Guidelines for labor assessment: failure to progress?

The ongoing debate about what models of cervical dilatation and fetal descent should guide clinical decision-making has sown uncertainty among obstetric practitioners. We previously argued that the adoption of recently published labor assessment guidelines promoted by the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists and the Society for Maternal-Fetal Medicine may have been premature. Before accepting any new clinical approaches as the standard of care, their underlying hypotheses should be thoroughly tested to ensure they are at least equivalent (or, preferably, superior) to existing management paradigms. Some of the apparent urgency to subscribe to new clinical tactics has been fueled by legitimate concerns about the rise in the cesarean delivery rate over the past several decades. A major contributor to this change in practice patterns is that more cesarean deliveries are being done for diagnoses that fall under the rubric of dystocia than ever before. As a consequence, traditional labor curves-fundamental for assessing labor progress-and the practice paradigms associated with them have received intense scrutiny as a possible contributor to this delivery trend. Moreover, the recent proposal of new labor curves and accompanying management guidelines has, understandably, fed the appetite to correct a perceived problem. However, the cesarean delivery rate rose most rapidly during decades when there was no major change in traditional labor curves or in the guidelines for their interpretation. Also, during the years since the new guidelines were first published, there has been no major fall in cesarean delivery frequency. This raises the question of whether there was truly a fundamental flaw in the traditional labor management paradigms or whether their proper interpretation and use had been somehow forgotten, ignored, or corrupted. More important, existing studies have shown that application of the new guidelines often (but not always) results in a modest fall in the cesarean delivery rate, but that this change may be accompanied by significant increases in maternal and neonatal morbidity. These results strongly suggest more caution in the adoption of the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists / Society for Maternal-Fetal Medicine labor assessment recommendations. They are based on a hypothesis that has yet to undergo thorough evaluation of its risks and benefits.