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

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

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.

Conflict of interest statement

Ethics approval and consent to participate

The trial is and will be conducted in accordance with ethical principles that have their origin in the Declaration of Helsinki and are consistent with Good Clinical Practice and applicable regulatory requirements. Registration of participant’s data will be carried out in accordance with national personal data law. The protocol, including the patient information and informed consent form to be used, is approved by the Regional Committee for Medical and Health Research Ethics: 2013/1862/REK South-East. The principal investigator is responsible for informing the ethics committee of any serious and unexpected adverse events and/or major amendments to the protocol as per national requirements.

Consent for publication

Not applicable

Competing interests

The authors declare that they have no competing interests.

Publisher’s Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Figures

Fig. 1
Fig. 1
Labor progression curve in first time mothers presented in cervical dilatation. Zhang [28]. Reprinted with permission from Elsevier and Copyright Clearance Center (4104651193)
Fig. 2
Fig. 2
Illustration of the 4 h action line with an alert line (expected progression) and an action line (labor dystocia if crossed) according to Philpott et al. [27]

References

    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. doi: 10.1136/bmj.c5065.
    1. Mawdsley SD, Baskett TF. Outcome of the next labour in women who had a vaginal delivery in their first pregnancy. BJOG. 2000;107(7):932–934. doi: 10.1111/j.1471-0528.2000.tb11094.x.
    1. 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):864–870. doi: 10.1067/mob.2003.217.
    1. 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.e131–139.e135. doi: 10.1016/j.ajog.2011.09.023.
    1. Lobel M, DeLuca RS. Psychosocial sequelae of cesarean delivery: review and analysis of their causes and implications. Soc Sci Med (1982) 2007;64(11):2272–2284. doi: 10.1016/j.socscimed.2007.02.028.
    1. Smith GC, Pell JP, Dobbie R. Caesarean section and risk of unexplained stillbirth in subsequent pregnancy. Lancet. 2003;362(9398):1779–1784. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(03)14896-9.
    1. Levine EM, Ghai V, Barton JJ, Strom CM. Mode of delivery and risk of respiratory diseases in newborns. Obstet Gynecol. 2001;97(3):439–442.
    1. 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):1466–1472. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2222.2005.02356.x.
    1. 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):591–599. doi: 10.1016/j.midw.2012.06.001.
    1. Medical Birth Registry of Norway. Norwegian Institute of Public Health; 2012. . Accessed 1 Nov 2012.
    1. 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):361–369. doi: 10.1111/j.1552-6909.2010.01154.x.
    1. 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.
    1. 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. doi: 10.1186/1471-2393-8-45.
    1. Clark SL, Simpson KR, Knox GE, Garite TJ. Oxytocin: new perspectives on an old drug. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2009;200(1):35.e31–35.e36. doi: 10.1016/j.ajog.2008.06.010.
    1. 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.
    1. 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):1094–1098. doi: 10.1080/00016340600804530.
    1. 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):1359–1362.
    1. 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.
    1. 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):2635–2637.
    1. Selin L, Almstrom E, Wallin G, Berg M. Use and abuse of oxytocin for augmentation of labor. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand. 2009;88(12):1352–1357. doi: 10.3109/00016340903358812.
    1. Brunstad Anne TE. Jordmorboka. 2. Oslo: Akribe; 2010.
    1. 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.
    1. Friedman E. The graphic analysis of labor. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 1954;68(6):1568–1575. doi: 10.1016/0002-9378(54)90311-7.
    1. 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):1281–1287. doi: 10.1097/AOG.0b013e3181fdef6e.
    1. 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):705–710. doi: 10.1097/AOG.0b013e3181d55925.
    1. Friedman EA. Classic pages in obstetrics and gynecology. The graphic analysis of labor. Emanuel A. Friedman. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 1978;132(7):822–823. doi: 10.1016/S0002-9378(78)80017-9.
    1. 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. doi: 10.1111/j.1471-0528.1972.tb14208.x.
    1. Zhang J, Troendle JF, Yancey MK. Reassessing the labor curve in nulliparous women. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2002;187(4):824–828. doi: 10.1067/mob.2002.127142.
    1. Vahratian A, Troendle JF, Siega-Riz AM, Zhang J. Methodological challenges in studying labour progression in contemporary practice. Paediatr Perinat Epidemiol. 2006;20(1):72–78. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-3016.2006.00696.x.
    1. Norsk gynekologisk forening. Veileder i fødselshjelp; 2014, Chapter 34. .
    1. Robson MS. Can we reduce the caesarean section rate? Best Pract Res Clin Obstet Gynaecol. 2001;15(1):179–194. doi: 10.1053/beog.2000.0156.
    1. 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.
    1. 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. doi: 10.1186/1471-2393-10-81.
    1. Section for Applied Clinical Research-NTNU. . Accessed 15 Nov 2014.
    1. USIT-Center for Information Technology Services, University of Oslo, Norway. . Accessed Nov 2014.
    1. Hayes RJ, Bennett S. Simple sample size calculation for cluster-randomized trials. Int J Epidemiol. 1999;28(2):319–326. doi: 10.1093/ije/28.2.319.
    1. 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):839–846. doi: 10.1093/ije/31.4.839.
    1. 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):319–326. doi: 10.1016/j.mehy.2011.11.012.
    1. 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.e321–326.e310. doi: 10.1016/j.ajog.2010.06.058.

Source: PubMed

3
Abonner