Skip to main content
Top
Published in: BMC Pregnancy and Childbirth 1/2020

Open Access 01-12-2020 | Shoulder Dystocia | Research article

The impact of stage of labor on adverse maternal and neonatal outcomes in multiparous women: a retrospective cohort study

Authors: Li Wang, Hongxia Wang, Lu Jia, Wenjie Qing, Fan Li, Jie Zhou

Published in: BMC Pregnancy and Childbirth | Issue 1/2020

Login to get access

Abstract

Background

The correlation between stage of labor and adverse delivery outcomes has been widely studied. Most of studies focused on nulliparous women, it was not very clear what impact the stage of labor duration had on multiparous women.

Methods

A retrospective cohort study was conducted among all the multiparous women of cephalic, term, singleton births, who planned vaginal delivery. The total stage of labor covered the first stage and the second stage in this study, and they were divided into subgroups. Adverse maternal outcomes were defined as referral cesarean delivery, instrumental delivery, postpartum hemorrhage, perineal laceration (III and IV degree), hospitalization stay ≥90th, and adverse neonatal outcomes as NICU, shoulder dystocia, Apgar score ≤ 7(5 min), neonatal resuscitation, assisted ventilation required immediately after delivery.

Results

There were 7109 parturients included in this study. The duration of first stage was 6.2(3.6–10.0) hours, the second stage was 0.3(0.2–0.7) hour, the total stage was 6.9(4.1–10.7) hours in multiparous women. At the first stage, the rates of overall adverse outcome were 21, 23.4, 28.8, 35.5, 38.4% in subgroups < 6 h, 6–11.9 h, 12–17.9 h, 18–23.9 h, ≥24 h, which increased significantly (X2 = 57.64, P < 0.001), and ARR (95% CI) were 1.10 (0.92,1.31), 1.33 (1.04,1.70), 1.80 (1.21,2.68), 2.57 (1.60,4.15) compared with subgroup < 6 h (ARR = 1); At the second stage, the rates of overall adverse outcome were 20.0, 30.7, 38.5, 61.2, 69.6% in subgroups < 1 h, 1–1.9 h, 2–2.9 h, 3–3.9 h, ≥4 h (X2 = 349.70, P < 0.001), and ARR (95% CI) were 1.89 (1.50, 2.39), 2.22 (1.55, 3.18), 10.64 (6.09, 18.59), 11.75 (6.55, 21.08) compared with subgroup < 1 h (ARR = 1)). At the total stage, the rates of overall adverse outcome were 21.5, 30.8, 42.4% in subgroups < 12 h, 12–23.9 h, ≥24 h (X2 = 84.90, P < 0.001), and ARR (95% CI) were 1.41 (1.16,1.72), 3.17 (2.10,4.80) compared with subgroup < 12 h (ARR = 1).

Conclusions

The prolonged stage of labor may lead to increased adverse outcomes in multiparous women, it was an independent risk factor of adverse maternal and neonatal outcomes.
Appendix
Available only for authorised users
Literature
1.
go back to reference American College of O, Gynecologists, Society for Maternal-Fetal M, Caughey AB, Cahill AG, Guise JM, Rouse DJ. Safe prevention of the primary cesarean delivery. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2014;210(3):179–93.CrossRef American College of O, Gynecologists, Society for Maternal-Fetal M, Caughey AB, Cahill AG, Guise JM, Rouse DJ. Safe prevention of the primary cesarean delivery. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2014;210(3):179–93.CrossRef
2.
go back to reference Friedman E. The graphic analysis of labor. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 1954;68(6):1568–75.CrossRef Friedman E. The graphic analysis of labor. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 1954;68(6):1568–75.CrossRef
3.
go back to reference Nelson DB, McIntire DD, Leveno KJ. Second-stage labor: consensus versus science. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2019;222(2):144–9. Nelson DB, McIntire DD, Leveno KJ. Second-stage labor: consensus versus science. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2019;222(2):144–9.
4.
go back to reference Leveno KJ, Nelson DB, McIntire DD. Second-stage labor: how long is too long? Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2016;214(4):484–9.CrossRef Leveno KJ, Nelson DB, McIntire DD. Second-stage labor: how long is too long? Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2016;214(4):484–9.CrossRef
5.
go back to reference Rosenbloom JI, Stout MJ, Tuuli MG, Woolfolk CL, Lopez JD, Macones GA, Cahill AG. New labor management guidelines and changes in cesarean delivery patterns. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2017;217(6):689 e681–8.CrossRef Rosenbloom JI, Stout MJ, Tuuli MG, Woolfolk CL, Lopez JD, Macones GA, Cahill AG. New labor management guidelines and changes in cesarean delivery patterns. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2017;217(6):689 e681–8.CrossRef
6.
go back to reference Zipori Y, Grunwald O, Ginsberg Y, Beloosesky R, Weiner Z. The impact of extending the second stage of labor to prevent primary cesarean delivery on maternal and neonatal outcomes. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2019;220(2):191.e191–7.CrossRef Zipori Y, Grunwald O, Ginsberg Y, Beloosesky R, Weiner Z. The impact of extending the second stage of labor to prevent primary cesarean delivery on maternal and neonatal outcomes. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2019;220(2):191.e191–7.CrossRef
7.
go back to reference Harper LM, Caughey AB, Roehl KA, Odibo AO, Cahill AG. Defining an abnormal first stage of labor based on maternal and neonatal outcomes. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2014;210(6):536 e531–7.CrossRef Harper LM, Caughey AB, Roehl KA, Odibo AO, Cahill AG. Defining an abnormal first stage of labor based on maternal and neonatal outcomes. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2014;210(6):536 e531–7.CrossRef
8.
go back to reference Rhoades JS, Cahill AG. Defining and managing Normal and abnormal first stage of labor. Obstet Gynecol Clin N Am. 2017;44(4):535–45.CrossRef Rhoades JS, Cahill AG. Defining and managing Normal and abnormal first stage of labor. Obstet Gynecol Clin N Am. 2017;44(4):535–45.CrossRef
9.
go back to reference Stephansson O, Sandstrom A, Petersson G, Wikstrom AK, Cnattingius S. Prolonged second stage of labour, maternal infectious disease, urinary retention and other complications in the early postpartum period. BJOG. 2016;123(4):608–16.CrossRef Stephansson O, Sandstrom A, Petersson G, Wikstrom AK, Cnattingius S. Prolonged second stage of labour, maternal infectious disease, urinary retention and other complications in the early postpartum period. BJOG. 2016;123(4):608–16.CrossRef
10.
go back to reference Ashwal E, Livne MY, Benichou JIC, Unger R, Hiersch L, Aviram A, Mani A, Yogev Y. Contemporary patterns of labor in nulliparous and multiparous women. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2020;222(3):267.e1–9. Ashwal E, Livne MY, Benichou JIC, Unger R, Hiersch L, Aviram A, Mani A, Yogev Y. Contemporary patterns of labor in nulliparous and multiparous women. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2020;222(3):267.e1–9.
11.
go back to reference Zhang J, Troendle J, Grantz KL, Reddy UM. Statistical aspects of modeling the labor curve. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2015;212(6):750.e751–4.CrossRef Zhang J, Troendle J, Grantz KL, Reddy UM. Statistical aspects of modeling the labor curve. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2015;212(6):750.e751–4.CrossRef
12.
go back to reference Cohen WR, Friedman EA. Misguided guidelines for managing labor. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2015;212(6):753.e751–3.CrossRef Cohen WR, Friedman EA. Misguided guidelines for managing labor. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2015;212(6):753.e751–3.CrossRef
13.
go back to reference 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.CrossRef 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.CrossRef
14.
go back to reference Cheng YW, Shaffer BL, Bryant AS, Caughey AB. Length of the first stage of labor and associated perinatal outcomes in nulliparous women. Obstet Gynecol. 2010;116(5):1127–35.CrossRef Cheng YW, Shaffer BL, Bryant AS, Caughey AB. Length of the first stage of labor and associated perinatal outcomes in nulliparous women. Obstet Gynecol. 2010;116(5):1127–35.CrossRef
15.
go back to reference Grantz KL, Sundaram R, Ma L, Hinkle S, Berghella V, Hoffman MK, Reddy UM. Reassessing the duration of the second stage of labor in relation to maternal and neonatal morbidity. Obstet Gynecol. 2018;131(2):345–53.CrossRef Grantz KL, Sundaram R, Ma L, Hinkle S, Berghella V, Hoffman MK, Reddy UM. Reassessing the duration of the second stage of labor in relation to maternal and neonatal morbidity. Obstet Gynecol. 2018;131(2):345–53.CrossRef
16.
go back to reference Cheng YW, Hopkins LM, Laros RK Jr, Caughey AB. Duration of the second stage of labor in multiparous women: maternal and neonatal outcomes. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2007;196(6):585 e581–6.CrossRef Cheng YW, Hopkins LM, Laros RK Jr, Caughey AB. Duration of the second stage of labor in multiparous women: maternal and neonatal outcomes. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2007;196(6):585 e581–6.CrossRef
17.
go back to reference Laughon SK, Berghella V, Reddy UM, Sundaram R, Lu Z, Hoffman MK. Neonatal and maternal outcomes with prolonged second stage of labor. Obstet Gynecol. 2014;124(1):57–67.CrossRef Laughon SK, Berghella V, Reddy UM, Sundaram R, Lu Z, Hoffman MK. Neonatal and maternal outcomes with prolonged second stage of labor. Obstet Gynecol. 2014;124(1):57–67.CrossRef
18.
go back to reference Gimovsky AC, Berghella V. Randomized controlled trial of prolonged second stage: extending the time limit vs usual guidelines. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2016;214(3):361 e361–6.CrossRef Gimovsky AC, Berghella V. Randomized controlled trial of prolonged second stage: extending the time limit vs usual guidelines. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2016;214(3):361 e361–6.CrossRef
19.
go back to reference Thuillier C, Roy S, Peyronnet V, Quibel T, Nlandu A, Rozenberg P. Impact of recommended changes in labor management for prevention of the primary cesarean delivery. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2018;218(3):341 e341–9.CrossRef Thuillier C, Roy S, Peyronnet V, Quibel T, Nlandu A, Rozenberg P. Impact of recommended changes in labor management for prevention of the primary cesarean delivery. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2018;218(3):341 e341–9.CrossRef
20.
go back to reference Ausbeck EB, Jennings SF, Champion M, Gray M, Blanchard C, Tita AT, Harper LM. Perinatal outcomes with longer second stage of labor: a risk analysis comparing expectant management to operative intervention. Am J Perinatol. 2020;24. https://doi.org/10.1055/s-0040-1708799. Ausbeck EB, Jennings SF, Champion M, Gray M, Blanchard C, Tita AT, Harper LM. Perinatal outcomes with longer second stage of labor: a risk analysis comparing expectant management to operative intervention. Am J Perinatol. 2020;24. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1055/​s-0040-1708799.
21.
go back to reference Revicky V, Mukhopadhyay S, Morris EP, Nieto JJ. Can we predict shoulder dystocia? Arch Gynecol Obstet. 2012;285(2):291–5.CrossRef Revicky V, Mukhopadhyay S, Morris EP, Nieto JJ. Can we predict shoulder dystocia? Arch Gynecol Obstet. 2012;285(2):291–5.CrossRef
22.
go back to reference Temerinac D, Chen X, Sütterlin M, Kehl S. Influence of fetal birth weight on perinatal outcome in planned vaginal births. Arch Gynecol Obstet. 2013;289(2):313–8.CrossRef Temerinac D, Chen X, Sütterlin M, Kehl S. Influence of fetal birth weight on perinatal outcome in planned vaginal births. Arch Gynecol Obstet. 2013;289(2):313–8.CrossRef
23.
go back to reference Palatnik A, Grobman WA, Hellendag MG, Janetos TM, Gossett DR, Miller ES. Predictors of shoulder dystocia at the time of operative vaginal delivery. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2016;215(5):624 e621–5.CrossRef Palatnik A, Grobman WA, Hellendag MG, Janetos TM, Gossett DR, Miller ES. Predictors of shoulder dystocia at the time of operative vaginal delivery. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2016;215(5):624 e621–5.CrossRef
24.
go back to reference Cahill AG, Srinivas SK, Tita ATN, Caughey AB, Richter HE, Gregory WT, Liu J, Woolfolk C, Weinstein DL, Mathur AM, et al. Effect of immediate vs delayed pushing on rates of spontaneous vaginal delivery among nulliparous women receiving Neuraxial analgesia: a randomized clinical trial. Jama. 2018;320(14):1444–54.CrossRef Cahill AG, Srinivas SK, Tita ATN, Caughey AB, Richter HE, Gregory WT, Liu J, Woolfolk C, Weinstein DL, Mathur AM, et al. Effect of immediate vs delayed pushing on rates of spontaneous vaginal delivery among nulliparous women receiving Neuraxial analgesia: a randomized clinical trial. Jama. 2018;320(14):1444–54.CrossRef
25.
go back to reference Epidural, Position Trial Collaborative G. Upright versus lying down position in second stage of labour in nulliparous women with low dose epidural: BUMPES randomised controlled trial. Bmj. 2017;359:j4471.CrossRef Epidural, Position Trial Collaborative G. Upright versus lying down position in second stage of labour in nulliparous women with low dose epidural: BUMPES randomised controlled trial. Bmj. 2017;359:j4471.CrossRef
26.
go back to reference Bueno-Lopez V, Fuentelsaz-Gallego C, Casellas-Caro M, Falgueras-Serrano AM, Crespo-Berros S, Silvano-Cocinero AM, Alcaine-Guisado C, Zamoro Fuentes M, Carreras E, Terre-Rull C. Efficiency of the modified Sims maternal position in the rotation of persistent occiput posterior position during labor: a randomized clinical trial. Birth. 2018;45(4):385–92.CrossRef Bueno-Lopez V, Fuentelsaz-Gallego C, Casellas-Caro M, Falgueras-Serrano AM, Crespo-Berros S, Silvano-Cocinero AM, Alcaine-Guisado C, Zamoro Fuentes M, Carreras E, Terre-Rull C. Efficiency of the modified Sims maternal position in the rotation of persistent occiput posterior position during labor: a randomized clinical trial. Birth. 2018;45(4):385–92.CrossRef
27.
go back to reference O'Brien S, Jordan S, Siassakos D. The role of manual rotation in avoiding and managing OVD. Best Pract Res Clin Obstet Gynaecol. 2019;56:69–80.CrossRef O'Brien S, Jordan S, Siassakos D. The role of manual rotation in avoiding and managing OVD. Best Pract Res Clin Obstet Gynaecol. 2019;56:69–80.CrossRef
28.
go back to reference Nelson DB, McIntire DD, Leveno KJ. Relationship of the length of the first stage of labor to the length of the second stage. Obstet Gynecol. 2013;122(1):27–32.CrossRef Nelson DB, McIntire DD, Leveno KJ. Relationship of the length of the first stage of labor to the length of the second stage. Obstet Gynecol. 2013;122(1):27–32.CrossRef
Metadata
Title
The impact of stage of labor on adverse maternal and neonatal outcomes in multiparous women: a retrospective cohort study
Authors
Li Wang
Hongxia Wang
Lu Jia
Wenjie Qing
Fan Li
Jie Zhou
Publication date
01-12-2020
Publisher
BioMed Central
Published in
BMC Pregnancy and Childbirth / Issue 1/2020
Electronic ISSN: 1471-2393
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1186/s12884-020-03286-z

Other articles of this Issue 1/2020

BMC Pregnancy and Childbirth 1/2020 Go to the issue