Inductions for 2nd births - are they really better than for 1st births?

[treacletart]

I had a very very fast unplanned home birth with DS. I'm due again in August, but have been told, because I'm having to take blood thinning injections this time round that, a home birth is out of the question and they'll be inducing me a day or so before my due date. Having only ever heard horror stories about inductions, I'm understandably worried by this, but the consultant and midwifes assure me that inductions for 2nd babies are much more succesful than for first births. What are your experiences?

[hollyandalice]

Inductions can be very quick, they don't all involve horror stories!! I was induced with my dd at 3.30(one prostin pessary), had my first contraction at 4.30 and she was born at 8.25!!

[treacletart]

Was she your first or second baby h&a? I know that first time inductions seem to be 50:50 and I know there's a great experience for every horror story. But I'm really interested to know if the positive tales outweigh the negative stories for subsequent births.

[hollyandalice]

She was my first and I know I was lucky, I'd say about half the people I know ended up with some kind of intervention after induction. I suppose it also depends on how ready your body is to give birth. Maybe you will have your baby a couple of days early as it is your 2nd and won't need the induction.

[lulumama]

are you being refused home birth due to the risk of PPH?

[treacletart]

That had crossed my mind, but if that happens I may try for an "emergency" home-birth anyway. DS was so so fast (less than 4 hours from very first twinge) I had no chance to get to hospital. Basically its as if I all but bypassed any first stage and went almost immediately into full on second stage. Second births are "supposed" to be quicker too. I guess the positives of an induction (assuming it all goes smoothly) are that I'll be in the right place at the right time, might have a fighting chance of getting in the birthing pool (they only have one at our local hospital) and also, so they say, my first stage should be a little slower.

[mamijacacalys]

Was induced both times (DS 2002, DD 2006), due to 'essential hypertension' i.e. had mild blood-pressure probs when pg and was on medication, although had otherwise normal pregnancies with no pre-eclampsia or other symptoms. Do not have bp probs when not pg....

Anyway, both experiences were fine.
DS: one lot of gel pessary (cervix was 'favourable') in evening and in morning. Started labouring at noon and he was born at 8.30. Had no further intervention, only a bit of gas and air, although he had to have forceps to help him out at the end (cord round neck).
DD: 'propess' t-bag thingy (due to cervix being 'unfavourable') in morning and was told it would take 24hrs to work. On cue, waters broke 9am following day and DD born 1.30. Again, no other intervention (drips, epidurals or other drugs), and had a tear (she was face to pubis and almost 9lbs! - would have probably had this whether labour was induced or started naturally!)

So the 2nd one was shorter than the first (4.5 hrs compared to 8.5 hrs) but this would be true if labour started 'naturally' wouldn't it, as 2nd labours are usually shorter anyway?

Friends I have spoken to claim that their inductions were very intense, but these involved drips as well as the initial gel pessaries. Both my labours felt 'natural' once they had started - I did not feel that the pain was out of control at any point.
With DD, having had the hospital experience with DS and feeling more confident about knowing the drill a bit more, I was very insistent that I wanted no further intervention once the induction had happened, unless I said so, and the mws were very supportive of this - so my advice would be not to get intimidated by the consultant/doctors/hospital atmosphere and remain focussed on what you want.

Sorry for long post. HTH and good luck

[lulumama]

you might not be allowed to use the birth pool if you are induced as you will be monitored and might be on a drip...best to check in advance if that is negotiable.....

sorry, feel like the voice of doom

[treacletart]

lulumama I'm not certain but I think its a combo of having to be induced because of blood thinning drugs making the palcenta much less effective after 40 weeks apparantly, also the likely speed of the birth and yes the risk of PPH - although I'm taking the injections to prevent clotting so that sems ironic really. Don't think they ever allow homebirths with inductions do they? I also won't be allowed an epidural and they'd want to avoid a cesarian for similar reasons I think. Feel a bit like they're going to mess about with the naturtal order of things and then leave me to my own devices but I'm trying to think positive too. I'm seeing another consultant in a couple of weeks so I'm hoping to get a bit more concrete info from them then.

[lulumama]

cannot have an induced labour at home...

hmmmm.....

how far away from hospital are you if you need to transfer ?

[hollyandalice]

I used the birthing pool as well! I suppose as things were happening so quickly they felt they didn't need to monitor me.

[treacletart]

Well I did wonder that too Lulumama, but the consultant explicitly assured me I could have a waterbirth - knowing about the single pool situation I asked him if I could have that in writing and would he be the one dragging any other labouring woman out of the water for me and he just smiled

[lulumama]

link to homebirth site might have info re homebirth whilst on blood thinners

the reality is, if there is one birth pool, it is first come first served, and if you are induced it is even less likely you can use it!!

[treacletart]

lulumama, it's a 20 min taxi or a 7 min ambulance. I know because I did the trip by ambulance twice after DS's birth - once for manual removal of retained placenta (I think the superfast birth put my body into shock and thats why it held on to it), then 3 weeks later for Pulmonary embolisms (hence the blood thinners - personally I think it was the surgery to remove the plcenta that caused the clots) . Hoping for a "natural" placenta release this time . I've heard if youv'e had a retained placenta before you should avoid the injection next time. It's not the retained placenta thats preventing the home birth by the way.

[lulumama]

is it the risk of heamorrhage?

[treacletart]

Very intersting story on your link Lulumama - woman with very similar history to my own. I'll definitely be asking this new consultant her opinions. I'm in Brighton and they're generally considered fairly pro-home birth. There's a very active home birth unit here. Maybe I won't have to rule it out after all.

[treacletart]

PPH + "need" for induction because of speed and supposedly dodgy placenta - I'll get them to clarify properly at my next appointment.

[lulumama]

will be interested to know how you get on !

[juuule]

That was true for my experience of induction.
First birth was induced and was horrendous.
Last birth was induced and followed a similar pattern to my other spontaneous labour/deliveries - no problems. Both times I was overdue by about 2weeks and I only had the pessaries or gel, no drips so I don't know if that makes a difference.

[treacletart]

bump

[margo1974]

Both my births were inductions and both okay.

[mrsdarcy]

With my 3rd child I was induced at 38 weeks. It was fine but IME once you are on the induction treadmill, and especially if there are other medical concerns (in my case about the baby), they stick quite rigidly to their protocols.

I was labouring quite happily, using G&A, but when we got to a certain time limit they wanted to do an ARM. There was no partiular medical indication for it - I think it was 12 hours since the 1st pessary (but only 2 hours since contractions had started).

With hindsight, I should have just declined as everything was going fine, but I agreed to it and it made the rest of the labour happen far too fast for comfort. I think in retrospect that the midwife was trying to give me the nod that I could deline but I didn't pick up on it.

Apart from that, it really was fine. Much better than being induced with my first child. You get to know the midwife a bit, assuming she's not rushed off her feet. You get to settle into the delivery room and make yourself comfortable. You don't have to worry about getting to hospital whilst in labour. OK, it's not perfect and I wouldn't choose it, but really, it's fine.

Also, maybe you are someone who has fast labours anyway, which reduces the likelihood of additional intervention.

[lulumama]

that is great loopymummy ! good for you ! that is fantastic and good to know !! i guess, everything was favourable for you, as you have pointed out carefully....

i guess it is having the guts to discharge yourself and how supportive the midwives are!

marvellous ! well done ! inspiring story there

[HandbagAddiction]

I've also been induced twice and had good experiences both times. 1st induction was 5 days overdue (waters had broken on their own), single pessary, 9 hour first stage and 3 hours pushing with ventouse in the end.

2nd was ARM followed by syntocinon drip as I was 13 days overdue, was monitored constantly but mobile - on ball, etc. Established labour was 1 hour 45 minutes with a 10 minute second stage.