Lelevier-De Doig Alvear H, Morgan-Ortiz F, Quevedo-Castro E, Morgan-Ruiz FV, Lelevier-Rico HB, Cervin BC, Peraza-Garay FJ, López MG

Language: Spanish
References: 16
Page: 4-11
PDF size: 97.98 Kb.

ABSTRACT

Objective: to compare the obstetric and perinatal outcomes between two cervical dilation cut-offs (4 cm vs 6 cm) to determine the begin of the active phase of labor (APL) in primiparous with pregnancy at term. Material and Methods: Primiparous patients with full-term pregnancy and APL were assigned to one of two groups according to the dilation in cm presented at the time of the initia l evaluation (Group 1: 4 cm and Group 2: 6 cm). The evolution of labor was monitored every hour from admission to the labor room until delivery. The primary outcome was the perinatal result evaluated with the Apgar scale and secondarily the frequency of cesarean section. Results: 215 primiparous patients in APL were analyzed: 95 corresponded to group 1 and 120 for the group 2. The patients in group 1 presented a higher frequency of: obstetric analgesia (35.8% vs 17.5%, p = .007), cesarean section (22% vs 3.3%; p ‹.05) when compared with group 2. Only one newborn from group 1 was admitted to the NICU due to an Apgar score lower than 7, without differences between the groups (p›. 05). Conclusions: the patients who are managed according to the Zhang curves (start of the active phase at 6cm) present a lower risk of cesarean section without compromising the perinatal results.

REFERENCES

1. Cunningham, F. Gary, and J. Whitridge Williams.Williams obstetricia. 23 ed. McGraw-Hill Professional, 2011.

2. Snegovskikh V, Shin J, Norwitz W. Endocrinologyof parturition. Metab Clin N Am 35(2006) 173–191.

3. Liao J, Buhimschi C, Norwitz C. Parto normal:mecanismo y duración.. Obstet GynecolClin N Am 2005;32:145–164.

4. Creasy, R. K., Resnik, R., & Iams, J. D.Creasy and Resnik's maternal-fetal medicine:principles and practice (7th ed.). Philadelphia,PA: Saunders/Elsevier, 2014.

5. Friedman EA. Primigravid labor; a graphicstatistical analysis. Obstet Gynecol. 1955;

6. 6:567–89. [PubMed: 13272981]6. Zhang J, Landy HJ, Branch DW, et al. Contemporarypatterns of spontaneous laborwith normal neonatal outcomes. Obstet Gynecol2010;116:1281–7. [PubMed:21099592]

7. Zhang J, Troendle J, Mikolajczyk R,Sundaram R, Beaver J, Faser W. The naturalhistory of the normal first stage of labor. ObstetGynecol 2010;115:705–10.

8. Rouse DJ, Owen J, Savage KG, Hauth JC.Active phase labor arrest: revisiting the 2-hour minimum. Obstet Gynecol2001;98:550-4.

9. Peisner DB, Rosen MG. Transition from latentto active labor. Obstet Gynecol1986;68:448–51.

10. Nelson D, Mcintire D, Leveno K. Relationshipof the lenght of the first stage of labor tothe second stage. Obstet Gynecol2013;122:27–32

11. Laughon K, Brach W, Beaver J, Zhang j.Change in labor patterns over 50 years. AmJ Obstet Gynecol. 2012; 206(5): 419.e1–419.e9.

12. Bauer C, Voutsos LJ. Preventing the first cesareandelivery. Summary of a joint EuniceKennedy Shriver National Institute of ChildHealth and Human Development, Society forMaternal-Fetal Medicine, and American Collegeof Obstetricians and GynecologistsWorkshop. Obstet Gynecol.2013;121(3):686-7.doi: 10.1097/AOG.0b013e3182854a93.

13. Zhang J, Troendle JF, Yancey MK. Reassessingthe labor curve in nulliparouswomen. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2002;187:824–8. [PubMed: 12388957]

14. Cheng Y, Shaffer B, Nicholson J, CaugheyA. Second Stage of Labor and EpiduralUse.Obstet Gynecol 2014;123:527–35.

15. Bailit J, Dierker L, Hsieh M, Mercer B. Outcomesof women presenting in active versuslatent phase of spontaneus labor. Obstet Gynecol2005;105 (1):77–9.

16. Allen VM, Baskett TF, O'Connell CM,McKeen D, Allen AC. Maternal and perinataloutcomes with increasing duration of thesecond stage of labor. Obstet Gynecol.2009;113(6):1248.