The frequency of caesarean section and neonatal outcomes depending on management strategy for large-for-gestational-age pregnancy
- Authors: Tysyachnyi O.V.1, Baev O.R.1,2, Prikhodko A.M.1, Kepsha M.A.1
-
Affiliations:
- Academician V.I. Kulakov National Medical Research Center for Obstetrics, Gynecology and Perinatology, Ministry of Health of Russia
- I.M. Sechenov First Moscow State Medical University, Ministry of Health of Russia (Sechenov University)
- Issue: No 5 (2023)
- Pages: 29-36
- Section: Original Articles
- URL: https://journal-vniispk.ru/0300-9092/article/view/274542
- DOI: https://doi.org/10.18565/aig.2023.33
- ID: 274542
Cite item
Open Access
Access granted
Subscription Access
Abstract
Fetal macrosomia is a risk factor for adverse obstetric outcomes, such as operative vaginal delivery, cesarean section and shoulder dystocia. With fetal macrosomia, the effectiveness of reducing the frequency of operative delivery is still a matter of debate. More promising is to study a possibility of early-term delivery in women with large-for gestational-age (LGA) fetuses, who have not yet reached the criteria for defining macrosomia.
Objective: To evaluate the frequency of operative delivery in pregnant women with LGA fetuses, depending on management strategy (pre-induction/ induction of labor or expectant management) and gestational age.
Materials and methods: A retrospective cohort study included 478 healthy primiparous women with delivery of large-for-gestational age fetuses according to ultrasound data. The women were divided into two groups. The comparison group was expectant management (n=195) and the main group was induction of labor (n=283). Both groups were divided into three subgroups depending on gestational age: subgroup 1 included women who were 38 weeks pregnant, subgroup 2 – 39 weeks, subgroup 3 – 40 weeks.
Results: The frequency of cesarean section in the group of women with spontaneous onset of labor at 38 and 39 weeks was 33.3% and 20.5% versus 22.2% and 17.1% in the induction group (p>0.05). At the same time, the frequency of cesarean section at 40 weeks was significantly lower in the expectant management group, 21.8% versus 36.9%, p=0.02. There were no differences between the rates of vaginal delivery, fetal shoulder dystocia, and perinatal outcomes. However, in the expectant management group at 39 weeks, there were significantly more newborns with Apgar score of 7 or less, 12.8% versus 4.04% in the induction group, p=0.04.
Conclusion: In most cases, the formation of macrosomia was between 39–40 weeks, and induction of labor as a method for preventing complications associated with macrosomia was ineffective. It is apparent that, the optimal gestational age for delivery was 39 weeks for ultrasound-estimated fetal weight equal to the 90th percentile, 38 weeks for the 95th percentile, and 37–38 weeks for the 97th percentile.
Full Text
##article.viewOnOriginalSite##About the authors
Oleg V. Tysyachnyi
Academician V.I. Kulakov National Medical Research Center for Obstetrics, Gynecology and Perinatology, Ministry of Health of Russia
Author for correspondence.
Email: o_tysyachny@oparina4.ru
ORCID iD: 0000-0001-9282-9817
PhD, Junior Researcher at the 1st Maternity Department
Russian Federation, MoscowOleg R. Baev
Academician V.I. Kulakov National Medical Research Center for Obstetrics, Gynecology and Perinatology, Ministry of Health of Russia; I.M. Sechenov First Moscow State Medical University, Ministry of Health of Russia (Sechenov University)
Email: metod_obsgyn@hotmail.com
ORCID iD: 0000-0001-8572-1971
Dr. Med. Sci., Professor, Head of the 1st Maternity Department, Academician V.I. Kulakov National Medical Research Center for Obstetrics, Gynecology and Perinatology, Ministry of Health of Russia; Professor at the Department of Obstetrics, Gynecology, Perinatology and Reproductology, I.M. Sechenov First MSMU, Ministry of Health of Russia (Sechenov University)
Russian Federation, Moscow; MoscowAndrey M. Prikhodko
Academician V.I. Kulakov National Medical Research Center for Obstetrics, Gynecology and Perinatology, Ministry of Health of Russia
Email: a_prikhodko@oparina4.ru
ORCID iD: 0000-0002-6615-2360
Dr. Med. Sci, doctor at the 1st Maternity Department
Russian Federation, MoscowMaria A. Kepsha
Academician V.I. Kulakov National Medical Research Center for Obstetrics, Gynecology and Perinatology, Ministry of Health of Russia
Email: a_prikhodko@oparina4.ru
Clinical Intern
Russian Federation, MoscowReferences
- Rezaiee M., Aghaei M., Mohammadbeigi A., Farhadifar F., Zadeh Ns., Mohammadsalehi N. Fetal macrosomia: risk factors, maternal, and perinatal outcome. Ann. Med. Health Sci. Res. 2013; 3(4): 546-50. https://dx.doi.org/10.4103/2141-9248.122098.
- Одинокова В.А., Шмаков Р.Г. Исходы родов у первородящих с фетальной макросомией при активной и выжидательной тактике. Акушерство и гинекология. 2022; 1: 72-9. [Odinokova V.A., Shmakov R.G. Birth outcomes in primiparous women diagnosed with fetal macrosomia and managed with active surveillance and watch-and-wait approach. Obstetrics and Gynecology. 2022; (1): 72-9. (in Russian)]. https://dx.doi.org/10.18565/ aig.2022.1.72-79.
- Ghosh R.E., Berild J.D., Sterrantino A.F., Toledano M.B., Hansell A.L. Birth weight trends in England and Wales (1986-2012): babies are getting heavier. Arch. Dis. Child. Fetal Neonatal Ed. 2018; 103(3): F264-F270. https://dx.doi.org/10.1136/archdischild-2016-311790.
- Macrosomia: ACOG Practice Bulletin Summary, Number 216. Obstet. Gynecol. 2020; 135(1): 246-8. https://dx.doi.org/10.1097/AOG.0000000000003607.
- Ye J., Zhang L., Chen Y., Fang F., Luo Z., Zhang J. Searching for the definition of macrosomia through an outcome-based approach. PLoS One. 2014; 9(6): e100192. https://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0100192.
- Akanmode A.M., Mahdy H. Macrosomia. In: StatPearls [Internet]. Treasure Island (FL): StatPearls Publishing; 2023 Jan. 2022 Sep. 6.
- The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists. Women’s health care physicians. Obstet. Gynecol. 2016; 128(5). https://dx.doi.org/10.1097/AOG.0000000000001767.
- Российское общество акушеров-гинекологов (РОАГ). Клинические рекомендации «Неудачная попытка стимуляции родов (подготовка шейки матки к родам и родовозбуждение)». 2021. [Russian Society of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (RSOG). Clinical guidelines "Unsuccessful attempted induction of labor (cervical preparation and labor induction)". 2021. (in Russian)]. Available at: https://roag-portal.ru/recommendations_obstetrics
- Combs C.A., Singh N.B., Khoury J.C. Elective induction versus spontaneous labor after sonographic diagnosis of fetal macrosomia. Obstet. Gynecol. 1993; 81(4): 492-6.
- Leaphart W.L., Meyer M.C., Capeless E.L. Labor induction with a prenatal diagnosis of fetal macrosomia. J. Matern. Fetal Med. 1997; 6(2): 99-102. https://dx.doi.org/10.1002/(SICI)1520-6661(199703/04)6:2<99::AID-MFM7>3.0.CO;2-K.
- Henriksen T. The macrosomic fetus: a challenge in current obstetrics. Acta Obstet. Gynecol. Scand. 2008; 87(2): 134-45. https://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00016340801899289.
- Zhang X., Decker A., Platt R.W., Kramer M.S. How big is too big? The perinatal consequences of fetal macrosomia. Am. J. Obstet. Gynecol. 2008; 198(5): 517.e1-6. https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ajog.2007.12.005.
- Boulvain M., Irion O., Thornton J.G. Induction of labour at or near term for suspected fetal macrosomia. Cochrane Database Syst. Rev. 2016; 2016(5): CD000938. https://dx.doi.org/10.1002/ 14651858.CD000938.pub2.
- Boulvain M., Senat M.-V., Perrotin F., Winer N., Beucher G., Subtil D. et al. Induction of labour versus expectant management for large-for-date fetuses: a randomised controlled trial. Lancet. 2015; 385(9987): 2600-5. https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(14)61904-8.
- Nicolaides K.H., Wright D., Syngelaki A., Wright A., Akolekar R. Fetal medicine foundation fetal and neonatal population weight charts. Ultrasound Obstet. Gynecol. 2018; 52(1): 44-51. https://dx.doi.org/10.1002/ uog.19073.
Supplementary files
