2 WEEKS OVERDUE, BABY IN NICU

shaunessa

So my due date is quickly approaching (tomorrow). And I've had no sign of progress.  I had my membrane swept, but still no progress.  Baby is moving and everything is great so far.  I have an appt on Monday and I'm debating if I should just schedule an induction.  My co-worker's sister wanted to do everything naturally, so she went 2 weeks past her due date.  Well after waiting and waiting, they decided to schedule a c-section because nothing was happening.  They quickly realized the baby had swallowed meconium.  She has not held her baby and he is in critical condition.  Could this be b/c he was in there 2 weeks past her due date?  Going even past a week of my due date freaks me out!  Advice?  (I will be asking my doc all these questions on Monday, just wanted to get some insight from you ladies)

Rrrrrachel

Going two weeks past is really fine. I don't know why that happened to her baby but it's very unusual. After your due date you'll get some extra monitoring like nst or even us to make sure everything is ok in there.

megs68

I am completely comfortable going to 42 weeks personally. My feelings are that a baby can end up in the NICU for a variety of reasons. HAVING a c/s can put a baby in the NICU because the fluid in a baby's lungs doesn't get squeezed out like it does in a vaginal birth and can cause problems (transient tachypnea of the newborn). Having a c/s in general is riskier for the mom and baby and comes with risks. I went to 42 weeks with both my kids and plan to again with this one if needed and they had zero issues. I was given ultrasounds to check fluid levels and was given non-stress tests during those final two weeks with each. My doctors and I were very comfortable with the safety of the babies and my kids came out perfect. Usually if a baby isn't ready to come out, there's a good reason and the baby just isn't ready yet. Like with any part of birth, there can be risks with a baby being in utero too long, but I personally am willing to accept those risks vs pulling a baby out too soon or invasive surgery. And the average gestation for a first time mom is 41 weeks, which is often forgotten, so I wouldn't worry one bit if I were you and went another week or two. The full term of a baby, per the ACOG is in fact 39-41 weeks so you're still within the timeframe for another week.

mysticl

I would not just schedule an induction.  Ask about it and ask what drugs they use.  Then ask about the risks associated with those drugs and then go home and research them yourself.  

PrimRoseMama

I almost went to 42 weeks with my son. I would wait it out.

maelic

I would discuss the pros and cons with my doctor. There are risks involved in inducing and there are risks involved in going to 42 weeks.

Biggest question is: is your due date based on LMP or is it based on your ovulation date? If you're CERTAIN of when you conceived then you can more accurately assess those risks. If you're just basing this on a standard 28 day cycle you could actually be nowhere near 40w on your due date. You could be 38 or you could be closer to 41 already, depending on when you ovulated that cycle. 

ddembinska

I don't really see how 2 weeks over would do that.  I'm not saying it didn't, but I went almost 2 weeks with my son and he was fine at birth. They should be keeping track of the baby with NSTs if they are concerned. They should do that once you go over. 

cMichelle0423

I don't see a problem with going to 42 weeks unless there's a medical concern for you or the baby. He or she will get here when they're ready. Keep in mind that your due date is just an estimated guess, not a deadline. Just because you have had little to no progress doesn't mean labor can't happen any minute. I had my membranes scraped twice at 39 and 40 weeks, and was stuck at 3 cm since 37 weeks. At my 40 weeks appt, we scheduled an induction datefor the next week... i went into labor on my own 2 days before my induction date and only 4 days past my due date. Just be patient and let that baby cook!

ncbelle

Do some reading:  https://www.childbirthconnection.org/article.asp?ClickedLink=1072&ck=10650&area=27

Meconium aspiration can happen at any time.  It is more likely for a past due baby but it's a fairly rare thing to have happen.  My 1st was born the day before his due date and had meconium in his fluid (he did not aspirate any which again is pretty rare so no issues).  My second was born at 41 weeks 3 days - no meconium in the fluid.  Point being - gestational age alone can't predict that particular rare complication.

There are plenty of potential complications associated with induction as well and babies can end up in the NICU for all manner of reasons.

MamaFantastic

i would not schedule an induction, no.  the vast majority of the time, a woman's body does a good job of starting labor when the body and baby are fully ready.  with no other indications that baby needs to come out, why risk the intervention landslide that frequently happens with inductions?  if you're 10-14 days overdue, sure...  it might be time to plan that induction.  but you have time.  relax.  the fact that something scary happened to a family member's baby doesn't mean it's going to happen to your baby too.  

pigtails1031777

That happens when mom
Has a lot of stress also. It is a higher chance of that happening the later you go past your edd.
However my gf had this happen but she was under extreme stress. Her baby almost died. It was awful.

Ashleypixie

This was decades ago but the same thing happened to my brother. His lung collapsed and he was in critical condition but everything turned out ok in the end. I would talk things over with your Dr. Only he knows if this is a common thing. It used to be dangerous to go a week past your due date but now it's different. But don't think that you will be two weeks late because you don't see progress now, you are probably completely wrong. I was told the same thing two days before my due date that I was definitely going to go past, but I was in labor the next day! Seriously, don't stress, your body knows what it's doing.

Rrrrrachel

It doesn't take a doctor to look at some statistics and see if something is common or not.

iris427

Going past your due date does increase the risk of meconium aspiration and other issues, but it is still a small risk. You should also consider that inductions in first time moms double the odds of having a cesarean. How favorable your cervix is can make a huge difference too. I would talk to your doctor about the pros and cons of induction vs waiting, consider your individual situation and how ready your cervix is, and go from there.

Ashleypixie

Rrrrrachel said:

It doesn't take a doctor to look at some statistics and see if something is common or not.

. Oh never mind OP! You don't need to talk to your OB about any of this. Apparently you're fine.

kimmee1997

It is a risk when going past your due date. Sometimes going past your due date can age the placenta and cause stress on the baby. It can also happen if mother has some health issues, as well. It is awful. And it happens quickly. I think because I've seen it happen and how sick a baby can get I wouldn't want to take the risk. To me being induced and risking a c-section is preferable. It is something you should talk to your dr about and weigh the pros and cons.

ncbelle

kimmee1997 said:

It is a risk when going past your due date. Sometimes going past your due date can age the placenta and cause stress on the baby. It can also happen if mother has some health issues, as well. It is awful. And it happens quickly. I think because I've seen it happen and how sick a baby can get I wouldn't want to take the risk. To me being induced and risking a c-section is preferable. It is something you should talk to your dr about and weigh the pros and cons.

It's not as though induction and c-section are without risk to mother and baby though so assuming that induction should happen when you hit your "due" date simply because it's safer is just wrong and not based on any medical evidence.

Yes, the placenta can break down.  But again that's not something that happens with great frequency - and it's something that can be monitored for using NST/biophysical profiles.

40 weeks is the AVERAGE length of pregnancy - statistically, some women will deliver sooner and some later.  There is simply no medical evidence that induction at 40 weeks leads to better outcomes.

Rrrrrachel

We're so used to inductions and c sections now too many people consider them to be risk free or the next best thing to it.

MelissaV10

My first was born at a full 42 weeks, she was fine  Waiting to see what this one will do!  I'd prefer soon rather than later as I'm REALLY uncomfortable right now...

Rrrrrachel

Of course it's a conversation she should have with her doctor. Emphasis on WITH. She can so her own research and have an informed opinion, too. The doctor isn't the only one that gets to have a say.

megs68

juleskeim said:

It doesn't take a doctor to look at some statistics and see if something is common or not.

This is a conversation she should have with her doctor. My OB practice would let you go to 41 weeks, not past it. The hospital I delivered at also stood firm at 41.

but this is one of the reasons it's important to not only listen to your doctors advice but also research on your own. The ACOG still considers up to 42 weeks term (late term, but still term). You are only post term at 42 weeks. So many doctors want to force the babies out early despite medical guidelines when they are even a few days over the "due date," as if the baby has some calendar in your uterus and needs to be evicted ON a specific day. Demanding ALL babies be out at 41 weeks is ridiculous and contrary to the ACOG practice guidelines.

kimmee1997

ncbelle said:

kimmee1997 said:

It is a risk when going past your due date. Sometimes going past your due date can age the placenta and cause stress on the baby. It can also happen if mother has some health issues, as well. It is awful. And it happens quickly. I think because I've seen it happen and how sick a baby can get I wouldn't want to take the risk. To me being induced and risking a c-section is preferable. It is something you should talk to your dr about and weigh the pros and cons.

It's not as though induction and c-section are without risk to mother and baby though so assuming that induction should happen when you hit your "due" date simply because it's safer is just wrong and not based on any medical evidence.

Yes, the placenta can break down.  But again that's not something that happens with great frequency - and it's something that can be monitored for using NST/biophysical profiles.

40 weeks is the AVERAGE length of pregnancy - statistically, some women will deliver sooner and some later.  There is simply no medical evidence that induction at 40 weeks leads to better outcomes.

The reason that women are monitored with BPP and nst is because the risks ARE higher when you go past 40 weeks. They want to make sure baby is doing ok in utero. Yes there are risks with induction but as I said in my post above that is where the op should talk to her dr and weigh those risks. FOR ME, I would rather be induced. However, op, I was induced early both times with my sons. My first I was 38 weeks and second one I was 36 weeks both for medical reasons, My doctors did not want me to go past 39 weeks with either and I had twice a week BPP from 32 weeks on. BPP and NSTs can put some minds at ease but they are given as an extra precaution to monitor the baby and make sure baby is doing ok. That is because there are risks going past 40 weeks. yes, a very small chance but still a chance.

Rrrrrachel

And there are risks to induction. Especially for no medical reason and especially before term.

tjkdlhb

This happened to a co-worker of mine.  She lost the baby and was devastated.

KariB509

I would discuss the pros and cons of inductions before 42 weeks with your doctor.

flawedpottery

My OB's office doesn't induce without medical reason before 42 weeks but they do have a acupuncturist who will work on you and apparently stimulates your body to naturally produce oxytocin to try to get labor started. Maybe it's something you can look into? I have no problem personally going to 42 weeks unless there's some other reason.

Rogue237

Personally, my MW has no issues going to 42 weeks or a couple of days after if monitored. According to them, the real risk of a placenta breaking down starts at 43 weeks, which is why they recommend not going passed 42 to be safe. Talk to your doctor. I wouldn't think the risk would be enough to justify inducing right at 40 weeks, especially if your due date was set from LMP and not ovulation date.

mabelanna

Currently living in the UK and NHS rules state no inductions until 42 weeks. Guessing that means in healthy pregnancies that do not require inductions/ emergency procedures, it is perfectly safe to go 2 weeks past term.

kcisthebombdotcom

megs68 said:

juleskeim said:

It doesn't take a doctor to look at some statistics and see if something is common or not.

This is a conversation she should have with her doctor. My OB practice would let you go to 41 weeks, not past it. The hospital I delivered at also stood firm at 41.

but this is one of the reasons it's important to not only listen to your doctors advice but also research on your own. The ACOG still considers up to 42 weeks term (late term, but still term). You are only post term at 42 weeks. So many doctors want to force the babies out early despite medical guidelines when they are even a few days over the "due date," as if the baby has some calendar in your uterus and needs to be evicted ON a specific day. Demanding ALL babies be out at 41 weeks is ridiculous and contrary to the ACOG practice guidelines.

There's benefits to inducing at the 41 week mark when it comes to avoiding c-section and meconium. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19408970 https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19408970 https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2011/06/110620112114.htm

megs68

KC_13 said:

megs68 said:

juleskeim said:

It doesn't take a doctor to look at some statistics and see if something is common or not.

This is a conversation she should have with her doctor. My OB practice would let you go to 41 weeks, not past it. The hospital I delivered at also stood firm at 41.

but this is one of the reasons it's important to not only listen to your doctors advice but also research on your own. The ACOG still considers up to 42 weeks term (late term, but still term). You are only post term at 42 weeks. So many doctors want to force the babies out early despite medical guidelines when they are even a few days over the "due date," as if the baby has some calendar in your uterus and needs to be evicted ON a specific day. Demanding ALL babies be out at 41 weeks is ridiculous and contrary to the ACOG practice guidelines.

There's benefits to inducing at the 41 week mark when it comes to avoiding c-section and meconium. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19408970 https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19408970 https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2011/06/110620112114.htm

did you intend to post contradicting findings? One article is proving a point that inducing labor doesn't necessarily lead to higher c/s rates and another points out that inductions do lead to higher c/s rates. This is why it's so important for every woman to do her own research and determine what she's comfortable with. The ACOG states that a post term prgnancy is after 42 weeks. Full stop. https://www.acog.org/~/media/For Patients/faq069.pdf?dmc=1&ts=20140218T1448251127 They state that after 42 weeks, the baby has an increased risk of meconium aspiration, placenta deterioration, fluid decrease, etc. 42 weeks. Not 40 weeks, not 41 weeks. 42 weeks.

kcisthebombdotcom

megs68 said:

KC_13 said:

megs68 said:

juleskeim said:

It doesn't take a doctor to look at some statistics and see if something is common or not.

This is a conversation she should have with her doctor. My OB practice would let you go to 41 weeks, not past it. The hospital I delivered at also stood firm at 41.

but this is one of the reasons it's important to not only listen to your doctors advice but also research on your own. The ACOG still considers up to 42 weeks term (late term, but still term). You are only post term at 42 weeks. So many doctors want to force the babies out early despite medical guidelines when they are even a few days over the "due date," as if the baby has some calendar in your uterus and needs to be evicted ON a specific day. Demanding ALL babies be out at 41 weeks is ridiculous and contrary to the ACOG practice guidelines.

There's benefits to inducing at the 41 week mark when it comes to avoiding c-section and meconium. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19408970 https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19408970 https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2011/06/110620112114.htm

did you intend to post contradicting findings? One article is proving a point that inducing labor doesn't necessarily lead to higher c/s rates and another points out that inductions do lead to higher c/s rates. This is why it's so important for every woman to do her own research and determine what she's comfortable with. The ACOG states that a post term prgnancy is after 42 weeks. Full stop. https://www.acog.org/~/media/For Patients/faq069.pdf?dmc=1&ts=20140218T1448251127 They state that after 42 weeks, the baby has an increased risk of meconium aspiration, placenta deterioration, fluid decrease, etc. 42 weeks. Not 40 weeks, not 41 weeks. 42 weeks.

You must have misread. The odds are 22% higher for a csection for a woman who is not induced at the 41 week mark. There's a legitimate medical reason to induce labor at 41 weeks to avert the need for a section and there are risks associated with going beyond that point.

megs68

KC_13 said:

megs68 said:

KC_13 said:

megs68 said:

juleskeim said:

It doesn't take a doctor to look at some statistics and see if something is common or not.

This is a conversation she should have with her doctor. My OB practice would let you go to 41 weeks, not past it. The hospital I delivered at also stood firm at 41.

but this is one of the reasons it's important to not only listen to your doctors advice but also research on your own. The ACOG still considers up to 42 weeks term (late term, but still term). You are only post term at 42 weeks. So many doctors want to force the babies out early despite medical guidelines when they are even a few days over the "due date," as if the baby has some calendar in your uterus and needs to be evicted ON a specific day. Demanding ALL babies be out at 41 weeks is ridiculous and contrary to the ACOG practice guidelines.

There's benefits to inducing at the 41 week mark when it comes to avoiding c-section and meconium. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19408970 https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19408970 https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2011/06/110620112114.htm

did you intend to post contradicting findings? One article is proving a point that inducing labor doesn't necessarily lead to higher c/s rates and another points out that inductions do lead to higher c/s rates. This is why it's so important for every woman to do her own research and determine what she's comfortable with. The ACOG states that a post term prgnancy is after 42 weeks. Full stop. https://www.acog.org/~/media/For Patients/faq069.pdf?dmc=1&ts=20140218T1448251127 They state that after 42 weeks, the baby has an increased risk of meconium aspiration, placenta deterioration, fluid decrease, etc. 42 weeks. Not 40 weeks, not 41 weeks. 42 weeks.

You must have misread. The odds are 22% higher for a csection for a woman who is not induced at the 41 week mark. There's a legitimate medical reason to induce labor at 41 weeks to avert the need for a section and there are risks associated with going beyond that point.

I'm not disputing you, there are risks with every aspect of pregnancy. Vaginal, c/s, going too early, going too late, etc. And I think every person can find an article supporting their viewpoint. I personally choose to follow the ACOG recommendations, not whatever random study I can google on the internet, but up to you and whatever you personally choose. I would highly encourage you and all pregnant women to read and think about what the ACOG states in my previous link regarding post term pregnancies and the management of these pregnancies. If you're still not comfortable going past 41 weeks and want to risk an induction, more power to you. I will choose to go to 42 weeks like I did with my previous pregnancies if I have to based on my personal experience, my research and the ACOG guidelines.

kcisthebombdotcom

joules235 said:

KC_13 said:

megs68 said:

KC_13 said:

megs68 said:

juleskeim said:

It doesn't take a doctor to look at some statistics and see if something is common or not.

This is a conversation she should have with her doctor. My OB practice would let you go to 41 weeks, not past it. The hospital I delivered at also stood firm at 41.

but this is one of the reasons it's important to not only listen to your doctors advice but also research on your own. The ACOG still considers up to 42 weeks term (late term, but still term). You are only post term at 42 weeks. So many doctors want to force the babies out early despite medical guidelines when they are even a few days over the "due date," as if the baby has some calendar in your uterus and needs to be evicted ON a specific day. Demanding ALL babies be out at 41 weeks is ridiculous and contrary to the ACOG practice guidelines.

There's benefits to inducing at the 41 week mark when it comes to avoiding c-section and meconium. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19408970 https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19408970 https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2011/06/110620112114.htm

did you intend to post contradicting findings? One article is proving a point that inducing labor doesn't necessarily lead to higher c/s rates and another points out that inductions do lead to higher c/s rates. This is why it's so important for every woman to do her own research and determine what she's comfortable with. The ACOG states that a post term prgnancy is after 42 weeks. Full stop. https://www.acog.org/~/media/For Patients/faq069.pdf?dmc=1&ts=20140218T1448251127 They state that after 42 weeks, the baby has an increased risk of meconium aspiration, placenta deterioration, fluid decrease, etc. 42 weeks. Not 40 weeks, not 41 weeks. 42 weeks.

You must have misread. The odds are 22% higher for a csection for a woman who is not induced at the 41 week mark. There's a legitimate medical reason to induce labor at 41 weeks to avert the need for a section and there are risks associated with going beyond that point.

I'm not disputing you, there are risks with every aspect of pregnancy. Vaginal, c/s, going too early, going too late, etc. And I think every person can find an article supporting their viewpoint. I personally choose to follow the ACOG recommendations, not whatever random study I can google on the internet, but up to you and whatever you personally choose. I would highly encourage you and all pregnant women to read and think about what the ACOG states in my previous link regarding post term pregnancies and the management of these pregnancies. If you're still not comfortable going past 41 weeks and want to risk an induction, more power to you. I will choose to go to 42 weeks like I did with my previous pregnancies if I have to based on my personal experience, my research and the ACOG guidelines.

I'm sure ACOG has seen whatever articles and studies you posted above but they still didn't change their guidelines. I am also thinking a well respected national obstetrical organization that sets the standard of care for the whole country probably knows what they are talking about... As long as NST come back normal and everything is fine there is no reason to get all induction happy, ACOG agrees. Also maybe those studies show higher c-section rates because many women that go to 41 weeks are induced. Induced labors have higher c-section rates than natural labors.

Did you actually read the article? It's data from 76 different studies compiled that stated when women hit the 41 week mark those who are induced have lower rates of csection and meconium fluid than women who wait to go into labor. Organizations like that are generally slow to change policy--look how long it took the aap to change their policy on circumcision even in the face of decades of research. When doctors and hospitals are not letting women stay pregnant past 41 weeks there's some science behind that decision that may be more up to date than a policy statement released 2.5 years ago. Lots of doctors make medical decisions based on the most recent data. For example 4 years ago a study came out that Tylenol prior to vaccines made the vaccines less effective. My pedi started telling her patients to avoid Tylenol because of that even though the aap might have not caught up yet and changed their policy. It's better to trust your own doctor vs some ever changing policies.

Rogue237

KC_13 said:

joules235 said:

*snip* 

did you intend to post contradicting findings? One article is proving a point that inducing labor doesn't necessarily lead to higher c/s rates and another points out that inductions do lead to higher c/s rates. This is why it's so important for every woman to do her own research and determine what she's comfortable with. The ACOG states that a post term prgnancy is after 42 weeks. Full stop. https://www.acog.org/~/media/For Patients/faq069.pdf?dmc=1&ts=20140218T1448251127 They state that after 42 weeks, the baby has an increased risk of meconium aspiration, placenta deterioration, fluid decrease, etc. 42 weeks. Not 40 weeks, not 41 weeks. 42 weeks.

You must have misread. The odds are 22% higher for a csection for a woman who is not induced at the 41 week mark. There's a legitimate medical reason to induce labor at 41 weeks to avert the need for a section and there are risks associated with going beyond that point.

I'm not disputing you, there are risks with every aspect of pregnancy. Vaginal, c/s, going too early, going too late, etc. And I think every person can find an article supporting their viewpoint. I personally choose to follow the ACOG recommendations, not whatever random study I can google on the internet, but up to you and whatever you personally choose. I would highly encourage you and all pregnant women to read and think about what the ACOG states in my previous link regarding post term pregnancies and the management of these pregnancies. If you're still not comfortable going past 41 weeks and want to risk an induction, more power to you. I will choose to go to 42 weeks like I did with my previous pregnancies if I have to based on my personal experience, my research and the ACOG guidelines.

I'm sure ACOG has seen whatever articles and studies you posted above but they still didn't change their guidelines. I am also thinking a well respected national obstetrical organization that sets the standard of care for the whole country probably knows what they are talking about... As long as NST come back normal and everything is fine there is no reason to get all induction happy, ACOG agrees. Also maybe those studies show higher c-section rates because many women that go to 41 weeks are induced. Induced labors have higher c-section rates than natural labors.

Did you actually read the article? It's data from 76 different studies compiled that stated when women hit the 41 week mark those who are induced have lower rates of csection and meconium fluid than women who wait to go into labor. Organizations like that are generally slow to change policy--look how long it took the aap to change their policy on circumcision even in the face of decades of research. When doctors and hospitals are not letting women stay pregnant past 41 weeks there's some science behind that decision that may be more up to date than a policy statement released 2.5 years ago. Lots of doctors make medical decisions based on the most recent data. For example 4 years ago a study came out that Tylenol prior to vaccines made the vaccines less effective. My pedi started telling her patients to avoid Tylenol because of that even though the aap might have not caught up yet and changed their policy. It's better to trust your own doctor vs some ever changing policies.

The average FTM's pregnancy is 41+1. So according to that most FTMs should be induced? That seems strange to me.

megs68

Your study isn't comparing women who were induced vs women who waited to go into labor, like you say, it says it compared women who were induced at 41 weeks vs those who were "expectantly managed" so may have have gone into labor on their own or may have been induced. This is different. In fact, this study https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20838800 shows first time mothers who are induced have THREE TIMES the likelihood of a c/s vs mothers who went into labor on their own. And this study https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23682721 shows no difference in the perinatal outcome of women who were induced at 41 weeks vs those who were monitored and went another week before delivering. The final sentence of the study you keep going back to as evidence of the risk of exceeding 41 weeks states "there are concerns about the translation of such findings into actual practice'" so forgive me if this amazing study doesn't exactly make me run to my doctor at 41 weeks on the dot for cervadil, pitocin and an epidural to yank my baby out ASAP.

megs68

And to add, your study is from 2009. In that time, if your study and evidence were so fantastic and reliable, why would the ACOG confirm in 2013 that a term pregnancy was up to 42 weeks? They had 4 years to examine this amazing research and still maintain that going to 42 weeks is fine?

megs68

joules235 said:

megs68 said:

And to add, your study is from 2009. In that time, if your study and evidence were so fantastic and reliable, why would the ACOG confirm in 2013 that a term pregnancy was up to 42 weeks? They had 4 years to examine this amazing research and still maintain that going to 42 weeks is fine?

I just opened the thread to make this point. Thanks

kcisthebombdotcom

megs68 said:

Your study isn't comparing women who were induced vs women who waited to go into labor, like you say, it says it compared women who were induced at 41 weeks vs those who were "expectantly managed" so may have have gone into labor on their own or may have been induced. This is different. In fact, this study https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20838800 shows first time mothers who are induced have THREE TIMES the likelihood of a c/s vs mothers who went into labor on their own. And this study https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23682721 shows no difference in the perinatal outcome of women who were induced at 41 weeks vs those who were monitored and went another week before delivering. The final sentence of the study you keep going back to as evidence of the risk of exceeding 41 weeks states "there are concerns about the translation of such findings into actual practice'" so forgive me if this amazing study doesn't exactly make me run to my doctor at 41 weeks on the dot for cervadil, pitocin and an epidural to yank my baby out ASAP.

Yeah, those were small scale studies with 400 people. https://apps.who.int/rhl/pregnancy_childbirth/complications/prolonged_pregnancy/lgccom/en/ https://www.biomedcentral.com/1471-2458/11/S3/S5 https://www.medpagetoday.com/OBGYN/Pregnancy/32615 https://www.ed.ac.uk/schools-departments/medicine-vet-medicine/news-events/all-news/births-140512 https://summaries.cochrane.org/CD004945/induction-of-labour-in-women-with-normal-pregnancies-at-or-beyond-term But yeah, the point being is when doctors and hospitals make these policies there's a method to the madness. It's not necessarily to make tee time like the sweeping generalization is.

Rrrrrachel

Regardless of whether induction should happen at 41 or 42 weeks, it's not time to panic at40 weeks.

kcisthebombdotcom

Rrrrrachel said:

Regardless of whether induction should happen at 41 or 42 weeks, it's not time to panic at40 weeks.

Agreed.

megs68

joules235 said:

https://www.scienceandsensibility.org/?p=7958&fb_action_ids=10202354795206058&fb_action_types=og.likes&fb_ref=.UwUz7509LkV.like&fb_source=other_multiline&action_object_map=[277819429043885]&action_type_map=["og.likes"]&action_ref_map=[".UwUz7509LkV.like"]

New guidelines

This is fantastic news. I am very happy with the direction the ACOG is taking lately and hope that we see some real changes out of their latest publications in the health care of pregnant women and our babies.