共3,062名女性被分配接受引产，3,044名被分配接受期待治疗。在引产组和期待治疗组新生儿中，主要结局的发生率分别为4.3%和5.4%（相对危险度，0.80；95%置信区间[CI]，0.64～1.00）。引产组的剖宫产率显著低于期待治疗组（18.6% vs. 22.2%；相对危险度，0.84；95% CI，0.76～0.93）。
低危未经产女性39周时引产未显著降低围生期复合不良结局的发生率，但显著降低了剖宫产率（由尤尼斯·肯尼迪·施莱佛国立儿童健康与人类发展研究所[Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development]资助；ARRIVE在ClinicalTrials.gov注册号为NCT01990612）。
William A. Grobman, M.D., Madeline M. Rice, Ph.D., Uma M. Reddy, M.D., M.P.H., Alan T.N. Tita, M.D., Ph.D., Robert M. Silver, M.D., Gail Mallett, R.N., M.S., C.C.R.C., Kim Hill, R.N., B.S.N., Elizabeth A. Thom, Ph.D., Yasser Y. El-Sayed, M.D., Annette Perez-Delboy, M.D., Dwight J. Rouse, M.D., George R. Saade, M.D., Kim A. Boggess, M.D., Suneet P. Chauhan, M.D., Jay D. Iams, M.D., Edward K. Chien, M.D., Brian M. Casey, M.D., Ronald S. Gibbs, M.D., Sindhu K. Srinivas, M.D., M.S.C.E., Geeta K. Swamy, M.D., Hyagriv N. Simhan, M.D., and George A. Macones, M.D., M.S.C.E. for the Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development Maternal–Fetal Medicine Units Network*
From the Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Northwestern University, Chicago (W.A.G., G.M.); University of Alabama at Birmingham, Birmingham (A.T.N.T.); University of Utah Health Sciences Center, Salt Lake City (R.M.S., K.H.); Stanford University, Stanford, CA (Y.Y.E.-S.); Columbia University, New York (A.P.-D.); Brown University, Providence, RI (D.J.R.); University of Texas Medical Branch, Galveston (G.R.S.), University of Texas Health Science Center at Houston, Children’s Memorial Hermann Hospital, Houston (S.P.C.), and University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas (B.M.C.) — all in Texas; University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill (K.A.B.), and Duke University, Durham (G.K.S.) — both in North Carolina; Ohio State University, Columbus (J.D.I.), and MetroHealth Medical Center, Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland (E.K.C.) — both in Ohio; University of Colorado School of Medicine, Anschutz Medical Campus, Aurora (R.S.G.); University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia (S.K.S.); University of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh (H.N.S.) — both in Pennsylvania; Washington University, St. Louis (G.A.M.); the George Washington University Biostatistics Center, Washington, DC (M.M.R., E.A.T.); and the Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development, Bethesda, MD (U.M.R.). Address reprint requests to Dr. Grobman at the Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Northwestern University, 250 E. Superior St., Suite 05-2175, Chicago, IL 60611, or at email@example.com. *A list of other members of the Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development Maternal–Fetal Medicine Units Network is provided in the Supplementary Appendix, available at NEJM.org.
1. Parikh LI, Reddy UM, Männistö T, et al. Neonatal outcomes in early term birth. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2014;211(3):265.e1-265.e11.
2. American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists. Practice bulletin no. 146: management of late-term and postterm pregnancies. Obstet Gynecol 2014;124:390-396.
3. ACOG Committee on Practice Bulletins — Obstetrics. ACOG practice bulletin no. 107: induction of labor. Obstet Gynecol 2009;114:386-397.
4. Vardo JH, Thornburg LL, Glantz JC. Maternal and neonatal morbidity among nulliparous women undergoing elective induction of labor. J Reprod Med 2011;56:25-30.
5. Dunne C, Da Silva O, Schmidt G, Natale R. Outcomes of elective labour induction and elective caesarean section in low-risk pregnancies between 37 and 41 weeks’ gestation. J Obstet Gynaecol Can 2009;31:1124-1130.
6. Guerra GV, Cecatti JG, Souza JP, et al. Elective induction versus spontaneous labour in Latin America. Bull World Health Organ 2011;89:657-665.
7. Osmundson S, Ou-Yang RJ, Grobman WA. Elective induction compared with expectant management in nulliparous women with an unfavorable cervix. Obstet Gynecol 2011;117:583-587.
8. Gibson KS, Waters TP, Bailit JL. Maternal and neonatal outcomes in electively induced low-risk term pregnancies. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2014;211(3):249.e1-249.e16.
9. Stock SJ, Ferguson E, Duffy A, Ford I, Chalmers J, Norman JE. Outcomes of elective induction of labour compared with expectant management: population based study. BMJ 2012;344:e2838-e2838.
10. Cheng YW, Kaimal AJ, Snowden JM, Nicholson JM, Caughey AB. Induction of labor compared to expectant management in low-risk women and associated perinatal outcomes. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2012;207(6):502.e1-502.e8.
11. Darney BG, Snowden JM, Cheng YW, et al. Elective induction of labor at term compared with expectant management: maternal and neonatal outcomes. Obstet Gynecol 2013;122:761-769.
12. Walker KF, Bugg GJ, Macpherson M, et al. Randomized trial of labor induction in women 35 years of age or older. N Engl J Med 2016;374:813-822.
13. Rosenberger W, Lachin JM. Randomization in clinical trials. New York: Wiley, 2002.
14. Lange AP, Secher NJ, Westergaard JG, Skovgård I. Prelabor evaluation of inducibility. Obstet Gynecol 1982;60:137-147.
15. Ludington E, Dexter F. Statistical analysis of total labor pain using the visual analog scale and application to studies of analgesic effectiveness during childbirth. Anesth Analg 1998;87:723-727.
16. Hodnett ED, Simmons-Tropea DA. The Labour Agentry Scale: psychometric properties of an instrument measuring control during childbirth. Res Nurs Health 1987;10(5):301-310.
17. Shankaran S, Laptook AR, Ehrenkranz RA, et al. Whole-body hypothermia for neonates with hypoxic-ischemic encephalopathy. N Engl J Med 2005;353:1574-1584.
18. Bailit JL, Grobman WA, Rice MM, et al. Risk-adjusted models for adverse obstetric outcomes and variation in risk-adjusted outcomes across hospitals. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2013;209(5):446.e1-446.e30.
19. Benjamini Y, Hochberg Y. Controlling the false discovery rate: a practical and powerful approach to multiple testing. J R Stat Soc [B] 1995;57:289-300.
20. Caughey AB, Sundaram V, Kaimal AJ, et al. Maternal and neonatal outcomes of elective induction of labor. Evid Rep Technol Assess (Full Rep) 2009;176:1-257.
21. Caughey AB, Sundaram V, Kaimal AJ, et al. Systematic review: elective induction of labor versus expectant management of pregnancy. Ann Intern Med 2009;151:252-263, W53-W63.
22. Kawakita T, Iqbal SN, Huang CC, Reddy UM. Nonmedically indicated induction in morbidly obese women is not associated with an increased risk of cesarean delivery. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2017;217(4):451.e1-451.e8.
23. Gibson KS, Waters TP, Bailit JL. A risk of waiting: the weekly incidence of hypertensive disorders and associated maternal and neonatal morbidity in low-risk term pregnancies. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2016;214(3):389.e1-389.e12.
24. Sparks TN, Yeaton-Massey A, Granados JM, Handler SJ, Meyer M, Caughey AB. How do maternal views of delivery outcomes vary by demographics and preferred mode of delivery? Am J Perinatol 2015;32:741-746.
25. Schwarz C, Gross MM, Heusser P, Berger B. Women’s perceptions of induction of labour outcomes: results of an online-survey in Germany. Midwifery 2016;35:3-10.
26. Moore JE, Low LK, Titler MG, Dalton VK, Sampselle CM. Moving toward patient-centered care: women’s decisions, perceptions, and experiences of the induction of labor process. Birth 2014;41:138-146.
27. Yee LM, Kaimal AJ, Houston KA, et al. Mode of delivery preferences in a diverse population of pregnant women. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2015;212(3):377.e1-377.e24.