DeLuca RS. Psychosocial sequelae of cesarean delivery: review and analysis of their causes and implications. Soc Sci Med (1982). 2007;64(11):2272–84.CrossRef
6.
Smith GC, Pell JP, Dobbie R. Caesarean section and risk of unexplained stillbirth in subsequent pregnancy. Lancet. 2003;362(9398):1779–84.CrossRefPubMed
7.
Levine EM, Ghai V, Barton JJ, Strom CM. Mode of delivery and risk of respiratory diseases in newborns. Obstet Gynecol. 2001;97(3):439–42.PubMed
8.
Renz-Polster H, David MR, Buist AS, Vollmer WM, O'Connor EA, Frazier EA, Wall MA. Caesarean section delivery and the risk of allergic disorders in childhood. Clin Exp Allergy. 2005;35(11):1466–72.CrossRefPubMed
9.
Bernitz S, Aas E, Oian P. Economic evaluation of birth care in low-risk women. A comparison between a midwife-led birth unit and a standard obstetric unit within the same hospital in Norway. A randomised controlled trial. Midwifery. 2012;28(5):591–9.CrossRefPubMed
10.
11.
Neal JL, Lowe NK, Patrick TE, Cabbage LA, Corwin EJ. What is the slowest-yet-normal cervical dilation rate among nulliparous women with spontaneous labor onset? J Obstet Gynecol Neonatal Nurs. 2010;39(4):361–9.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
12.
Bugg GJ, Siddiqui F, Thornton JG. Oxytocin versus no treatment or delayed treatment for slow progress in the first stage of spontaneous labour. Cochrane Database Syst Rev (Online). 2011;7(7):CD007123.
13.
Kjaergaard H, Olsen J, Ottesen B, Nyberg P, Dykes AK. Obstetric risk indicators for labour dystocia in nulliparous women: a multi-centre cohort study. BMC Pregnancy Childbirth. 2008;8:45.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
14.
Clark SL, Simpson KR, Knox GE, Garite TJ. Oxytocin: new perspectives on an old drug. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2009;200(1):35.e31–6.CrossRef
15.
Bernitz S, Oian P, Rolland R, Sandvik L, Blix E. Oxytocin and dystocia as risk factors for adverse birth outcomes: a cohort of low-risk nulliparous women. Midwifery. 2014;30(3):364–70.
16.
Oscarsson ME, Amer-Wahlin I, Rydhstroem H, Kallen K. Outcome in obstetric care related to oxytocin use. A population-based study. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand. 2006;85(9):1094–8.CrossRefPubMed
17.
Blix E, Pettersen SH, Eriksen H, Royset B, Pedersen EH, Oian P. Use of oxytocin augmentation after spontaneous onset of labor. Tidsskr Nor Laegeforen. 2002;122(14):1359–62.PubMed
18.
Carmo Leal M, Pereira AP, Domingues RM, Theme Filha MM, Dias MA, Nakamura-Pereira M, Bastos MH, Gama SG. Obstetric interventions during labor and childbirth in Brazilian low-risk women. Cad Saude Publica. 2014;30(Suppl 1):S1–16.
19.
Moen MS, Holmen M, Tollefsrud S, Rolland R. Low-risk pregnant women in an obstetric department--how do they give birth? Tidsskr Nor Laegeforen. 2005;125(19):2635–7.PubMed
20.
Selin L, Almstrom E, Wallin G, Berg M. Use and abuse of oxytocin for augmentation of labor. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand. 2009;88(12):1352–7.CrossRefPubMed
21.
Brunstad Anne TE. Jordmorboka, vol. 2. 2nd ed. Oslo: Akribe; 2010.
22.
WHO United Nations Population Fund, UNICEF. Integrated Management of Pregnancy and Childbirth. Pregnancy, Childbirth, Postpartum and Newborn Care: A guide for essential practice, 3rd edition.
23.
24.
Zhang J, Landy HJ, Branch DW, Burkman R, Haberman S, Gregory KD, Hatjis CG, Ramirez MM, Bailit JL, Gonzalez-Quintero VH, et al. Contemporary patterns of spontaneous labor with normal neonatal outcomes. Obstet Gynecol. 2010;116(6):1281–7.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
25.
Zhang J, Troendle J, Mikolajczyk R, Sundaram R, Beaver J, Fraser W. The natural history of the normal first stage of labor. Obstet Gynecol. 2010;115(4):705–10.CrossRefPubMed
26.
Friedman EA. Classic pages in obstetrics and gynecology. The graphic analysis of labor. Emanuel A. Friedman. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 1978;132(7):822–3.CrossRefPubMed
27.
Philpott RH, Castle WM. Cervicographs in the management of labour in primigravidae. II. The action line and treatment of abnormal labour. J Obstet Gynaecol Br Commonw. 1972;79(7):599–602.CrossRefPubMed
28.
Zhang J, Troendle JF, Yancey MK. Reassessing the labor curve in nulliparous women. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2002;187(4):824–8.CrossRefPubMed
29.
Vahratian A, Troendle JF, Siega-Riz AM, Zhang J. Methodological challenges in studying labour progression in contemporary practice. Paediatr Perinat Epidemiol. 2006;20(1):72–8.CrossRefPubMed
30.
31.
Robson MS. Can we reduce the caesarean section rate? Best Pract Res Clin Obstet Gynaecol. 2001;15(1):179–94.CrossRefPubMed
32.
Campbell MK, Piaggio G, Elbourne DR, Altman DG, Group C. Consort 2010 statement: extension to cluster randomised trials. BMJ (Clinical research ed). 2012;345:e5661.
33.
Dencker A, Taft C, Bergqvist L, Lilja H, Berg M. Childbirth experience questionnaire (CEQ): development and evaluation of a multidimensional instrument. BMC Pregnancy Childbirth. 2010;10:81-2393-2310-2381.CrossRef
34.
35.
36.
Hayes RJ, Bennett S. Simple sample size calculation for cluster-randomized trials. Int J Epidemiol. 1999;28(2):319–26.CrossRefPubMed
37.
Bennett S, Parpia T, Hayes R, Cousens S. Methods for the analysis of incidence rates in cluster randomized trials. Int J Epidemiol. 2002;31(4):839–46.CrossRefPubMed
38.
Neal JL, Lowe NK. Physiologic partograph to improve birth safety and outcomes among low-risk, nulliparous women with spontaneous labor onset. Med Hypotheses. 2012;78(2):319–26.CrossRefPubMed
39.
Zhang J, Troendle J, Reddy UM, Laughon SK, Branch DW, Burkman R, Landy HJ, Hibbard JU, Haberman S, Ramirez MM, et al. Contemporary cesarean delivery practice in the United States. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2010;203(4):326.e321–10.CrossRef
Metadata
Title
Study protocol: the Labor Progression Study, LAPS - does the use of a dynamic progression guideline in labor reduce the rate of intrapartum cesarean sections in nulliparous women? A multicenter, cluster randomized trial in Norway
Authors
Stine Bernitz
Rebecka Dalbye
Pål Øian
Jun Zhang
Torbjørn Moe Eggebø
Ellen Blix
Publication date
01-12-2017
Publisher
BioMed Central
Published in
BMC Pregnancy and Childbirth / Issue 1/2017
Electronic ISSN: 1471-2393
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1186/s12884-017-1553-8

Other articles of this Issue 1/2017

BMC Pregnancy and Childbirth 1/2017 Go to the issue

Research article

Improving quality of care for maternal and newborn health: a pre-post evaluation of the Safe Childbirth Checklist at a hospital in Bangladesh

Research article

Incidence of influenza virus infection among pregnant women: a systematic review

Technical advance

A novel tamponade agent for management of post partum hemorrhage: adaptation of the Xstat mini-sponge applicator for obstetric use

Research article

Comparing levocardia and dextrocardia in fetuses with heterotaxy syndrome: prenatal features, clinical significance and outcomes

Research article

Cesarean section to prevent mother-to-child transmission of hepatitis B virus in China: A meta-analysis

Research article

Maternal and fetal blood lipid concentrations during pregnancy differ by maternal body mass index: findings from the ROLO study