View
0
Download
0
Category
Preview:
Citation preview
Confidential: For Review OnlyInduction of labour at 41 weeks versus expectant
management until 42 weeks (the Swedish postterm induction study - SWEPIS), a multicentre, open label,
randomised, superiority trial
Journal: BMJ
Manuscript ID BMJ-2019-051538.R1
Article Type: Research
BMJ Journal: BMJ
Date Submitted by the Author: 18-Sep-2019
Complete List of Authors: Wennerholm, Ulla-Britt; Sahlgrenska University Hospital, Department of Obstetrics and gynecology; Sahlgrenska Academy, Institute of Clinical SciencesSaltvedt, Sissel; Karolinska Institutet, Women's and Children's Health; Karolinska University Hospital, Obstetrics and Gynaecology UnitWessberg, Anna; Sahlgrenska Academy, Instittute of Health and Care SciencesAlkmark, Mårten; Sahlgrenska University Hospital, Department of Obstetrics and gynecology; Sahlgrenska Academy, Institute of Clinical SciencesBergh, Christina; Sahlgrenska University Hospital, Department of Obstetrics and gynecology; Sahlgrenska Academy, Institute of Clinical SciencesBrismar Wendel, Sophia; Karolinska Institute, Department of Clinical SciencesFadl, Helena; University Örebro, School of medical Health and sciences, Obstetrics and GynecologyJonsson, Maria; Uppsala University, Department of Women's and Children's HealthLadfors, Lars; Sahlgrenska University Hospital, Department of Obstetrics and gynecology; Sahlgrenska Academy, Instiutet of Clinical SciencesSengpiel, Verena; Clinical Science, Obstetrics and Gynecology, The Sahlgrenska Academy, Sahlgrenska University Hospital, GothenburgWesstrom, Jan; Uppsala University, Center for Clinical Research DalarnaWennergren, Göran; Sahlgrenska University Hospital, Department of Paediatrics; Sahlgrenska Academy, Institute of Clinical SciencesWikström, Anna-Karin; Uppsala University, Department of Women's and Children's HealthElden, Helen; Sahlgrenska Academy, Instittute of Health and Care SciencesStephansson, Olof; Clinical Epidemiology Unit, Department of Medicine, Karolinska Institutet, Medicine, SolnaHagberg, Henrik; Sahlgrenska University Hospital, Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology; Sahlgrenska Academy, Institute of Clinical Sciences
https://mc.manuscriptcentral.com/bmj
BMJ
Confidential: For Review OnlyKeywords: induction, late-term pregnancy, perinatal mortality, perinatal morbidity,
post-term pregnancy, term-pregnancy
Page 1 of 46
https://mc.manuscriptcentral.com/bmj
BMJ
123456789101112131415161718192021222324252627282930313233343536373839404142434445464748495051525354555657585960
Confidential: For Review Only
1
1 Induction of labour at 41 weeks versus expectant management until 42 weeks (the 2 Swedish postterm induction study - SWEPIS), a multicentre, open label, randomised, 3 superiority trial
4 Ulla-Britt Wennerholm1*#, Sissel Saltvedt2*, Anna Wessberg3, Mårten Alkmark1, Christina 5 Bergh1, Sophia Brismar Wendel4, Helena Fadl5, Maria Jonsson6, Lars Ladfors1, Verena 6 Sengpiel1, Jan Wesström7, Göran Wennergren8, Anna-Karin Wikström6, Helen Elden3**, 7 Olof Stephansson9**, Henrik Hagberg1**
8 *shared first authorship; **shared senior authorship; #corresponding author
9 1Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Institute of Clinical Sciences, Sahlgrenska
10 Academy, Gothenburg University, Sahlgrenska University Hospital, Gothenburg, Sweden
11
12 2Department of Women’s and Children’s health, Karolinska Institutet, Karolinska University
13 Hospital, Stockholm, Sweden
14 3Institute of Health and Care Sciences, Sahlgrenska Academy, Gothenburg University,
15 Sweden
16 4Department of Clinical Sciences, Danderyd Hospital, Karolinska Institutet, Stockholm,
17 Sweden
18 5Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Faculty of Medicine and Health, Örebro
19 University, Örebro, Sweden
20
21 6Department of Women’s and Children’s Health, Uppsala University, Uppsala, Sweden
22 7Center for Clinical Research Dalarna, Uppsala University, Sweden
23 8Department of Paediatrics, Institute of Clinical Sciences, Sahlgrenska Academy, Gothenburg
24 University, Sahlgrenska University Hospital, Gothenburg, Sweden
25 9Department of Medicine, Solna, Clinical Epidemiology Division, Karolinska Institutet,
26 Stockholm, Sweden
27 Correspondence to:
28 Ulla-Britt Wennerholm
29 Dep Obstetrics, Institute of Clinical Sciences, Sahlgrenska Hospital East
30 416 85 Göteborg, Sweden
31 ulla-britt.wennerholm@vgregion.se
32
33
Page 2 of 46
https://mc.manuscriptcentral.com/bmj
BMJ
123456789101112131415161718192021222324252627282930313233343536373839404142434445464748495051525354555657585960
Confidential: For Review Only
2
34 Abstract
35 Objective
36 To evaluate if induction of labour at 41 weeks compared with expectant management and
37 induction of labour at 42 weeks may improve perinatal and maternal outcomes in low risk
38 women.
39 Design
40 Multicentre, open label, randomised controlled superiority trial.
41 Setting
42 Fourteen hospitals in Sweden, 2016-2018.
43 Participants
44 2760 low risk women with an uncomplicated singleton pregnancy were randomised (1:1) by
45 the Swedish Pregnancy Register.
46 Interventions
47 Induction of labour at 41 weeks (induction group, n=1381), or expectant management until
48 induction of labour at 42 weeks (expectant management group, n=1379).
49 Main outcome measures
50 The primary outcome was a composite perinatal outcome including one or more of the
51 following: stillbirth, neonatal mortality, Apgar score <7 at 5 minutes, pH<7.00 or metabolic
52 acidosis (pH <7.05 and base deficit >12 mmol/l) in the umbilical artery, hypoxic ischaemic
53 encephalopathy, intracranial haemorrhage, convulsions, meconium aspiration syndrome,
54 mechanical ventilation within 72 hours, and/or obstetric brachial plexus injury. Primary
55 analysis was by intention to treat.
56 Results
57 The study was stopped early owing to a significantly higher rate of perinatal mortality in the
58 expectant management group. There was no difference in the composite primary perinatal
59 outcome between the induction group 2.4% (33/1381) and expectant management group 2.3%
60 (31/1379) (Relative Risk [RR] 1.06; 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.65 to 1.73), p=0.90).
61 There were no perinatal deaths in the induction group and six perinatal deaths (five stillbirths
62 and one early neonatal death) in the expectant management group (p=0.031). The proportion
63 of caesarean delivery, instrumental vaginal delivery or any major maternal morbidity did not
64 differ between the groups.
Page 3 of 46
https://mc.manuscriptcentral.com/bmj
BMJ
123456789101112131415161718192021222324252627282930313233343536373839404142434445464748495051525354555657585960
Confidential: For Review Only
3
65 Conclusions .
66 Induction of labour at 41 weeks versus expectant management until 42 weeks does not alter
67 the composite perinatal outcome, the primary outcome of this study. However, a reduction of
68 the secondary outcome perinatal mortality is observed without increasing adverse maternal
69 outcome. Although these results should be interpreted cautiously, labour induction ought to be
70 offered women no later than at 41+0 weeks and could be one (of few) interventions that
71 reduces stillbirth.
72
73 Trial registration
74 This trial is registered in Current Controlled Trials, ISRCTN26113652.
75
76 Keywords Induction, late-term pregnancy, perinatal mortality, perinatal morbidity, post-term
77 pregnancy, term-pregnancy
78
79 What is already known on this topic
80 Meta-analyses comparing induction of labour at or beyond term with expectant management
81 have shown a generally improved perinatal outcome with induction. It is not known if
82 induction at 41 weeks results in a better outcome compared to expectancy and induction at 42
83 weeks.
84
85 What this study adds
86 We showed that induction of labour at 41 full weeks in low risk pregnancies is associated
87 with a decreased risk of perinatal mortality compared with expectant management with
88 induction of labour at 42 full weeks. Other neonatal outcomes or caesarean delivery did not
89 differ between groups. Women with low risk pregnancies should be informed of the risk
90 profile of induction of labour versus expectant management and offered induction of labour
91 no later than at 41 full weeks.
92
Page 4 of 46
https://mc.manuscriptcentral.com/bmj
BMJ
123456789101112131415161718192021222324252627282930313233343536373839404142434445464748495051525354555657585960
Confidential: For Review Only
4
93 Introduction
94 Adverse perinatal outcomes gradually increase after 40 weeks and are significantly elevated
95 postterm (≥42 weeks [≥294 days]).1-2 The risk of stillbirth has been shown to increase after
96 term,1-5 and worldwide as much as 14% of stillbirth is associated with prolonged pregnancy.2
97 Furthermore, maternal complications also increase with duration of pregnancy after 40
98 weeks.1 To date, there is no agreement on how to manage late term (41+0 to 42+0 weeks)
99 pregnancies. The World Health Organisation (WHO) recommends induction of labour at
100 41+0 weeks6 and many countries offer induction of labour between 41+0 and 42+0 weeks to
101 avoid prolonged pregnancy.7,8
102 Randomised controlled trials (RCT) have compared induction of labour with expectant
103 management in prolonged pregnancies, most of them with inconclusive results with respect to
104 perinatal mortality and major morbidity.9 The results from the latest Cochrane review from
105 2018 showed lower rates of caesarean delivery and perinatal death but a higher rate of
106 operative vaginal delivery in the induction group compared with the expectant management
107 group.9 After the latest Cochrane review and after the initiation of the present study10, two
108 large RCTs examining low risk pregnancies have been published. A large trial from the US,
109 the ARRIVE trial, compared induction of labour in nulliparous women at 39+0 to 39+4 weeks
110 with expectant management until 41+0 weeks.11 No significant difference was found in
111 perinatal outcome between groups while the frequency of caesarean delivery was significantly
112 lower in the early induction group. Another large recent trial from the Netherlands, the
113 INDEX trial, compared induction of labour at 41+0 to 41+1 weeks to expectant management
114 until 42+0 weeks.12 The results could not confirm non-inferiority for adverse perinatal
115 outcome of expectant management, instead a significantly higher risk of adverse perinatal
116 outcome was found in the expectant management group. No significant difference in the rate
117 of caesarean delivery was found.
118 The current practice in many centres in United Kingdom and Scandinavia is to induce
119 delivery no later than at 42 weeks but several studies suggests that the risk of perinatal
120 mortality and morbidity actually increases significantly already at 41 weeks.3-5 There may be
121 a slightly increased risk of stillbirth already at 39 weeks of gestation and a gradual
122 exponential rise in risk as the pregnancy proceeds and approaches 42 weeks13 being
123 significant in most studies at 41 weeks3-5 whereas the risk of neonatal mortality is not
124 increased until 41 weeks.3,13 Therefore, we found it clinically justified to compare induction at
125 41 weeks with 42 weeks of gestation with respect to maternal and perinatal outcomes. At the
Page 5 of 46
https://mc.manuscriptcentral.com/bmj
BMJ
123456789101112131415161718192021222324252627282930313233343536373839404142434445464748495051525354555657585960
Confidential: For Review Only
5
126 start of the present trial, only two studies (one was an abstract) out of 30 included in the
127 Cochrane review (above) specifically compared induction of labour at 41 weeks with
128 expectant management until 42 weeks.14,15
129 The objective of this study was to evaluate if induction of labour at 41+0-2 weeks compared
130 with expectant management until induction of labour at 42+0-1 weeks was superior in terms
131 of perinatal outcome in healthy women with a low risk pregnancy.
132
Page 6 of 46
https://mc.manuscriptcentral.com/bmj
BMJ
123456789101112131415161718192021222324252627282930313233343536373839404142434445464748495051525354555657585960
Confidential: For Review Only
6
134 Methods
135 Study design
136 SWEPIS (SWEdish Post term Induction Study) was a multicentre, open label, randomised
137 controlled superiority trial conducted in Sweden from May 2016 to October, 2018. The trial
138 was register-based, meaning that randomisation and most data collection was done by using
139 the Swedish Pregnancy Register16 In all, 14 hospitals with linked antenatal clinics were
140 involved in the trial. Of the hospitals, four were university clinics and nine were county
141 hospitals comprising about 60 000 deliveries/year of the around 115 000 to 120 000
142 deliveries/year in Sweden. The trial was conducted according to the CONSORT guidelines
143 and was registered in Current Controlled Trials (ISRCTN26113652, the protocol being
144 available online (https://www-ncbi-nlm-nih-gov.proxy.kib.ki.se/pubmed/26951777) and as a
145 publication.10 The trial was undertaken within the Swedish Network for National Clinical
146 Studies within Obstetrics and Gynaecology (SNAKS).
147
148 Participants
149 Pregnant women were eligible for participation if: age ≥18 years; capable of understanding
150 oral and written information; singleton pregnancy with a fetus in cephalic presentation at
151 40+6 to 41+1 weeks according to ultrasound-based dating in first or early second trimester.
152 Exclusion criteria were: previous caesarean delivery or other uterine surgery, pre-gestational
153 and insulin dependent gestational diabetes, hypertensive disorder of pregnancy, known
154 oligohydramnios (amniotic fluid index <50 mm or deepest vertical pocket <20 mm) or small
155 for gestational age fetus (estimated fetal weight <-2 standard deviations (SD) according to the
156 sex and gestational age specific Swedish reference),17 diagnosed fetal malformation,
157 contraindication to vaginal delivery, any other maternal condition hindering the pregnancy to
158 proceed to 42 weeks.
159 Study logistics
160 General information about the study was given by posters or videos in the waiting rooms at
161 the antenatal clinics and by advertising in local daily newspapers. More detailed information
162 was provided on the study web site. At around 40 weeks, oral information about the study was
163 given by the midwife in Swedish or written information in any of 17 immigrant languages. In
164 the Stockholm region (five clinics), women were enrolled in association with a 41-week
Page 7 of 46
https://mc.manuscriptcentral.com/bmj
BMJ
123456789101112131415161718192021222324252627282930313233343536373839404142434445464748495051525354555657585960
Confidential: For Review Only
7
165 ultrasound scan which is offered to all pregnant women in the region. This is a voluntary scan
166 with almost 100% coverage aiming to confirm a normal pregnancy (defined as mean fetal
167 abdominal diameter >110 mm and normal amniotic fluid) before proceeding to 42 weeks. The
168 ultrasound midwife answered questions about the study and handled the randomisation after
169 written informed consent was obtained. In all other centres, women interested in taking part
170 were invited to a visit with a research midwife who managed patient consent and
171 randomisation. Outside the Stockholm region, 41-week scans were not routinely offered.
172
173 Randomisation and masking
174 Randomisation was done between 40+6 and 41+1 weeks. Enrolled women were allocated to
175 the intervention group (induction) or the control group (expectant management group). In the
176 induction group, labour was induced within 24 hours of randomisation (i. e. the same or the
177 next day) but not earlier than 41+0 weeks. In the expectant management group, labour was
178 induced at 42+0 to 42+1 weeks.
179 Allocation to either trial group, 1:1 was done with central on-line randomisation by dynamic
180 allocation with centre and parity (primiparity versus multiparity) as minimisation variables.
181 The Swedish Pregnancy Register16 set up the randomisation module which was incorporated
182 in the register but separate from the register data. Access to the randomisation module used a
183 separate log-in system. The module also included an electronic Case Report Form. After
184 delivery and the neonatal period, data on antenatal, delivery and neonatal characteristics were
185 retrieved from the Swedish Pregnancy Register and Swedish Neonatal Quality Register18
186 using the unique personal identification number. Because the majority of variables in the
187 study were included in the quality registers, the study could be performed relatively fast and
188 at a low cost.
189 Due to the nature of the intervention, blinding was not possible for participants or caregivers.
190
191 Strategies
192 Induction of labour was carried out in the same way in both groups. At admission, all women
193 were examined regarding blood pressure, proteinuria, fetal presentation by abdominal
194 palpation, cervical status, and fetal wellbeing by cardiotocography (CTG). In case of a well
Page 8 of 46
https://mc.manuscriptcentral.com/bmj
BMJ
123456789101112131415161718192021222324252627282930313233343536373839404142434445464748495051525354555657585960
Confidential: For Review Only
8
195 engaged fetal head and a ripe cervix (Bishop score ≥6 for primiparas and ≥5 for multiparas)
196 amniotomy was performed, followed by oxytocin infusion after 1-2 hours without
197 spontaneous regular contractions. In case of an unengaged fetal head or a less ripe cervix, any
198 of the following methods was used, according to local routines: mechanical dilation with a
199 Foley-like catheter; oral misoprostol (Cytotec® or Angusta®); controlled released vaginal
200 misoprostol insert (Misodel®); prostaglandin E2 vaginally (Minprostin® gel or Propess®
201 vaginal insert).
202 After randomisation, no monitoring within the framework of the trial was offered. In Sweden,
203 most antenatal clinics offer one follow-up visit after term, usually around 41 weeks, including
204 measurement of blood pressure, fundal height and fetal heart rate by doptone. Further
205 examinations, induction of labour or caesarean delivery are initiated for usual obstetric
206 indications, such as decreased fetal movements, a suspicion of fetal growth restriction,
207 preeclampsia etc. After 41 weeks, the threshold for interventions is low. Indication for a
208 scheduled caesarean section included undiagnosed breech/transverse presentation with failed
209 external version. Fetal scalp blood sampling (pH or lactate) was performed during labour
210 when indicated.
211 Outcomes
212 Primary outcome was a composite perinatal outcome of perinatal mortality and morbidity.
213 Perinatal mortality was defined as stillbirth and neonatal death (day 0-27). Neonatal
214 morbidity was defined as one or more of the following outcomes: Apgar score at 5 minutes
215 <7, pH <7.00 or metabolic acidosis (pH <7.05 and base deficit >12 mmol/l in the umbilical
216 artery), hypoxic ischaemic encephalopathy (HIE) I-III, intracranial haemorrhage, convulsions,
217 meconium aspiration syndrome, mechanical ventilation within 72 hours, obstetric brachial
218 plexus injury.
219 Secondary neonatal outcomes were: the individual components of the primary perinatal
220 outcome, admission to neonatal intensive care unit (NICU), Apgar score <4 at 5 minutes,
221 birth weight, macrosomia (≥4500 g), neonatal jaundice, therapeutic hypothermia, pneumonia,
222 sepsis.
223 Secondary maternal outcomes were: use of epidural anaesthesia, caesarean delivery, operative
224 vaginal delivery, duration of labour (from onset of regular contractions to delivery of the
225 baby), chorioamnionitis, shoulder dystocia, perineal tear III-IV, postpartum haemorrhage
Page 9 of 46
https://mc.manuscriptcentral.com/bmj
BMJ
123456789101112131415161718192021222324252627282930313233343536373839404142434445464748495051525354555657585960
Confidential: For Review Only
9
226 (>1000 ml), wound infection, urinary tract infection, endometritis, sepsis, breastfeeding at
227 discharge from hospital, and at four weeks postpartum.
228 Exploratory neonatal outcomes were: neonatal hypoglycaemia, birth trauma (fracture of long
229 bone, clavicle or skull, other neurologic injury, retinal haemorrhage, or facial nerve palsy)
230 small for gestational age17 and large for gestational age17. Exploratory maternal outcomes
231 were: cervical laceration, uterine rupture, hypertensive disorders of pregnancy (preeclampsia/
232 hypertension/eclampsia), venous thromboembolism, duration of stay in hospital, admission to
233 intensive care unit and mortality within 42 days.
234 Data collection
235 Data on maternal background, pregnancy and delivery characteristics, and neonatal outcomes
236 was retrieved from the Swedish Pregnancy Register16 and the Swedish Neonatal Quality
237 Register .18 Both registers are certified National Quality Registers initiated by Swedish
238 healthcare professionals. Data prospectively entered in standardised electronic medical
239 records by midwifes and clinicians during pregnancy, delivery and postpartum, is forwarded
240 to the Swedish Pregnancy Register from all antenatal clinics and most delivery clinics. In the
241 same way, the Swedish Neonatal Quality Register collects data on all newborns admitted to
242 NICU at birth or within 28 days of life. Vital statistics on maternal and neonatal mortality was
243 obtained from Statistics Sweden.
244 Study data was linked with data from the Swedish Pregnancy Register, the Swedish Neonatal
245 Quality Register and Statistics Sweden using the unique personal identification number
246 allocated to each person in Sweden at birth or immigration.19.
247
248 In all newborns with a primary outcome the medical records were collected and scrutinised,
249 and the same procedure was undertaken in all women with a diagnosis of endometritis to rule
250 out misclassification of sepsis.
251 To estimate selection bias, baseline characteristic and pregnancy outcome of our study
252 population was compared with the Swedish background population.
253
254 Monitoring
255 Before start, an independent Data and Safety Monitoring Board (DSMB) was formed,
256 comprising one statistician, one senior obstetrician and one senior midwife, with the role to
Page 10 of 46
https://mc.manuscriptcentral.com/bmj
BMJ
123456789101112131415161718192021222324252627282930313233343536373839404142434445464748495051525354555657585960
Confidential: For Review Only
10
257 supervise the trial through periodical reviews. Serious adverse events were immediately
258 reported by the principle investigators to DSMB and defined as any of: perinatal or maternal
259 death, neonate in need of neonatal intensive care because of meconium aspiration syndrome,
260 asphyxia, intracranial haemorrhage or other severe condition; severe maternal morbidity with
261 admission to intensive care unit; complication associated with induction of labour, e.g.
262 placental abruption at insertion of Foley catheter or uterine rupture.
263 An interim analysis was planned when 50% of the women were recruited and delivered.
264
265 Sample size and statistical analyses
266 To reduce the primary outcome by one third, from 2.74% to 1.84% (superiority testing, level
267 of significance 0.05, power 80%) by induction of labour at 41 weeks as compared with
268 expectant management until induction at 42 weeks a sample size of 10 038 women was
269 needed, 5019 in each randomisation group. This calculation was based on an assumption that
270 for 10% of the women, management would not be consistent with the assigned strategy, thus
271 also covering the same power for the per protocol analysis as for the intention to treat (ITT)
272 analysis. The composite primary outcome of 2.74% was based on data on perinatal outcomes
273 included in our primary outcome in one Swedish region (Region Skåne) between 2000 and
274 2010.
275 The statistical analyses were carried out according to a pre-specified analysis plan. Main
276 analyses were performed on the ITT population. The primary statistical analysis was the
277 comparison between the induction group and the expectant management group regarding the
278 primary perinatal composite outcome with two-sided Fisher’s exact test at significance level
279 0.05. To compare secondary outcomes, Fisher’s exact test was used for dichotomous
280 variables, Fisher’s non-parametric permutation test for continuous variables, Mantel Haenszel
281 chi-square test for ordered categorical variables and Pearsons’s chi-square test for non-
282 ordered categorical variables. Relative risk (RR) with 95% confidence interval (CI) between
283 the groups was calculated for the primary efficacy variable (the perinatal composite outcome)
284 and dichotomous secondary variables. Accordingly, mean differences with 95% CI between
285 the groups were calculated for continuous secondary variables. Data is presented by mean
286 with standard deviation (SD), median with 1st and 3rd interquartile range (IQR), number and
287 percentage, as appropriate.
Page 11 of 46
https://mc.manuscriptcentral.com/bmj
BMJ
123456789101112131415161718192021222324252627282930313233343536373839404142434445464748495051525354555657585960
Confidential: For Review Only
11
288 The ITT population included all randomised women except those withdrawing consent or lost
289 to follow up. Women with spontaneous labour or prelabour rupture of membranes after
290 randomisation but before induction were included in the ITT group, as were women with
291 pregnancy complications necessitating interventions for medical reasons.
292 A post-hoc sensitivity analysis for the primary efficacy analysis was performed adjusted for
293 the minimisation variables centre and primiparity/multiparity using multivariable logistic
294 regression analysis with centre as fixed effect.
295 Complementary analyses were performed for comparison of the primary perinatal composite
296 outcome and secondary efficacy outcomes on the per protocol population. The per protocol
297 population comprised all randomised women who completed the study without significant
298 protocol deviation. Protocol deviation criteria were defined before start of analysing the data
299 and included for the induction group: induction <41+0 weeks; labour induction, spontaneous
300 labour or caesarean delivery >41+2 weeks due to scheduling error or delivery room
301 unavailability; patient or provider preference; non-medically indicated elective caesarean
302 delivery. For the expectant management group protocol deviation was defined as: induction
303 >42+1 weeks; induction of labour <42 weeks due to scheduling error or patient or provider
304 preference; non-medically indicated elective caesarean delivery.
305 Prespecified subgroup variables were maternal age (≥35 years), nulliparity and BMI (BMI
306 ≥30). Logistic regression with treatment subgroup variable and the interaction term treatment
307 x subgroup variable was used to test whether the effect of treatment differed between
308 subgroups.
309 All significant tests were two-sided at the 0.05 significance level. All statistical analyses were
310 performed with SAS System Version 9 for Windows, SAS Inc., Cary, NC, USA.
311
312 Patient and public involvement
313 Pregnant women were not involved in the design, outcome measures, recruiting plans of the
314 study, and were not asked to give advice on interpretation of results. The results of the
315 research will be disseminated to the participants and general public through broadcasting,
316 popular science articles and newspapers.
317
Page 12 of 46
https://mc.manuscriptcentral.com/bmj
BMJ
123456789101112131415161718192021222324252627282930313233343536373839404142434445464748495051525354555657585960
Confidential: For Review Only
12
318 Results
319 On October 2, 2018 the DSMB strongly recommended the steering committee of SWEPIS to
320 stop the study owing to a statistically significant higher perinatal mortality in the expectant
321 management group. Perinatal mortality was a secondary outcome, yet, it was not considered
322 ethically correct to continue the study. There were no perinatal deaths in the early induction
323 group, but six perinatal deaths in the expectant management group (five stillbirths and one
324 early neonatal death) (p=0.031).
325 Recruitment took place from May 20, 2016 through October 13, 2018. Oral and written
326 informed consent was obtained from 2762 women who underwent randomisation, 1383
327 women were assigned to induction at 41 weeks and 1379 were assigned to expectancy until
328 induction at 42 weeks if needed (Figure 1). Recruitment according to trial centre is shown in
329 in the Appendix, Supplementary Table A. After randomisation but before intervention, two
330 women (induction group) withdrew their consent to participate and for their data to be used,
331 thus 1381 women in the induction group and 1379 women in the expectant management
332 group were included in the ITT analysis.
333 The two groups were similar at baseline (Table 1).
334
Page 13 of 46
https://mc.manuscriptcentral.com/bmj
BMJ
123456789101112131415161718192021222324252627282930313233343536373839404142434445464748495051525354555657585960
Confidential: For Review Only
13
335 Table 1 Baseline characteristics of intention to treat population
VariableInduction group
(n=1381)
Expectant management group
(n=1379)
Age at randomisation, years 31.2 (4.7)31.1 (28.0; 34.6)
n=1381
31.1 (4.5)30.9 (27.9; 34.2)
n=1379
Age at randomisation
Age at randomisation <35 years 1078/1381 (78.1%) 1100/1379 (79.8%)
Age at randomisation >=35 years 303/1381 (21.9%) 279/1379 (20.2%)
Parity (includes stillborn and live births)
Nulliparous 762/1381 (55.2%) 753/1379 (54.6%)
Parous 619/1381 (44.8%) 626/1379 (45.4%)
Smoking at first antenatal visit
No 1242/1274 (97.5%) 1228/1267 (96.9%)
1-9 cig/day 25/1274 (2.0%) 30/1267 (2.4%)
10 or more cig/day 7/1274 (0.5%) 9/1267 (0.7%)
Alcohol screening (AUDIT) at first antenatal visit*
0-5 points (low risk) 1102/1197 (92.1%) 1109/1190 (93.2%)
> = 6 (risk behavior) 95/1197 (7.9%) 81/1190 (6.8%)
Medical history
Psychiatric disease 95/1001 (9.5%) 108/997 (10.8%)
Prepregnancy diabetes mellitus type 1 or 2 2/1365 (0.1%) 0/1355 (0.0%)
Endocrine disease 83/1362 (6.1%) 97/1355 (7.2%)
Chronic hypertension 2/1362 (0.1%) 1/1353 (0.1%)
Height (cm) at first antenatal visit 167.5 (6.2)167 (163; 172)
n=1275
167.6 (5.9)168 (163; 172)
n=1273
Weight (kg) at first antenatal visit 70.0 (14.3)67 (60; 77)
n=1247
70.7 (14.5)68 (60; 77)
n=1241
BMI at first antenatal visit 24.9 (4.7)23.9 (21.6; 27.1)
n=1275
25.1 (4.9)24.0 (21.7; 27.4)
n=1265
BMI at first antenatal visit <30 1118/1275 (87.7%) 1081/1265 (85.5%)
BMI at first antenatal visit >=30 157/1275 (12.3%) 184/1265 (14.5%)
Last recorded weight during pregnancy, kg 83.5 (14.4)82.0 (74.0; 91.0)
n=1344
84.0 (14.6)82.0 (74.0; 92.0)
n=1336
Region of birth
Sweden 1069/1289 (82.9%) 1070/1298 (82.4%)
Other Nordic countries 74/1289 (5.7%) 84/1298 (6.5%)
Europe outside Nordic countries 20/1289 (1.6%) 18/1298 (1.4%)
Outside Europe 126/1289 (9.8%) 126/1298 (9.7%)
Highest education
Shorter than 9 years 7/1221 (0.6%) 10/1242 (0.8%)
At least 9 years primary school 47/1221 (3.8%) 47/1242 (3.8%)
High school 9 to 12 years 378/1221 (31.0%) 405/1242 (32.6%)
University or corresponding 789/1221 (64.6%) 780/1242 (62.8%)
Employment status
Employed 1098/1296 (84.7%) 1105/1301 (84.9%)
Student 101/1296 (7.8%) 101/1301 (7.8%)
Maternity leave 47/1296 (3.6%) 52/1301 (4.0%)
Page 14 of 46
https://mc.manuscriptcentral.com/bmj
BMJ
123456789101112131415161718192021222324252627282930313233343536373839404142434445464748495051525354555657585960
Confidential: For Review Only
14
VariableInduction group
(n=1381)
Expectant management group
(n=1379)
Unemployed 17/1296 (1.3%) 18/1301 (1.4%)
Sick leave 15/1296 (1.2%) 9/1301 (0.7%)
Other 18/1296 (1.4%) 16/1301 (1.2%)
Cohabitation with partner 1215/1360 (89.3%) 1211/1353 (89.5%)
Living alone/One person household 19/1360 (1.4%) 21/1352 (1.6%)
Mode of conception
Assisted conception (IVF/ICSI) 67/1381 (4.9%) 53/1379 (3.8%)
Subfertility 160/1250 (12.8%) 146/1199 (12.2%)
BMI=body mass index, IVF= in vitro fertilization, ICSI=intracytoplasmic sperm injectionFor categorical variables n/N (%) is presented.For continuous variables Mean (standard deviation [SD]) / Median (interquartile range [IQR] Q1; Q3) / n= is presented.
*alcohol screening by AUDIT tool according to antenatal care routines20
336
337
338 Compared with the Swedish background population, women in the study groups had a higher
339 level of education and were more often born in Sweden (Appendix, Supplementary Table B).
340 In the induction group, 14.1% (195/1381) of the women had spontaneous onset of labour,
341 85.5% (1181/1381) underwent induction, of whom 76.6% (905/1181) had cervical ripening,
342 and 0.4% (5/1381) had a scheduled caesarean delivery (Table 2).
343
Page 15 of 46
https://mc.manuscriptcentral.com/bmj
BMJ
123456789101112131415161718192021222324252627282930313233343536373839404142434445464748495051525354555657585960
Confidential: For Review Only
15
344 Table 2 Delivery outcomes in intention to treat population
Variable Induction group(n=1381)
Expectant management
group(n=1379)
Relative Risk(95% CI) P value
Difference between groupsMean (95% CI)
Gestational age at delivery (days) 288.8 (1.3)289
(288; 289)n=1381
291.7 (2.7)292
(289; 294)n=1379
<0.001 -2.91 (-3.07 to -2.76)
Time from randomisation to delivery (days)
1.76 (1.42)2
(1; 2)n=1381
4.66 (2.64)4
(2; 7)n=1379
<0.001 -2.91 (-3.06 to -2.75)
Time from admittance to labour ward to delivery (hours)
20.1 (14.8)16.2
(9.2; 27.9)n=1380
13.6 (12.2)10.4
(4.6; 19.0)n=1378
<0.001 6.49 (5.50 to 7.50)
Onset of birth process Spontaneous 195/1381 (14.1%) 920/1379 (66.7%)
Scheduled caesarean delivery 5/1381 (0.4%) 2/1379 (0.1%)
Induction 1181/1381 (85.5%)
457/1379 (33.1%)
Mode of inductionCervical ripening 905/1181 (76.6%) 340/457 (74.4%)
Amniotomy without oxytocin 130/1181 (11.0%) 45/457 (9.8%)
Amniotomy with oxytocin 146/1181 (12.4%) 72/457 (15.8%) 0.18
Cervical ripeningFirst method mechanical 343/905 (37.9%) 126/340 (37.1%) 0.99 (0.90 to
1.09)
First method pharmacological 562/905 (62.1%) 214/340 (62.9%) 0.99 (0.90 to 1.09)
0.84
Indication for inductionRandomisation to 41 weeks and induction according to protocol
1146/1181 (97.0%)
0/457 (0.0%)
Randomisation to 42 weeks and induction according to protocol
0/1181 (0.0%) 373/457 (81.6%)
Maternal condition 1/1181 (0.1%) 41/457 (9.0%)
Fetal condition 0/1181 (0.0%) 18/457 (3.9%)
Maternal request* 7/1181 (0.6%) 23/457 (5.0%)
Other† 28/1181 (2.4%) 5/457 (1.1%)
Labour Duration of labour 7.13 (5.39)
5.67(2.85; 10.28)
n=717
8.32 (5.94)6.86
(3.76; 11.45)n=880
<0.001 -1.19 (-1.76 to -0.64)
Use of epidural anaesthesia 729/1381 (52.8%) 669/1379 (48.5%) 1.09 (1.01 to 1.17)
0.027
Page 16 of 46
https://mc.manuscriptcentral.com/bmj
BMJ
123456789101112131415161718192021222324252627282930313233343536373839404142434445464748495051525354555657585960
Confidential: For Review Only
16
Variable Induction group(n=1381)
Expectant management
group(n=1379)
Relative Risk(95% CI) P value
Difference between groupsMean (95% CI)
Meconium stained amniotic fluid 233/1238 (18.8%) 320/1127 (28.4%) 0.66 (0.57 to 0.77)
<0.001
Mode of delivery Non-instrumental vaginal delivery 1150/1381
(83.3%)1140/1379 (82.7%) 1.01 (0.97 to
1.04)0.71
Caesarean delivery 143/1381 (10.4%) 148/1379 (10.7%) 0.96 (0.78 to 1.20)
0.79
Assisted vaginal delivery 88/1381 (6.4%) 91/1379 (6.6%) 0.97 (0.73 to 1.28)
0.87
Emergency caesarean delivery 138/143 (96.5%) 146/148 (98.6%) 0.98 (0.94 to 1.01)
0.42
Indication emergency caesarean delivery
Failed induction‡ 8/138 (5.8%) 7/146 (4.8%)
Failure to progress at first stage 60/138 (43.5%) 53/146 (36.3%)
Fetal distress at first stage 35/138 (25.4%) 28/146 (19.2%)
Failure to progress and fetal distress at first stage
6/138 (4.3%) 7/146 (4.8%)
Other indication at first stage 5/138 (3.6%) 5/146 (3.4%)
Failure to progress at second stage 11/138 (8.0%) 23/146 (15.8%)
Fetal distress at second stage 6/138 (4.3%) 8/146 (5.5%)
Failure to progress and fetal distress at second stage
0/138 (0.0%) 3/146 (2.1%)
Failure operative vaginal delivery 7/138 (5.1%) 12/146 (8.2%) 0.27
Indication assisted vaginal deliveryFailure to progress 37/88 (42.0%) 28/91 (30.8%)
Fetal distress 33/88 (37.5%) 34/91 (37.4%)
Failure to progress and fetal distress
5/88 (5.7%) 7/91 (7.7%)
Maternal distress 13/88 (14.8%) 21/91 (23.1%)
Other 0/88 (0.0%) 1/91 (1.1%) 0.35
Duration of hospital stay from delivery to discharge (hours)
46.3 (27.0)43.6
(25.3; 61.6)n=1333
47.1 (29.7)44.8
(25.8; 61.2)n=1333
0.46 -0.82 (-2.99 to 1.32)
Breast feeding at discharge from delivery hospital
987/1019 (96.9%) 981/1014 (96.7%) 1.00 (0.99 to 1.02)
0.98
Breastfeeding 4 weeks after delivery 835/923 (90.5%) 824/939 (87.8%) 1.03 (1.00 to 1.06)
0.071
Page 17 of 46
https://mc.manuscriptcentral.com/bmj
BMJ
123456789101112131415161718192021222324252627282930313233343536373839404142434445464748495051525354555657585960
Confidential: For Review Only
17
Variable Induction group(n=1381)
Expectant management
group(n=1379)
Relative Risk(95% CI) P value
Difference between groupsMean (95% CI)
CI= confidence intervalFor categorical variables n/N (%) is presented.For continuous variables Mean (standard deviation [SD]) / Median interquartile range [IQR] Q1; Q3) / n= is presented.For comparison between groups Fisher´s Exact test (lowest 1-sided p-value multiplied by 2) was used for dichotomous variables Fisher´s Exact test (2-sided) was used for dichotomous variables and Fisher´s Non-Parametric Permutation test was used for continuous variables.*maternal request outside study protocol e.g. women in the early induction group were induced on request after 41+1 weeks and women in the expectant management group were induced on request before 42+0 weeks†induction outside study protocol due to administrative errors or lack of capacity on labour ward‡ caesarean section performed when active labour was not reached despite different methods for induction of labour being used, usually for at least 48 hours
345 In the expectant management group, 66.7% (920/1379) of the women had spontaneous onset
346 of labour, 33.1% (457/1379) were induced, of whom 74.4% (340/457) had cervical ripening,
347 and 0.1% (2/1379) had a scheduled caesarean delivery. In 3.5% (48/1381) of women in the
348 induction group and in 2.0% (28/1379) of women in the expectant management group the
349 management was not consistent with the assigned strategy (Figure 1).
350 Median (IQR) time from randomisation to delivery was 2 (1; 2) days in the induction group
351 and 4 (2; 7) days in the expectant management group (p<0.001) (Table 2, Figure 2). Median
352 (IQR) gestational age at delivery was 289 (288; 289) days in the induction group and 292
353 (289; 294) days in the expectant management group (p<0.001).
354
355
356
357 Primary outcome
358 The primary outcome occurred in the induction group in 2.4% (33/1381) and in the expectant
359 management group in 2.2% (31/1379) (RR 1.06; 95% CI 0.65 to 1.73; p=0.90) (Table 3).
360
361
Page 18 of 46
https://mc.manuscriptcentral.com/bmj
BMJ
123456789101112131415161718192021222324252627282930313233343536373839404142434445464748495051525354555657585960
Confidential: For Review Only
18
362 Table 3 Perinatal outcome in intention to treat groups
VariableInduction
group(n=1381)
Expectant management
group(n=1379)
Relative Risk(95% CI) P value
Difference between groupsMean (95% CI)
Primary composite outcome 33/1381 (2.4%) 31/1379 (2.2%) 1.06 (0.65 to 1.73)
0.90
Sub-components of the primary composite outcomePerinatal/neonatal mortality (stillbirth + neonatal mortality)
0/1381 (0.0%) 6/1379 (0.4%) 0.031
Stillbirth 0/1381 (0.0%) 5/1379 (0.4%) 0.062
Neonatal mortality (Live births with death day 0-27)
0/1381 (0.0%) 1/1378 (0.1%) 1.00
Neonatal morbidity 33/1381 (2.4%) 26/1374 (1.9%) 1.27 (0.76 to 2.11)
0.43
Sub-components of neonatal morbidityApgar score <7 at 5 minutes* 18/1381 (1.3%) 16/1374 (1.2%) 1.12 (0.57 to
2.19)0.88
Metabolic acidosis (denominator based on validated umbilical cord blood samples at birth)†
14/661 (2.1%) 10/644 (1.6%) 1.36 (0.61 to 3.05)
0.58
Hypoxic ischaemic encephalopathy (HIE) I-III
2/1381 (0.1%) 3/1374 (0.2%) 0.66 (0.11 to 3.96)
1.00
Intracranial haemorrhage 1/1381 (0.1%) 2/1374 (0.1%) 0.50 (0.05 to 5.48)
1.00
Neonatal convulsions 1/1381 (0.1%) 3/1374 (0.2%) 0.33 (0.03 to 3.18)
0.62
Meconium aspiration syndrome (MAS)
2/1381 (0.1%) 3/1374 (0.2%) 0.66 (0.11 to 3.96)
1.00
Mechanical ventilation within first 72 hours
3/1381 (0.2%) 5/1374 (0.4%) 0.60 (0.14 to 2.49)
0.72
Obstetric brachial plexus injury 4/1381 (0.3%) 1/1374 (0.1%) 3.98 (0.45 to 35.56)
0.38
Additional secondary neonatal outcome variablesAdmittance to neonatal intensive care units (NICU)
55/1381 (4.0%) 82/1374 (6.0%) 0.67 (0.48 to 0.93)
0.021
Apgar score <4 at 5 minutes* 3/1381 (0.2%) 1/1374 (0.1%) 2.98 (0.31 to 28.66)
0.63
Therapeutic hypothermia 1/1381 (0.1%) 2/1374 (0.1%) 0.50 (0.05 to 5.48)
1.00
Macrosomia (>= 4500 g) 68/1381 (4.9%) 114/1379 (8.3%)
0.60 (0.45 to 0.80)
0.001
Page 19 of 46
https://mc.manuscriptcentral.com/bmj
BMJ
123456789101112131415161718192021222324252627282930313233343536373839404142434445464748495051525354555657585960
Confidential: For Review Only
19
VariableInduction
group(n=1381)
Expectant management
group(n=1379)
Relative Risk(95% CI) P value
Difference between groupsMean (95% CI)
Birthweight (g) 3815 (409)3804
(3536; 4090)n=1381
3875 (436)3865
(3570; 4160)n=1379
0.001 -60.1 (-91.8 to -29.6)
Neonatal jaundice requiring phototherapy or exchange transfusion
16/1381 (1.2%) 32/1374 (2.3%) 0.50 (0.27 to 0.90)
0.027
Pneumonia 8/1381 (0.6%) 13/1374 (0.9%) 0.61 (0.25 to 1.47)
0.38
Sepsis 9/1381 (0.7%) 20/1374 (1.5%) 0.45 (0.20 to 0.98)
0.058
Exploratory neonatal outcome variablesDays at neonatal intensive care units (NICU)
3.38 (2.97)2
(1; 6)n=55
4.59 (5.64)3 (0; 31)
(1; 6)n=81‡
0.15 -1.21 (-2.78 to 0.20)
Admittance to neonatal intensive care units (NICU) >4 days
34/55 (61.8%) 45/81 (55.6%) 1.11 (0.84 to 1.48)
0.58
Hypoglycaemia§ 22/1381 (1.6%) 20/1374 (1.5%) 1.09 (0.60 to 2.00)
0.89
Birth trauma¶ 0/1381 (0.0%) 1/1374 (0.1%) 1.00
Small for gestational age (SGA)** 9/1381 (0.7%) 22/1379 (1.6%) 0.41 (0.19 to 0.88)
0.028
Large for gestational age (LGA)** 21/1381 (1.5%) 26/1379 (1.9%) 0.81 (0.46 to 1.43)
0.55
Any major birth defect†† 14/1381 (1.0%) 17/1379 (1.2%) 0.82 (0.41 to 1.66)
0.72
Female 600/1381 (43.4%)
623/1379 (45.2%)
0.96 (0.88 to 1.05)
0.38
CI=confidence intervalFor categorical variables n/N (%) is presented.For continuous variables Mean (standard deviation [SD]) / Median interquartile range [IQR] Q1; Q3) / n= is presentedFor comparison between groups Fisher´s Exact test (lowest 1-sided p-value multiplied by 2) was used for dichotomous variables Fisher´s Exact test (2-sided) was used for dichotomous variables and Fisher´s Non-Parametric Permutation test was used for continuous variables *Apgar score of live births†validated umbilical cord samples defined as values of arterial pH <venous pH and velues of arterial pCO2 >venous pCO2‡one infant with only home based neonatal care§hypoglycaemia defined as P-glucose concentration < 2,6 mmol/L after 3 hours¶defined as any of long bone fracture, clavicular fracture, skull fracture, other neurological injury, retinal haemorrhage, facial nerve palsy**SGA and LGA defined as <-2 SD and >2 SD, respectively, according to the Swedish sex specific reference17
††minor birth defects according to EUROCAT definition excluded21
363
364 There were no cases of stillbirth or neonatal mortality (0-27 days) in the induction group
365 (mortality rate 0.0%), whereas there were five stillbirths and one neonatal death (mortality
Page 20 of 46
https://mc.manuscriptcentral.com/bmj
BMJ
123456789101112131415161718192021222324252627282930313233343536373839404142434445464748495051525354555657585960
Confidential: For Review Only
20
366 rate 0.4%) in the expectant management group (p=0.031) occurring between 41+2 weeks and
367 41+6 weeks. One stillbirth occurred at the labour ward close after admittance. The
368 postmortem examination showed a cardiovascular malformation which according to
369 specialists in paediatric cardiology could not be considered as lethal. There were no
370 explanations to the stillbirths in the other four cases. One stillborn neonate was small for
371 gestational age, the other stillborns had birthweights within normal range. The neonatal death
372 occurred due to HIE in a neonate being large for gestational age.
373 A low Apgar score (<7 at 5 minutes) was the main contributor to the primary outcome: 1.3%
374 (18/1381) in the induction group compared with 1.2% (16/1374) in the expectant management
375 group (RR 1.12; 95% CI 0.57 to 2.19; p=0.88).
376 The post-hoc sensitivity analysis for the primary outcome with adjustment for the
377 minimisation variables centre and parity showed similar results (RR 1.05; 95% CI 0.65 to
378 1.59; p=0.85).
379 Secondary neonatal outcomes
380 Secondary neonatal outcomes are shown in Table 3. An Apgar score <4 at 5 minutes occurred
381 in 0.2% (3/1381) in the induction group and in 0.1% (1/1374) in the expectant management
382 group (RR 2.98; 95% CI 0.31 to 28.66; p=0.58). Fewer newborns in the early induction group
383 were admitted to NICU; 4.0% (55/1381) in the early group versus 6.0% (82/1374) in the
384 expectant management group (RR 0.67; 95% CI 0.48 to 0.93; p=0.021). If neonates with a
385 major birth defect (n=10) were excluded (antenatally detected major birth defect was an
386 exclusion criterion at study entry) there was no significant difference in admittance to NICU.
387 Fewer neonates in the induction group had hyperbilirubinemia treated with phototherapy or
388 exchange transfusion; 1.2% (16/1381) in the early group versus 2.3% (32 (1374) in the
389 expectant management group (RR 0.50; 95% CI 0.27 to 0.90; p=0.027). Macrosomia were
390 lower in the induction group than in the expectant management group (4.9% [68/1381] versus
391 8.3% [114/1379], RR 0.60; 95% CI 0.45 to 0.80; p<0.001). Other secondary outcomes did not
392 differ.
393 Maternal outcomes
394 Secondary maternal outcomes are presented in Table 2 and 4. Use of epidural anaesthesia was
395 higher in the induction compared with the expectant management group (52.8% [729/1381]
396 versus 48.5% [669/1379] (RR 1.09; 95% CI 1.01 to 1.17; p=0.027). Median (IQR) duration of
Page 21 of 46
https://mc.manuscriptcentral.com/bmj
BMJ
123456789101112131415161718192021222324252627282930313233343536373839404142434445464748495051525354555657585960
Confidential: For Review Only
21
397 labour was shorter 5.7 hours (2.9; 10.3) in the induction group compared with 6.9 hours (3.8;
398 11.5) in the expectant management group, respectively (p<0.001). Mode of delivery was
399 similar in both groups with rate of caesarean delivery of 10.4% (143/1381) in the induction
400 group and 10.7% (148/1379) in the expectant management group (RR 0.96; 95% CI 0.78 to
401 1.20); p=0.79). Indications for caesarean delivery did not differ between the groups.
402 Endometritis occurred in 1.3% (18/1381) and 0.4% (6/1379) in the induction and expectant
403 management groups (RR 3.0; 95% CI 1.19 to 7.52); p=0.022), respectively. Other secondary
404 adverse maternal outcomes including postpartum haemorrhage and perineal lacerations grade
405 III and IV were similar in both groups (Table 4).
406 Hypertensive disorders of pregnancy after randomisation (exploratory outcome) was lower in
407 the induction group compared with the expectant management group (1.4% [19/1381] versus
408 3.0% [42/1379], RR 0.45; 95% CI 0.26 to 0.77; p=0.004).
409
Page 22 of 46
https://mc.manuscriptcentral.com/bmj
BMJ
123456789101112131415161718192021222324252627282930313233343536373839404142434445464748495051525354555657585960
Confidential: For Review Only
22
410 Table 4 Maternal adverse outcomes in intention to treat population
Variable Induction group(n=1381)
Expectant management
group(n=1379)
Relative Risk(95% CI)
P value
Secondary maternal outcomesChorioamnionitis 2/1381 (0.1%) 6/1379 (0.4%) 0.33 (0.07 to 1.65) 0.29
Shoulder dystocia 6/1381 (0.4%) 4/1379 (0.3%) 1.50 (0.42 to 5.30) 0.76
Perineal lacerations III-IV 40/1381 (2.9%) 50/1379 (3.6%) 0.80 (0.53 to 1.20) 0.33
Postpartum haemorrhage (>1000 ml) 140/1381 (10.1%) 146/1379 (10.6%) 0.96 (0.77 to 1.19) 0.75
Wound infection 4/1381 (0.3%) 3/1379 (0.2%) 1.33 (0.30 to 5.94) 1.00
Urinary tract infection including pyelonephritis
5/1381 (0.4%) 7/1379 (0.5%) 0.71 (0.23 to 2.24) 0.77
Endometritis 18/1381 (1.3%) 6/1379 (0.4%) 3.00 (1.19 to 7.52) 0.022
Sepsis 0/1381 (0.0%) 0/1379 (0.0%) 1.00
Exploratory maternal outcomesPreeclampsia/gestational hypertension/eclampsia
19/1381 (1.4%) 42/1379 (3.0%) 0.45 (0.26 to 0.77) 0.004
Uterine rupture 0/1381 (0.0%) 0/1379 (0.0%) 1.00
Cervical laceration 5/1381 (0.4%) 8/1379 (0.6%) 0.62 (0.20 to 1.90) 0.58
Venous thromboembolism 0/1381 (0.0%) 1/1379 (0.1%) 1.00
Maternal admission to intensive care unit
2/1381 (0.1%) 0/1379 (0.0%) 0.50
Maternal death 0/1381 (0.0%) 0/1379 (0.0%) 1.00CI= confidence intervalFor categorical variables n/N (%) is presented.For continuous variables Mean (standard deviation [SD]) / Median interquartile range [IQR] Q1; Q3) / n= is presented.For comparison between groups Fisher´s Exact test (lowest 1-sided p-value multiplied by 2) was used for dichotomous variables Fisher´s Exact test (2-sided) was used for dichotomous variables and Fisher´s Non-Parametric Permutation test was used for continuous variables.
411
412
413 Per protocol analysis
414 The prespecified analysis of the per protocol population included 1333 women in the
415 induction group and 1351 women in the expectant management group. Reasons for protocol
416 violation are shown in Figure 1. Baseline characteristics were similar between the groups
417 (Appendix, Supplementary Table C). The primary perinatal adverse outcome occurred in 31
418 cases in the induction group and in 31 cases in the expectant management group (RR 1.01;
419 95% CI 0.62 to 1.66; p=1.0) (Appendix, Supplementary Table E). There were no cases of
420 stillbirth or neonatal mortality (0-27 days) in the induction group (mortality rate 0.0%),
421 whereas there were five stillbirths and one neonatal death (mortality rate 0.4%) in the
422 expectant management group (p=0.032).
Page 23 of 46
https://mc.manuscriptcentral.com/bmj
BMJ
123456789101112131415161718192021222324252627282930313233343536373839404142434445464748495051525354555657585960
Confidential: For Review Only
23
423 Secondary neonatal and maternal outcomes are shown in Appendix, Supplementary Table D
424 to F.
425 Subgroup analyses
426 Prespecified subgroup analyses on the primary outcome and selected secondary outcomes
427 according to parity (parity 1 versus parity>1), maternal age (<35 years versus ≥35 years) and
428 BMI (BMI <30 versus BMI ≥30) were performed on the ITT population. In the ITT
429 population, analyses of primary outcome showed no significant difference in the treatment
430 effect according to parity, age or BMI (p=0.29, p=0.70, p=0.51, respectively, for the
431 interaction). In total, there were five stillbirths and one early neonatal death, and all of them
432 occurred in the expectant management group; in nulliparous 0.8% (6/753) versus in parous
433 women 0% (0/626), in women ≥35 years 1.1% (3/279) versus in women <35 years 0.3%
434 (3/1100) and in women with BMI ≥30 1.1% (2/184) versus in women with BMI <30 0.4%
435 (4/1081). Due to the low mortality rate (n=6) no interaction analysis on mortality could be
436 performed. Among nulliparous women, rate of caesarean delivery was 16.7% (127/762) in the
437 induction and 17.3% (130/753) in the expectant management group (p=0.81).
438 When testing if the effect of induction versus expectant management was similar across
439 centres (Stockholm centres versus other centres i.e. offering a routine ultrasound scan at 41+0
440 weeks or not) no significant interaction effect was found for the primary outcome (p=0.19) in
441 the ITT population. Perinatal mortality in the expectant management group was 0.0% (0/557)
442 in Stockholm versus 0.7% (6/822) in the other centres.
443
444
Page 24 of 46
https://mc.manuscriptcentral.com/bmj
BMJ
123456789101112131415161718192021222324252627282930313233343536373839404142434445464748495051525354555657585960
Confidential: For Review Only
24
445 Discussion
446 In this large randomised trial, comparing induction of labour at 41 weeks versus expectant
447 management until induction at 42 weeks, we found no significant difference in the primary
448 composite adverse perinatal outcome, 33/1381 (2.4%) and 31/1379 (2.2%) in the induction
449 and expectant management groups, respectively (RR 1.06; 95% CI 0.65 to 1.73, p=0.90). Yet,
450 the perinatal mortality was significantly lower in the induction group (no deaths) compared
451 with the expectant management group (five intrauterine deaths, one neonatal death)
452 (p=0.031). Furthermore, there was lower admittance to NICU, fewer infants with neonatal
453 jaundice requiring therapy and fewer macrosomic infants in the induction group. This study
454 found no significant difference in caesarean delivery rates between groups.
455 Comparison with previous studies
456 Postterm (≥42 weeks) pregnancy is associated with an increased risk of adverse perinatal
457 morbidity and mortality.3-5 In fact, the risk appears to increase gradually after 39 weeks.3,4,13
458 Results from most meta-analyses indicate that a policy of induction before 42 full weeks is
459 associated with decreased perinatal mortality.9, 22-24
460 All perinatal deaths occurred in nulliparous women. Nulliparity is not always recognised as a
461 factor conferring increased risk of perinatal mortality,2,25,26 but our results agree with a
462 Swedish register study where stillbirths were significantly more common in nulliparous than
463 in multiparous women and the rise in neonatal mortality was seen at 41+ weeks in nulliparous
464 but not until 42 weeks of gestation in multiparous womens3. If this finding can be replicated
465 in future studies, it could mean that nulliparous women may require particular attention and
466 interventions such as labour induction could be particularly important in this group.
467 The benefit of early induction is supported by a recently published open label multicentre
468 randomised trial (INDEX trial) from the Netherlands including 1801 women, in which
469 induction at 41 weeks was associated with a lower composite adverse perinatal outcome
470 (1.7%) compared with expectant management until 42 weeks (3.1%) (p=0.045).12 However,
471 the perinatal mortality rate did not differ significantly between the groups with one death in
472 the 41 weeks group and two in the 42 weeks group.
473 It could be argued that the higher mortality in the expectant management group in our study is
474 partly due to that fetal surveillance with CTG/ultrasound between 41 weeks and 42 weeks was
475 not pursued routinely unless clinical signs of complications occurred. Yet, the adverse
476 perinatal outcomes in general were not higher in the expectant management group in the
Page 25 of 46
https://mc.manuscriptcentral.com/bmj
BMJ
123456789101112131415161718192021222324252627282930313233343536373839404142434445464748495051525354555657585960
Confidential: For Review Only
25
477 SWEPIS compared with the INDEX trial and the median gestational age at delivery was
478 higher in the expectant management group in our trial (292 days) than in the INDEX trial
479 (289 days) which could augment mortality rates. No perinatal deaths occurred among women
480 recruited in the Stockholm region, where all women are offered a routine ultrasound at week
481 41+0 (before randomisation), aiming to identify women with an elevated risk for adverse
482 outcome. However, the rarity of perinatal death limits the power of a subanalysis by centre.
483 Further, two of the five HIE cases occurred in Stockholm and the composite neonatal
484 morbidity was similar in Stockholm (24/1122=2.1%) and in the other centres (34/1632=2.1%)
485 which does not support that the 41-week ultrasound was critical. It is also uncertain to what
486 extent ultrasound or CTG recordings usually performed at two or three day intervals can
487 prevent intrauterine or neonatal deaths7,26,27 and the evidence supporting that fetal monitoring
488 prevents complications of post-maturity is considered weak.7
489 The occurrence of endometritis was significantly higher in the 41 weeks’ group than in the
490 expectant management group which was unexpected but might well be a chance finding.
491 Recent studies indicate that the infectious morbidity is not higher for mechanical than
492 pharmacological methods for cervical dilation28 and the occurrence of endometritis is similar
493 or lower in our trial than reported in most studies on labour induction.28–30 Furthermore, the
494 frequency of other maternal (chorioamnionitis, wound infections, urinary tract infections) and
495 neonatal (sepsis, pneumonia) infections was not higher in the induction group.
496 Strengths and weaknesses of the trial
497 Strengths of the present study is that it concerns a large national multicentre randomised
498 controlled trial comparing induction at 41 weeks with expectant management until induction
499 at 42 weeks, the latter being standard of care in Sweden at present. Despite the fact that only a
500 minority of eligible women were informed or accepted participation (Figure 1), the study
501 population was representative of a Swedish low risk population according to most baseline
502 characteristics (Appendix, Supplementary Table B). Another strength is that the study
503 participants were managed at the same level of care and methods of induction were applied
504 irrespective of allocation arm, which was not always the case in previous randomised trials on
505 postterm pregnancies.12, 31
506 There were some limitations of the present trial. It could appear contradictory that a
507 significant difference was found between groups in perinatal mortality but yet no difference in
508 the composite adverse neonatal outcome. However, 5/6 deaths were stillbirths in the SWEPIS
Page 26 of 46
https://mc.manuscriptcentral.com/bmj
BMJ
123456789101112131415161718192021222324252627282930313233343536373839404142434445464748495051525354555657585960
Confidential: For Review Only
26
509 trial, which have a quite different aetiology and array of risk factors32 as compared with
510 neonatal mortality/morbidity.33 Placental abnormality/dysfunction, umbilical cord
511 complications, and growth restriction are considered causes of stillbirth2,32 that could well be
512 of increasing importance in late term/postterm pregnancy.
513 Another problem is that the composite primary outcome was defined maybe somewhat
514 broadly predominated by Apgar <7 at 5 minutes which according to recent data may be a
515 relatively weak predictor of more serious outcomes such as neurological morbidity and
516 mortality and Apgar <4 at 5 minutes is probably preferable34. On the other hand, the
517 advantage of composite outcomes is that the number of cases in each arm can be reduced and
518 execution of the study becomes more realistic.
519 Pregnant women were not involved in the design of the SWEPIS trial which is a limitation35
520 even though our firm impression is that management of late term and post term pregnancies is
521 a prioritised field of research for many women. However, we are addressing pregnant
522 women’s experiences in the 41 and 42 week groups in a separate survey which will be
523 published eventually.
524 The fact that half of the women (those recruited in the Stockholm region) underwent
525 ultrasound measurement of amniotic fluid volume and abdominal diameter at 41 weeks
526 whereas such examinations were not performed systematically at the other centres might be
527 regarded both as a limitation and a strength. It is difficult to determine whether outcomes
528 were affected by this difference in policy (see above) while such a management increases
529 generalisability and reflects current obstetric practice in Sweden.36
530 It is not clear whether the results are broadly generalisable. However, the study included
531 university, regional and local hospitals and women from 17 countries were eligible for
532 inclusion. Different methods for labour induction, according to local routines, were allowed
533 and one large region used an extra ultrasound scan in gestational week 41 before inclusion.
534 All these strategies contribute to increase in generalisability of the results.
535 Although many significance tests were performed, also for secondary and exploratory
536 outcomes, we have not corrected for multiple comparisons due to the risk of not finding
537 differences of high clinical importance for the patients. We instead leave it to the reader to
538 judge the relevance of these findings.
539
Page 27 of 46
https://mc.manuscriptcentral.com/bmj
BMJ
123456789101112131415161718192021222324252627282930313233343536373839404142434445464748495051525354555657585960
Confidential: For Review Only
27
540 Implications for clinicians and policy makers
541 In conclusion, the SWEPIS trial shows that induction of labour at 41 weeks versus expectant
542 management until 42 weeks does not alter the composite perinatal outcome, the primary
543 outcome of this study. However, a reduction of the secondary outcome perinatal mortality is
544 observed without increasing adverse maternal outcome. The number needed to treat with
545 induction of labour at 41 weeks to prevent one perinatal death was 250 which is lower than
546 previous estimates.9, 22, 23. Although these results should be interpreted cautiously, we suggest,
547 based on previous reports and the results of the present trial, that labour induction should be
548 offered women at 41+0 weeks12 or earlier11, 37 and could be one (of few) interventions that
549 reduces stillbirth.
550
551
552 Contributors: UBW and SS are joint first authors and contributed equally to the study.
553 UBW, HH, VS and HE conceived and designed the study. UBW, HH, AW, SS, AKW, MJ,
554 HF and JW oversaw recruitment of study participants and collection of data at the local
555 centres. UBW, HH, CB, HE, OS and SS wrote the Statistical Analysis Plan together with two
556 statisticians (Mattias Molin, Nils-Gunnar Pehrson, the Statistical Consulting Group,
557 Gothenburg). UBW and MA did the data cleaning together with statistician Mattias Molin and
558 Per Ekman. UBW, HH, CB, SS, MA, LL, VS, SBW, OS, GW, HE and AW interpreted the
559 data. UBW, MA, AW, SS and HH wrote the first draft of the manuscript, which was then
560 critically reviewed and revised by the other co-authors. All authors approved the final version
561 of the manuscript for submission.
562
563 The SWEPIS study group: The midwives and doctors responsible at the local centres:
564 Uppsala University Hospital: Irina Sylwe; South Älvsborg Hospital: Lena Loubelo, Carolina
565 Bergerum, Serney Bööj; Department of Gynecology Närhälsan, Mölndal: Maria Bullarbo;
566 Sahlgrenska University Hospital, Göteborg: PhD candidates Anna Wessberg and Helena
567 Nilver, Pia Hempel, Martina Söderlund, Erica Ginström Ernstad, Monica Eriksson Orrskog;
568 Stockholm: Karolinska University Hospital Huddinge and Solna, South Hospital, Danderyd
569 Hospital, South BB, Södertälje Hospital: Helen Fagraeus, Annelie Sjölund, Eva Itzel Wiberg;
570 Halland Hospital: Elisabeth Johansson, Sandra Holmström, Åsa Ponten, Maud Ankardal;
571 Örebro Hospital: Inger Nydahl, Sofia Saarväli, Camilla Hartin; Falun Hospital: Elisabeth
Page 28 of 46
https://mc.manuscriptcentral.com/bmj
BMJ
123456789101112131415161718192021222324252627282930313233343536373839404142434445464748495051525354555657585960
Confidential: For Review Only
28
572 Nordström, Kerstin Fransson, Visby Hospital: Madelen Jacobsson; North Älvsborg Hospital:
573 Maria Olsson, Anna Hagman.
574
575 Acknowledgements: Jonas Eriksson Söderling provided data from the Swedish Pregnancy
576 Register and performed the statistical analysis for the DSMB reports, Stellan Håkansson
577 provided data from the Swedish Neonatal Quality Register, Jesper Brodin provided data from
578 Statistics Sweden, Agneta Cedefors-Blom helped with secretarial assistance.
579 Mattias Molin and Per Ekman, the Statistical Consulting Group, Gothenburg, performed the
580 statistical analyses. Therese Svanberg at the Medical Library at Sahlgrenska University
581 Hospital performed the literature search.
582 We want to acknowledge the assistance given by the DSMB with Hans Wedel as chairman,
583 We also would like to thank all participating women.
584 Funding: The Swedish state under the agreement between the Swedish government and the
585 county councils, the ALF-agreement (ALFGBG-440301, ALFGBG-718721, ALFGBG-
586 70940, ALFGBG-426401), the Health Technology Centre (HTA) at Sahlgrenska University
587 Hospital, the Foundation of the Health and Medical care committee of the Region of Vastra
588 Gotaland, Sweden (VGFOUREG387351, VGFOUREG640891, VGFOUREG854081),
589 Hjalmar Svensson Foundation, the foundation Mary von Sydow, born Wijk, donation fund,
590 Uppsala-Örebro Regional Research Council (RFR-556711, RFR-736891), Region Örebro
591 County research Committee (OLL-715501), Region Stockholm ALF 561222, 562222,
592 563222, Center for Clinical Research Dalarna - Uppsala University, Sweden CKFUU –
593 417011.
594 The funders had no role in study design, data collection, data analysis, data interpretation, or
595 writing of the report.
596 Competing interest: All authors have completed the ICMJE uniform disclosure form
597 (available on request from the corresponding author) and declare: UBW, SS, AW, MA, CB,
598 SBW, HF, MJ, LL, VS, JW, GW, HE, OS, HH declare no competing interests. AKW has
599 received free reagents (PlGF) from Roche for a prediction study of preeclampsia.
Page 29 of 46
https://mc.manuscriptcentral.com/bmj
BMJ
123456789101112131415161718192021222324252627282930313233343536373839404142434445464748495051525354555657585960
Confidential: For Review Only
29
600 Ethical approval: The Regional Ethics Board in Gothenburg approved the study in May
601 2014 (Dnr: 285-14) and later its complementary applications (T 905-15, T 291-16, T 1180-16,
602 T 330-17, T 1066-17, T 087-18, T 347-18, T 961-18, T 1110-18).
603 Data sharing: The full data set is available from the corresponding author on reasonable
604 request.
605 Transparency: All authors had full access to all the data in the study and take responsibility
606 for the integrity of the data and the accuracy of the data analysis. The corresponding author
607 (UBW) affirms that this manuscript is an honest, accurate, and transparent account of the
608 study being reported; that no important aspects of the study have been omitted; and that any
609 discrepancies from the study as planned have been explained. The corresponding author
610 (UBW) had the final responsibility for the decision to submit for publication.
611
612
613
614
615
Page 30 of 46
https://mc.manuscriptcentral.com/bmj
BMJ
123456789101112131415161718192021222324252627282930313233343536373839404142434445464748495051525354555657585960
Confidential: For Review Only
30
616 References
617 1 Olesen AW, Westergaard JG, Olsen J. Perinatal and maternal complications
618 related to postterm delivery: a national register-based study, 1978-1993. Am J Obstet Gynecol
619 2003; 189 (1): 222-7.
620 2 Lawn JE, Blencowe H, Waiswa P, et al. Stillbirths: rates, risk factors, and
621 acceleration towards 2030. Lancet 2016; 387(10018): 587-603.
622 3 Ingemarsson I, Kallen K. Stillbirths and rate of neonatal deaths in 76,761
623 postterm pregnancies in Sweden, 1982-1991: a register study. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand
624 1997; 76 (7): 658-62.
625 4 Nakling J, Backe B. Pregnancy risk increases from 41 weeks of gestation. Acta
626 Obstet Gynecol Scand 2006; 85 (6): 663-8.
627 5 Smith GC. Life-table analysis of the risk of perinatal death at term and post term
628 in singleton pregnancies. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2001; 184 (3): 489-96.
629 6 WHO recommendations: induction of labour at or beyond term. (accessed June
630 9 2019). https://apps.who.int/iris/bitstream/handle/10665/277233/9789241550413-eng.pdf
631 7 Practice bulletin no. 146: Management of late-term and postterm pregnancies.
632 Obstet Gynecol 2014; 124 (2 Pt 1): 390-6.
633 8 Induction of labour: new NICE quality standard. Midwives 2014; 17 (3): 8.
634 9 Middleton P, Shepherd E, Crowther CA. Induction of labour for improving birth
635 outcomes for women at or beyond term. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2018; 5: Cd004945.
636 10 Elden H, Hagberg H, Wessberg A, et al. Study protocol of SWEPIS a Swedish
637 multicentre register based randomised controlled trial to compare induction of labour at 41
638 completed gestational weeks versus expectant management and induction at 42 completed
639 gestational weeks. BMC Pregnancy Childbirth 2016; 16: 49.
640 11 Grobman WA, Rice MM, Reddy UM, et al. Labor Induction versus Expectant
641 Management in Low-Risk Nulliparous Women. New Engl J Med 2018; 379 (6): 513-23.
642 12 Keulen JK, Bruinsma A, Kortekaas JC, et al. Induction of labour at 41 weeks
643 versus expectant management until 42 weeks (INDEX): multicentre, randomised non-
644 inferiority trial. BMJ 2019; 364: l344.
645 13 Muglu J, Rather H, Arroyo-Manzano D et al. Risks of stillbirth and neonatal
646 death with advancing gestation at term: A systematic review and meta-analysis of cohort
647 studies of 15 million pregnancies. PLoS Med. 2019 16:e1002838.
Page 31 of 46
https://mc.manuscriptcentral.com/bmj
BMJ
123456789101112131415161718192021222324252627282930313233343536373839404142434445464748495051525354555657585960
Confidential: For Review Only
31
648
649 14 Gelisen O, Caliskan E, Dilbaz S, et al..
650 Induction of labor with three different techniques at 41 weeks of gestation or
651 spontaneous follow-up until 42 weeks in women with definitely unfavorable
652 cervical scores. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol. 2005 Jun 1;120 (2):164-9
653 15 Bruinsma A, Keulen J, Bakker J, et al. Induction of labor at 41 weeks or
654 expectant managment until 42 weeks- preliminary results of the INDEX trial. Am J Obstet
655 Gynecol 2017; 216 (1 Suppl): S27-S28 (abstr no 40)
656 16 Stephansson O, Petersson K, Bjork C, Conner P, Wikstrom AK. The Swedish
657 Pregnancy Register - for quality of care improvement and research. Acta Obstet Gynecol
658 Scand 2018; 97 (4): 466-76.
659 17 Marsal K, Persson PH, Larsen T, Lilja H, Selbing A, Sultan B. Intrauterine
660 growth curves based on ultrasonically estimated foetal weights. Acta Paediatr 1996; 85 (7):
661 843-8.
662 18. Norman M, Kallen K, Wahlstrom E, Hakansson S. The Swedish Neonatal
663 Quality Register - contents, completeness and validity. Acta Paediatr 2019 Apr 21.
664 19. Ludvigsson JF, Otterblad-Olausson P, Pettersson BU, Ekbom A.The Swedish
665 personal identity number: possibilities and pitfalls in healthcare and medical research. Eur J
666 Epidemiol 2009 24(11): 659-667.
667
668 20 Goransson M, Magnusson A, Heilig M. Identifying hazardous alcohol
669 consumption during pregnancy: implementing a research-based model in real life. Acta Obstet
670 Gynecol Scand 2006; 85 (6): 657-62.
671 21 European Surveillance of Congenital Anomalies (European Concerted Action
672 on Congenital Anomalies and Twins (EUROCAT). Data collection. Guideline for
673 Registration. (accessed May 9, 2019). http://www.eurocat-network.eu/content/EUROCAT-
674 Guide-1.4-section-3.2.
675 22 Gulmezoglu AM, Crowther CA, Middleton P, Heatley E. Induction of labour for
676 improving birth outcomes for women at or beyond term. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2012;
677 (6): Cd004945.
Page 32 of 46
https://mc.manuscriptcentral.com/bmj
BMJ
123456789101112131415161718192021222324252627282930313233343536373839404142434445464748495051525354555657585960
Confidential: For Review Only
32
678 23 Hussain AA, Yakoob MY, Imdad A, Bhutta ZA. Elective induction for
679 pregnancies at or beyond 41 weeks of gestation and its impact on stillbirths: a systematic
680 review with meta-analysis. BMC public health 2011; 11 Suppl 3: S5.
681 24 Wennerholm UB, Hagberg H, Brorsson B, Bergh C. Induction of labor versus
682 expectant management for post-date pregnancy: is there sufficient evidence for a change in
683 clinical practice? Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand 2009; 88 (1): 6-17.
684 25 Lawn JE, Wilczynska-Ketende K, Cousens SN. Estimating the causes of 4
685 million neonatal deaths in the year 2000. Int J Epidemiol. 2006 Jun;35 (3):706-18.
686 26 Delaney M, Roggensack A. Guidelines for the management of pregnancy at
687 41+0 to 42+0 weeks. J Obstet Gynaecol Can : JOGC = Journal d'obstetrique et gynecologie
688 du Canada : JOGC 2008; 30 (9): 800-10.
689 27 Nabhan AF, Abdelmoula YA. Amniotic fluid index versus single deepest
690 vertical pocket as a screening test for preventing adverse pregnancy outcome. Cochrane
691 Database Syst Rev 2008; (3): Cd006593.
692 28 McMaster K, Sanchez-Ramos L, Kaunitz AM. Evaluation of a Transcervical
693 Foley Catheter as a Source of Infection: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis. Obstet
694 Gynecol 2015; 126 (3): 539-51.
695 29 Heinemann J, Gillen G, Sanchez-Ramos L, Kaunitz AM. Do mechanical
696 methods of cervical ripening increase infectious morbidity? A systematic review. Am J Obstet
697 Gynecol 2008; 199 (2): 177-87; discussion 87-8.
698 30 Gommers JSM, Diederen M, Wilkinson C, Turnbull D, Mol BWJ. Risk of
699 maternal, fetal and neonatal complications associated with the use of the transcervical balloon
700 catheter in induction of labour: A systematic review. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol
701 2017; 218: 73-84.
702 31 Hannah ME, Hannah WJ, Hellmann J, Hewson S, Milner R, Willan A.
703 Induction of labor as compared with serial antenatal monitoring in post-term pregnancy. A
704 randomized controlled trial. The Canadian Multicenter Post-term Pregnancy Trial Group. N
705 Engl J Med 1992; 326 (24): 1587-92.
706 32. Flenady V, Middleton P, Smith GC, et al. Stillbirths: the way forward in high-
707 income countries. Lancet 2011; 377 (9778): 1703-17.
Page 33 of 46
https://mc.manuscriptcentral.com/bmj
BMJ
123456789101112131415161718192021222324252627282930313233343536373839404142434445464748495051525354555657585960
Confidential: For Review Only
33
708 33 Blencowe H, Calvert Ph DC, Lawn JE, Cousens S, Campbell OM. Measuring
709 maternal, foetal and neonatal mortality: Challenges and solutions. Best pract & res Clin obstet
710 & gynaecol 2016; 36: 14-29.
711 34 Committee Opinion No. 644: The Apgar Score. Obstet Gynecol 2015; 126 (4):
712 e52-5.
713 35 Cheyne H, McCourt C, Semple K. Mother knows best: developing a consumer 714 led, evidence informed, research agenda for maternity care. Midwifery. 2013 Jun;29(6):705-715 12.
716
717 36. Grunewald C, Hakansson S, Saltvedt S, Kallen K. Significant effects on
718 neonatal morbidity and mortality after regional change in management of post-term
719 pregnancy. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand 2011; 90 (1): 26-32.
720 37 Walker KF, Bugg GJ, Macpherson M, McCormick C et al. Randomized Trial of
721 Labor Induction in Women 35 Years of Age or Older. N Engl J Med. 2016; 374 (9):813-22
722
723
724
Page 34 of 46
https://mc.manuscriptcentral.com/bmj
BMJ
123456789101112131415161718192021222324252627282930313233343536373839404142434445464748495051525354555657585960
Confidential: For Review Only
CONSORT 2010 Flow Diagram
Possible to assess for eligibility (n=19 079)
Excluded (n=6525) • Did not meet eligibility criteria (n=6018)
(Most of them had a planned induction of labour for maternal or fetal indication)
• Had spontaneous onset of labour at ≥41+0 weeks before randomisation (n=507)
Analysed according to intention to treat (n=1381) ♦ Excluded from analysis (n=0)
Lost to follow-up (n= 0)
Allocated to intervention and induction at 41 weeks (n=1383)
♦ Received allocated intervention (n=1333) ♦ Did not receive allocated intervention (n=48)
o Maternal request (n=13) o Administrative errors (n=19) o Lack of capacity on labour ward
(n=16) ♦ Withdrew consent before intervention (n=2)
Lost to follow-up (n=0)
Allocated to expectant management and induction at 42 weeks (n=1379)
♦ Received allocated intervention (n=1351) ♦ Did not receive allocated intervention (n=28)
o Maternal request (n=22) o Administrative errors (n=6)
Analysed according to intention to treat (n=1379) ♦ Excluded from analysis (n=0)
Allocation
Analysis
Follow-Up
Randomised (n=2762)
Enrollment
Eligible (n=12 554)
Declined (n=9792)
Page 35 of 46
https://mc.manuscriptcentral.com/bmj
BMJ
123456789101112131415161718192021222324252627282930313233343536373839404142434445464748495051525354555657585960
Confidential: For Review Only
Figure 2 Gestational age at delivery in intention to treat groups In the induction group n=1380 because one woman was incorrectly randomised before 40+6 weeks and
delivered before 40+6 weeks
Page 36 of 46
https://mc.manuscriptcentral.com/bmj
BMJ
123456789101112131415161718192021222324252627282930313233343536373839404142434445464748495051525354555657585960
Confidential: For Review Only
Supplementary Table A. Study period, number of possible eligible women, number of eligible women and number of included women at the participating centres
Study period* Number of possible eligible
women** during study
period
Number of eligible women during study period
Number of included women
Included women/number
of possible eligible women
Included women/number
of eligible women
Sahlgrenska University Hospital
May 20, 2016 to October 15 2018
4657 3020 776 16.7% 25.7%
UppsalaUniversity Hospital
February 2, 2017 to October 15, 2018
1531 1025 351 22.9% 34.2%
Falun Hospital
January 23, 2017 to October 15, 2018
874 565 119 13.6% 21.1%
South Älvsborg Hospital
April 6, 2017 to October 15, 2018
1038 665 158 15.2% 23.8%
Stockholm(Södertälje, Karolinska Solna, Karolinska Huddinge, Danderyd, South BB, South Hospital)
March 28, 2017 to October 15, 2018
8934 5960 1122 12.6% 18.8%
Örebro University Hospital
September 9, 2017 to October 15, 2018
650 416 65 10.0% 15.6%
Halland Hospital, Varberg
September 29, 2017 to October 15, 2018
585 372 78 13.3% 21.0%
Halland Hospital, Halmstad
September 25, 2017 to October 15, 2018
470 305 53 11.3% 17.4%
Visby Hospital
March 2, 2018 to October 15, 2018
61 39 30 49.2% 76.9%
North Älvsborg Hospital
June 13, 2018 to October 15, 2018
279 187 10 3.6% 5.3%
Total May 20, 2016 to October 15, 2018
19 079 12 554 2760 14.5% 22.0%
*Most centres stopped recruitment for a period during June, July and August**Deliveries ≥41+0 gestational weeks, only one delivery per woman, first delivery during the study period, singleton, women ≥18 years, cephalic presentation. Women with previous caesarean delivery were excluded.
Page 37 of 46
https://mc.manuscriptcentral.com/bmj
BMJ
123456789101112131415161718192021222324252627282930313233343536373839404142434445464748495051525354555657585960
Confidential: For Review Only
Supplementary Table B Baseline characteristics of Swedish background population*
Variable
Swedish background population(n=49 779)
Age at delivery (years) Mean (SD) 30.8 (4.9)
Median (IQR) 30.6 (27.3; 34.1)
Age at delivery >=35 years 10 149 (20.4%)
Parity (includes stillborn and live births)Nulliparous 25 607 (51.4%)
Smoking at first antenatal visitNo 42 689 (85.8%)
Missing 5496 (11.0%)
BMI at first antenatal visit Mean (SD) 25.1 (4.8)
Median (IQR) 24.1 (21.8; 27.4)
BMI>=30 at first antenatal visit 6562 (13.2%)
BMI missing 4300 (8.6%)
Region of birthSweden 33 384 (67.1%)
Other Nordic countries 424 (0.9%)
Europe outside Nordic countries 3542 (7.1%)
Outside Europe 8338 (16.8%)
Missing 4091 (8.2%)
Highest level of educationNone or shorter than 9 years 1276 (2.6%)
At least 9 years primary school 2352 (4.7%)
High school 9 to 12 years 15 512 (31.2%)
University or corresponding 23 256 (46.7%)
Missing 7383 (14.8%)
Mode of conception Assisted conception (IVF/ICSI) 1825 (3.7%)
Gestational age (days) Mean (SD) 291 (3)
Median (IQR) 290 (288; 293)
Gestational age >/=42+0 weeks 12 129 (24.4%)
Birth weight, g Mean (SD) 3815 (452)
Median (IQR) 3800 (3500; 4110)
Missing 194 (0.4%)
SGA 899 (1.8%)
LGA 971 (2.0%)
Stillbirth 60 (0.12%)
Perinatal mortality (stillbirth and early neonatal death [<7 days]) 70 (0.14%)
Page 38 of 46
https://mc.manuscriptcentral.com/bmj
BMJ
123456789101112131415161718192021222324252627282930313233343536373839404142434445464748495051525354555657585960
Confidential: For Review Only
Apgar score < 4 at 5 min 172 (0.3%)
Apgar score < 7 at 5 min 706 (1.4%)
Missing Apgar score 156 (0.3%)
Cesarean section 4162 (8.4%)
BMI= body mass index, SGA=small for gestational age (<-2 SD according to the sex specific Swedish reference12; LGA=large for gestational age (> 2 SD according to the sex specific Swedish reference12, IVF= in vitro fertilization, ICSI= intracytoplasmic sperm injectionFor categorical variables n/N (%) is presentedFor continuous variables Mean (standard deviation [SD])/ Median, (interquartile range [IQR] Q1; Q3) is presented*From the Swedish Pregnancy Register: Deliveries ≥ 41+0 gestational weeks in Sweden during the study period between May 15, 2016 and October 15, 2018 (only one delivery per woman, first delivery during the study period), singleton, women ≥18 years, cephalic presentation. Women with previous caesarean delivery were excluded.
Page 39 of 46
https://mc.manuscriptcentral.com/bmj
BMJ
123456789101112131415161718192021222324252627282930313233343536373839404142434445464748495051525354555657585960
Confidential: For Review Only
Supplementary Table C Baseline characteristics of per protocol population
Variable Induction group(n=1333)
Expectant management
group(n=1351)
Age at randomisation, years 31.3 (4.7)31.1 (28.; 34.6)
n=1333
31.0 (4.5)30.9 (27.9; 34.2)
n=1351
Age at randomisationAge at randomisation <35 years 1039/1333 (77.9%) 1079/1351 (79.9%)
Age at randomisation >=35 years 294/1333 (22.1%) 272/1351 (20.1%)
Parity (includes stillborn and live births)Nulliparous 729/1333 (54.7%) 742/1351 (54.9%)
Parous 604/1333 (45.3%) 609/1351 (45.1%)
Smoking at first antenatal visitNo 1199/1231 (97.4%) 1201/1239 (96.9%)
1-9 cig/day 25/1231 (2.0%) 29/1239 (2.3%)
10 or more cig/day 7/1231 (0.6%) 9/1239 (0.7%)
Alcohol screening (AUDIT) at first antenatal visit*
0-5 points (low risk) 1068/1157 (92.3%) 1084/1164 (93.1%)
> = 6 (risk behavior) 89/1157 (7.7%) 80/1164 (6.9%)
Medical history Psychiatric disease 89/957 (9.3%) 106/974 (10.9%)
Prepregnancy diabetes mellitus type 1 or 2 1/1317 (0.1%) 0/1327 (0.0%)
Endocrine disease 77/1314 (5.9%) 94/1327 (7.1%)
Chronic hypertension 1/1314 (0.1%) 1/1325 (0.1%)
Height (cm) at first antenatal visit 167.4 (6.2)167 (163; 172)
n=1236
167.6 (5.9)168 (163; 172)
n=1246
Weight (kg) at first antenatal visit 69.9 (14.3)67 (60.; 76)
n=1211
70.7 (14.4)68 (60.; 77)
n=1216
BMI at first antenatal visit 24.9 (4.7)23.8 (21.6; 27.1)
n=1234
25.1 (4.9)24 (21.7; 27.3)
n=1239
BMI at first antenatal visit <30 1084/1234 (87.8%) 1059/1239 (85.5%)
BMI at first antenatal visit >=30 150/1234 (12.2%) 180/1239 (14.5%)
Last recorded weight during pregnancy, kg 83.5 (14.4)82 (74.; 91)
n=1298
84.0 (14.6)82 (74.; 92)
n=1308
Region of birthSweden 1035/1246 (83.1%) 1047/1272 (82.3%)
Other Nordic countries 71/1246 (5.7%) 82/1272 (6.4%)
Europe outside Nordic countries 20/1246 (1.6%) 18/1272 (1.4%)
Outside Europe 120/1246 (9.6%) 125/1272 (9.8%)
Highest educationShorter than 9 years 7/1177 (0.6%) 10/1217 (0.8%)
At least 9 years primary school 46/1177 (3.9%) 45/1217 (3.7%)
Page 40 of 46
https://mc.manuscriptcentral.com/bmj
BMJ
123456789101112131415161718192021222324252627282930313233343536373839404142434445464748495051525354555657585960
Confidential: For Review Only
Variable Induction group(n=1333)
Expectant management
group(n=1351)
High school 9 to 12 years 365/1177 (31.0%) 395/1217 (32.5%)
University or corresponding 759/1177 (64.5%) 767/1217 (63.0%)
Employment statusEmployed 1063/1251 (85.0%) 1082/1276 (84.8%)
Student 97/1251 (7.8%) 99/1276 (7.8%)
Maternity leave 45/1251 (3.6%) 52/1276 (4.1%)
Unemployed 16/1251 (1.3%) 18/1276 (1.4%)
Sick leave 15/1251 (1.2%) 9/1276 (0.7%)
Other 15/1251 (1.2%) 16/1276 (1.3%)
Cohabitation with partner 1174/1312 (89.5%) 1184/1325 (89.4%)
Living alone/One person household 19/1312 (1.4%) 21/1324 (1.6%)
Mode of conception Assisted conception (IVF/ICSI) 62/1333 (4.7%) 53/1351 (3.9%)
Subfertility 151/1207 (12.5%) 143/1173 (12.2%)BMI=body mass index, IVF= in vitro fertilization, ICSI=intracytoplasmic sperm injectionFor categorical variables n/N (%) is presented.For continuous variables Mean (standard deviation [SD]) / Median (interquartile range [IQR] Q1; Q3) / n= is presented.
*alcohol screening by AUDIT tool according to antenatal care routines20
Page 41 of 46
https://mc.manuscriptcentral.com/bmj
BMJ
123456789101112131415161718192021222324252627282930313233343536373839404142434445464748495051525354555657585960
Confidential: For Review Only
Supplementary Table D Delivery outcomes in per protocol population
Variable Induction group(n=1333)
Expectant management
group(n=1351)
Relative Risk(95% CI) P value
Difference between groups
Mean (95% CI)
Gestational age at delivery (days) 288.7 (1.1)289
(288; 289)n=1333
291.7 (2.7)292
(289; 294)n=1351
<0.001 -3.03 (-3.19 to -2.88)
Time from randomisation to delivery (days)
1.63 (1.03)2
(1; 2)n=1333
4.67 (2.65)4
(2; 7)n=1351
<0.001 -3.04 (-3.19 to -2.89)
Time from admittance to labour ward to delivery (hours)
20.1 (14.9)16.1
(9.2; 27.8)n=1332
13.6 (12.2)10.4
(4.6; 18.9)n=1350
<0.001 6.57 (5.53 to 7.59)
Onset of birth process Spontaneous 182/1333 (13.7%) 917/1351 (67.9%)
Scheduled caesarean delivery 5/1333 (0.4%) 2/1351 (0.1%)
Induction 1146/1333 (86.0%) 432/1351 (32.0%)
Mode of inductionCervical ripening 878/1146 (76.6%) 325/432 (75.2%)
Amniotomy without oxytocin 129/1146 (11.3%) 42/432 (9.7%)
Amniotomy with oxytocin 139/1146 (12.1%) 65/432 (15.0%) 0.24
Cervical ripeningFirst method mechanical 334/878 (38.0%) 118/325 (36.3%) 0.97 (0.88 to
1.07)
First method pharmacological 544/878 (62.0%) 207/325 (63.7%) 0.97 (0.88 to 1.07)
0.63
Indication for inductionRandomisation to 41 weeks and induction according to protocol
1145/1146 (99.9%) 0/432 (0.0%)
Randomisation to 42 weeks and induction according to protocol
0/1146 (0.0%) 373/432 (86.3%)
Maternal condition 1/1146 (0.1%) 41/432 (9.5%)
Fetal condition 0/1146 (0.0%) 18/432 (4.2%)
LabourDuration of labour 7.07 (5.42)
5.64 (2.83; 10.24)
n=692
8.37 (5.96)6.9
(3.78; 11.53)n=867
<0.001 -1.30 (-1.87 to -0.74)
Use of epidural anaesthesia 704/1333 (52.8%) 658/1351 (48.7%) 1.08 (1.01 to 1.17)
0.037
Meconium stained amniotic fluid 225/1192 (18.9%) 317/1101 (28.8%) 0.66 (0.56 to 0.76)
<0.001
Mode of delivery Non-instrumental vaginal delivery 1112/1333 (83.4%) 1118/1351 (82.8%) 1.01 (0.97 to
1.04)0.68
Caesarean delivery 134/1333 (10.1%) 144/1351 (10.7%) 0.94 (0.75 to 1.18)
0.65
Page 42 of 46
https://mc.manuscriptcentral.com/bmj
BMJ
123456789101112131415161718192021222324252627282930313233343536373839404142434445464748495051525354555657585960
Confidential: For Review Only
Variable Induction group(n=1333)
Expectant management
group(n=1351)
Relative Risk(95% CI) P value
Difference between groups
Mean (95% CI)
Assisted vaginal delivery 87/1333 (6.5%) 89/1351 (6.6%) 0.99 (0.74 to 1.32)
1.00
Emergency caesarean delivery 129/134 (96.3%) 142/144 (98.6%) 0.98 (0.94 to 1.01)
0.39
Indication emergency caesarean delivery
Failed induction* 8/129 (6.2%) 7/142 (4.9%)
Failure to progress at first stage 55/129 (42.6%) 52/142 (36.6%)
Fetal distress at first stage 32/129 (24.8%) 27/142 (19.0%)
Failure to progress and fetal distress at first stage
6/129 (4.7%) 7/142 (4.9%)
Other indication at first stage 5/129 (3.9%) 3/142 (2.1%)
Failure to progress at second stage 11/129 (8.5%) 23/142 (16.2%)
Fetal distress at second stage 6/129 (4.7%) 8/142 (5.6%)
Failure to progress and fetal distress at second stage
0/129 (0.0%) 3/142 (2.1%)
Failure operative vaginal delivery 6/129 (4.7%) 12/142 (8.5%) 0.26
Indication assisted vaginal deliveryFailure to progress 36/87 (41.4%) 28/89 (31.5%)
Fetal distress 33/87 (37.9%) 34/89 (38.2%)
Failure to progress and fetal distress
5/87 (5.7%) 6/89 (6.7%)
Maternal distress 13/87 (14.9%) 20/89 (22.5%)
Other 0/87 (0.0%) 1/89 (1.1%) 0.47
Duration of hospital stay from delivery to discharge (hours)
46.3 (27.1)43.6
(25.3; 61.6)n=1286
47.3 (29.7)45
(26.5; 61.2)n=1305
0.36 -1.03 (-3.20 to 1.17)
Breast feeding at discharge from delivery hospital
949/979 (96.9%) 961/992 (96.9%) 1.00 (0.98 to 1.02)
1.00
Breast feeding 4 weeks after delivery 806/893 (90.3%) 814/927 (87.8%) 1.03 (1.00 to 1.06)
0.11
CI= confidence intervalFor categorical variables n/N (%) is presented.For continuous variables Mean (standard deviation [SD]) / Median interquartile range [IQR] Q1; Q3) / n= is presented.For comparison between groups Fisher´s Exact test (lowest 1-sided p-value multiplied by 2) was used for dichotomous variables and Fisher´sNon-Parametric Permutation test was used for continuous variables*Caesarean section performed when active labour was not reached despite different methods for induction of labour being used, usually for at least 48 hours.
Page 43 of 46
https://mc.manuscriptcentral.com/bmj
BMJ
123456789101112131415161718192021222324252627282930313233343536373839404142434445464748495051525354555657585960
Confidential: For Review Only
Supplementary Table E Perinatal outcome in per protocol groups
VariableInduction
group(n=1333)
Expectant management
group(n=1351)
Relative Risk(95% CI) P value
Difference between groupsMean (95% CI)
Primary composite outcome 31/1333 (2.3%) 31/1351 (2.3%) 1.01 (0.62 to 1.66)
1.00
Sub-components of the primary composite perinatal outcome Perinatal/neonatal mortality (stillbirth + neonatal mortality)
0/1333 (0.0%) 6/1351 (0.4%) 0.032
Stillbirth 0/1333 (0.0%) 5/1351 (0.4%) 0.064
Neonatal mortality (Live births with death day 0-27)
0/1333 (0.0%) 1/1346 (0.1%) 1.00
Neonatal morbidity 31/1333 (2.3%) 26/1346 (1.9%) 1.21 (0.72 to 2.02)
0.56
Sub-components of neonatal morbidityApgar score <7 at 5 minutes* 17/1333 (1.3%) 16/1346 (1.2%) 1.07 (0.54 to
2.11)0.98
Metabolic acidosis (denominator based on validated umbilical cord blood samples at birth)†
13/645 (2.0%) 10/633 (1.6%) 1.28 (0.56 to 2.89)
0.71
Hypoxic ischaemic encephalopathy (HIE) I-III
2/1333 (0.2%) 3/1346 (0.2%) 0.67 (0.11 to 4.02)
1.00
Intracranial haemorrhage 1/1333 (0.1%) 2/1346 (0.1%) 0.50 (0.05 to 5.56)
1.00
Neonatal convulsions 1/1333 (0.1%) 3/1346 (0.2%) 0.34 (0.04 to 3.23)
0.63
Meconium aspiration syndrome (MAS)
2/1333 (0.2%) 3/1346 (0.2%) 0.67 (0.11 to 4.02)
1.00
Mechanical ventilation within first 72 hours
3/1333 (0.2%) 5/1346 (0.4%) 0.61 (0.15 to 2.53)
0.74
Obstetric brachial plexus injury 4/1333 (0.3%) 1/1346 (0.1%) 4.04 (0.45 to 36.09)
0.37
Additional secondary neonatal outcomes variablesAdmittance to neonatal intensive care units (NICU)
55/1333 (4.1%) 82/1346 (6.1%) 0.68 (0.49 to 0.94)
0.026
Apgar score <4 at 5 minutes* 3/1333 (0.2%) 1/1346 (0.1%) 3.04 (0.32 to 29.19)
0.61
Therapeutic hypothermia 1/1333 (0.1%) 2/1346 (0.1%) 0.51 (0.05 to 5.58)
1.00
Birthweight (g) 3814 (409)3804
(3530; 4090)n=1333
3874 (435)3860
(3570; 4155)n=1351
0.001 -60.1 (-92.0 to-28.5)
Macrosomia (>= 4500 g) 64/1333 (4.8%) 112/1351 (8.3%)
0.58 (0.43 to 0.78)
0.001
Neonatal jaundice requiring phototherapy or exchange transfusion
16/1333 (1.2%) 32/1346 (2.4%) 0.51 (0.28 to 0.92)
0.031
Pneumonia 8/1333 (0.6%) 13/1346 (1.0%) 0.62 (0.26 to 1.50)
0.40
Page 44 of 46
https://mc.manuscriptcentral.com/bmj
BMJ
123456789101112131415161718192021222324252627282930313233343536373839404142434445464748495051525354555657585960
Confidential: For Review Only
VariableInduction
group(n=1333)
Expectant management
group(n=1351)
Relative Risk(95% CI) P value
Difference between groupsMean (95% CI)
Sepsis 9/1333 (0.7%) 20/1346 (1.5%) 0.46 (0.21 to 1.00)
0.065
Exploratory neonatal outcome variablesDays at neonatal intensive care units (NICU)
3.38 (2.97)2
(1; 6)n=55
4.59 (5.64)3
(1; 6)n=81‡
0.15 -1.21 (-2.75 to 0.19)
Admittance to neonatal intensive care units (NICU) >4 days
34/55 (61.8%) 45/81 (55.6%) 1.11 (0.84 to 1.48)
0.58
Hypoglycaemia§ 22/1333 (1.7%) 20/1346 (1.5%) 1.11 (0.61 to 2.03)
0.84
Birth trauma¶ 0/1333 (0.0%) 1/1346 (0.1%) 1.00
Small for gestational age (SGA)** 9/1333 (0.7%) 21/1351 (1.6%) 0.43 (0.20 to 0.94)
0.045
Large for gestational age (LGA)** 20/1333 (1.5%) 24/1351 (1.8%) 0.84 (0.47 to 1.52)
0.68
Any major birth defect†† 14/1333 (1.1%) 17/1351 (1.3%) 0.83 (0.41 to 1.69)
0.75
Female 576/1333 (43.2%)
612/1351 (45.3%)
0.95 (0.88 to 1.04)
0.29
CI=confidence intervalFor categorical variables n/N (%) is presented.For continuous variables Mean (standard deviation [SD]) / Median interquartile range [IQR] Q1; Q3) / n= is presented.For comparison between groups Fisher´s Exact test (lowest 1-sided p-value multiplied by 2) was used for dichotomous variables Fisher´s Exact test (2-sided) was used for dichotomous variables and Fisher´s Non-Parametric Permutation test was used for continuous variables. *Apgar score of live births†validated umbilical cord samples defined as values of arterial pH < venous pH and values of arterial pCO2 >venous pCO2‡one infant with only home based neonatal care§hypoglycaemia defined as P-glucose concentration < 2,6 mmol/L after 3 hours¶defined as any of long bone fracture, clavicular fracture, skull fracture, other neurological injury, retinal haemorrhage, facial nerve palsy**SGA and LGA defined as <-2 SD and >2 SD, respectively, according to the Swedish sex specific reference17
††minor birth defects according to EUROCAT definition excluded21
Page 45 of 46
https://mc.manuscriptcentral.com/bmj
BMJ
123456789101112131415161718192021222324252627282930313233343536373839404142434445464748495051525354555657585960
Confidential: For Review Only
Supplementary Table F Maternal adverse outcomes in per protocol population
Variable Induction group(n=1333)
Expectant management
group(n=1351)
Relative Risk(95% CI) P value
Secondary maternal outcomesChorioamnionitis 2/1333 (0.2%) 6/1351 (0.4%) 0.34 (0.07 to 1.67) 0.30
Shoulder dystocia 6/1333 (0.5%) 4/1351 (0.3%) 1.52 (0.43 to 5.38) 0.74
Perineal lacerations III-IV 35/1333 (2.6%) 50/1351 (3.7%) 0.71 (0.46 to 1.09) 0.14
Postpartum haemorrhage (>1000 ml) 134/1333 (10.1%) 143/1351 (10.6%) 0.95 (0.76 to 1.19) 0.70
Wound infection 4/1333 (0.3%) 3/1351 (0.2%) 1.35 (0.30 to 6.03) 0.99
Urinary tract infection incl. pyelonephritis
5/1333 (0.4%) 7/1351 (0.5%) 0.72 (0.23 to 2.28) 0.79
Endometritis 17/1333 (1.3%) 5/1351 (0.4%) 3.45 (1.27 to 9.31) 0.015
Sepsis 0/1333 (0.0%) 0/1351 (0.0%) 1.00
Exploratory maternal outcomesPreeclampsia/gestational hypertension/eclampsia
17/1333 (1.3%) 41/1351 (3.0%) 0.42 (0.24 to 0.74) 0.002
Uterine rupture 0/1333 (0.0%) 0/1351 (0.0%) 1.00
Cervical laceration 5/1333 (0.4%) 8/1351 (0.6%) 0.63 (0.21 to 1.93) 0.60
Venous thromboembolism 0/1333 (0.0%) 1/1351 (0.1%) 1.00
Maternal admission to intensive care unit
2/1333 (0.2%) 0/1351 (0.0%) 0.49
Maternal death 0/1333 (0.0%) 0/1351 (0.0%) 1.00CI= confidence intervalFor categorical variables n/N (%) is presented.For continuous variables Mean (standard deviation [SD]) / Median interquartile range [IQR] Q1; Q3) / n= is presented.For comparison between groups Fisher´s Exact test (lowest 1-sided p-value multiplied by 2) was used for dichotomous variables and Fisher´sNon-Parametric Permutation test was used for continuous variables
Page 46 of 46
https://mc.manuscriptcentral.com/bmj
BMJ
123456789101112131415161718192021222324252627282930313233343536373839404142434445464748495051525354555657585960
Confidential: For Review Only
Page 47 of 46
https://mc.manuscriptcentral.com/bmj
BMJ
123456789101112131415161718192021222324252627282930313233343536373839404142434445464748495051525354555657585960
Recommended