For IUGR at Term, Expectant Management and Labor Induction have Similar Neonatal Outcomes

DynaMed Weekly Update - Volume 5, Issue 52

Intrauterine growth restriction (IUGR) is often managed by induction of labor to reduce the risk of neonatal morbidity or stillbirth. However, due to concerns about induction, including a possible increase in cesarean sections, some clinicians prefer expectant management, with close monitoring of fetal status. The DIGITAT trial compared these 2 approaches in 650 women with suspected IUGR. Women with singleton pregnancies at 36-41 weeks gestational age were randomized to expectant management with fetal monitoring until spontaneous onset of labor vs. labor induction within 48 hours. Monitoring included daily fetal movement counts and twice weekly heart rate tracings, ultrasound and screening for preeclampsia. Women in the expectant management group could have induction or cesarean delivery if indicated. The primary outcome was the composite of 4 neonatal adverse events: death before hospital discharge, 5-minute Apgar score < 7, umbilical artery pH < 7.05, and admission to neonatal intensive care. The composite outcome occurred in 6.1% of the expectant management group vs. 5.3% of the induction group (not significant) (level 1 [likely reliable] evidence). There were no significant differences in Apgar scores, umbilical pH, or intensive care admissions. No fetal or neonatal deaths occurred in either group. The expectant management group had higher median birth weight (+130 g) and longer median gestational age (+10 days). Labor was induced in 50.6% of the expectant management group. There were no significant differences in rates of instrumental delivery or cesarean section (BMJ 2010 Dec 21;341:c7087).

For more information, see the Intrauterine growth restriction (IUGR) topic in DynaMed.


Other EBSCO Sites +