Mallory Woiski

Induction of Labor versus Expectant Management in Women with Preterm Prelabor Rupture of Membranes between 34 and 37 Weeks: A Randomized Controlled Trial

In a randomized controlled trial David van der Ham and colleagues investigate induction of labor versus expectant management for women with preterm prelabor rupture of membranes.

Predictive value of cervical length measurement and fibronectin testing in threatened preterm labor

OBJECTIVE: To estimate the performance of combining cervical length measurement with fetal fibronectin testing in predicting delivery in women with symptoms of preterm labor. METHODS: We conducted a prospective nationwide cohort study in all 10 perinatal centers in The Netherlands. Women with symptoms of preterm labor between 24 and 34 weeks of gestation with intact membranes were included. In all women, qualitative fibronectin testing (0.050-microgram/mL cutoff) and cervical length measurement were performed. Logistic regression was used to predict spontaneous preterm delivery within 7 days after testing. A risk less than 5%, corresponding to the risk for women with a cervical length of at least 25 mm, was considered as low risk. RESULTS: Between December 2009 and August 2012, 714 women were enrolled. Fibronectin results and cervical length were available for 665 women, of whom 80 (12%) delivered within 7 days. Women with a cervical length of at least 30 mm or with a cervical length between 15 and 30 mm with a negative fibronectin result were at low risk (less than 5%) of spontaneous delivery within 7 days. Fibronectin testing in case of a cervical length between 15 and 30 mm additionally classified 103 women (15% of the cohort) as low risk and 36 women (5% of the cohort) as high risk. CONCLUSION: Cervical length measurement, combined with fetal fibronectin testing in case of a cervical length between 15 and 30 mm, improves identification of women with a low risk to deliver spontaneously within 7 days. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: II

Peri-partum reference ranges for ROTEM® thromboelastometry

BACKGROUND Post-partum haemorrhage (PPH) causes rapidly developing deficiencies in clotting factors and contributes to substantial maternal morbidity and mortality. Rotational thromboelastometry (ROTEM(®)) is increasingly used as a point of care coagulation monitoring device in patients with massive haemorrhage; however, there are limited data on reference ranges in the peri-partum period. These are required due to the haemostatic changes in pregnancy. METHODS In a Dutch multi-centre trial, 161 subjects were included; blood samples were obtained during labour (T1) and within 1 h of delivery (T2). Reference ranges of ROTEM(®) INTEM, EXTEM, FIBTEM, and APTEM were set and correlation with laboratory results was investigated using the guidelines of the International Federation of Clinical Chemistry. RESULTS Reference ranges were obtained for clotting time (CT), clot formation time (CFT), α-angle, clot firmness at 10 and 20 min (A10, A20), maximum clot firmness (MCF), and maximum lysis (ML). These were comparable from centre to centre, and between T1 and T2. Reference ranges T1: EXTEM: CT 31-63 s, CFT 41-120 s, and MCF 42-78 mm. INTEM CT 109-225 s, CFT 40-103, and MCF 63-78 mm. FIBTEM CT 31-79 s and MCF 13-45 mm. APTEM CT 33-62 s, CFT 42-118, and MCF 61-79 mm. CONCLUSIONS Reference values for ROTEM(®) parameters are reported. The previously published correlation between FIBTEM parameters and plasma fibrinogen levels by the Clauss method is confirmed. Further research is needed to define threshold values for haemostatic therapy in the course of PPH. Clinical trial registration NTR 2515 (http://www.trialregister.nl/trialreg/admin/rctview.asp?TC=2515).

Immediate delivery versus expectant monitoring for hypertensive disorders of pregnancy between 34 and 37 weeks of gestation (HYPITAT-II): an open-label, randomised controlled trial

BACKGROUND There is little evidence to guide the management of women with hypertensive disorders in late preterm pregnancy. We investigated the effect of immediate delivery versus expectant monitoring on maternal and neonatal outcomes in such women. METHODS We did an open-label, randomised controlled trial, in seven academic hospitals and 44 non-academic hospitals in the Netherlands. Women with non-severe hypertensive disorders of pregnancy between 34 and 37 weeks of gestation were randomly allocated to either induction of labour or caesarean section within 24 h (immediate delivery) or a strategy aimed at prolonging pregnancy until 37 weeks of gestation (expectant monitoring). The primary outcomes were a composite of adverse maternal outcomes (thromboembolic disease, pulmonary oedema, eclampsia, HELLP syndrome, placental abruption, or maternal death), and neonatal respiratory distress syndrome, both analysed by intention-to-treat. This study is registered with the Netherlands Trial Register (NTR1792). FINDINGS Between March 1, 2009, and Feb 21, 2013, 897 women were invited to participate, of whom 703 were enrolled and randomly assigned to immediate delivery (n=352) or expectant monitoring (n=351). The composite adverse maternal outcome occurred in four (1·1%) of 352 women allocated to immediate delivery versus 11 (3·1%) of 351 women allocated to expectant monitoring (relative risk [RR] 0·36, 95% CI 0·12-1·11; p=0·069). Respiratory distress syndrome was diagnosed in 20 (5·7%) of 352 neonates in the immediate delivery group versus six (1·7%) of 351 neonates in the expectant monitoring group (RR 3·3, 95% CI 1·4-8·2; p=0·005). No maternal or perinatal deaths occurred. INTERPRETATION For women with non-severe hypertensive disorders at 34-37 weeks of gestation, immediate delivery might reduce the already small risk of adverse maternal outcomes. However, it significantly increases the risk of neonatal respiratory distress syndrome, therefore, routine immediate delivery does not seem justified and a strategy of expectant monitoring until the clinical situation deteriorates can be considered. FUNDING ZonMw.

Induction of labour versus expectant management in women with preterm prelabour rupture of membranes between 34 and 37 weeks (the PPROMEXIL-trial)

BackgroundPreterm prelabour rupture of the membranes (PPROM) is an important clinical problem and a dilemma for the gynaecologist. On the one hand, awaiting spontaneous labour increases the probability of infectious disease for both mother and child, whereas on the other hand induction of labour leads to preterm birth with an increase in neonatal morbidity (e.g., respiratory distress syndrome (RDS)) and a possible rise in the number of instrumental deliveries.Methods/DesignWe aim to determine the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of immediate delivery after PPROM in near term gestation compared to expectant management. Pregnant women with preterm prelabour rupture of the membranes at a gestational age from 34+0 weeks until 37+0 weeks will be included in a multicentre prospective randomised controlled trial. We will compare early delivery with expectant monitoring.The primary outcome of this study is neonatal sepsis. Secondary outcome measures are maternal morbidity (chorioamnionitis, puerperal sepsis) and neonatal disease, instrumental delivery rate, maternal quality of life, maternal preferences and costs. We anticipate that a reduction of neonatal infection from 7.5% to 2.5% after induction will outweigh an increase in RDS and additional costs due to admission of the child due to prematurity. Under these assumptions, we aim to randomly allocate 520 women to two groups of 260 women each. Analysis will be by intention to treat. Additionally a cost-effectiveness analysis will be performed to evaluate if the cost related to early delivery will outweigh those of expectant management. Long term outcomes will be evaluated using modelling.DiscussionThis trial will provide evidence as to whether induction of labour after preterm prelabour rupture of membranes is an effective and cost-effective strategy to reduce the risk of neonatal sepsis.Controlled clinical trial registerISRCTN29313500

Induction of labour at term with oral misoprostol versus a Foley catheter (PROBAAT-II): a multicentre randomised controlled non-inferiority trial

BACKGROUND Labour is induced in 20-30% of all pregnancies. In women with an unfavourable cervix, both oral misoprostol and Foley catheter are equally effective compared with dinoprostone in establishing vaginal birth, but each has a better safety profile. We did a trial to directly compare oral misoprostol with Foley catheter alone. METHODS We did an open-label randomised non-inferiority trial in 29 hospitals in the Netherlands. Women with a term singleton pregnancy in cephalic presentation, an unfavourable cervix, intact membranes, and without a previous caesarean section who were scheduled for induction of labour were randomly allocated to cervical ripening with 50 μg oral misoprostol once every 4 h or to a 30 mL transcervical Foley catheter. The primary outcome was a composite of asphyxia (pH ≤7·05 or 5-min Apgar score <7) or post-partum haemorrhage (≥1000 mL). The non-inferiority margin was 5%. The trial is registered with the Netherlands Trial Register, NTR3466. FINDINGS Between July, 2012, and October, 2013, we randomly assigned 932 women to oral misoprostol and 927 women to Foley catheter. The composite primary outcome occurred in 113 (12·2%) of 924 participants in the misoprostol group versus 106 (11·5%) of 921 in the Foley catheter group (adjusted relative risk 1·06, 90% CI 0·86-1·31). Caesarean section occurred in 155 (16·8%) women versus 185 (20·1%; relative risk 0·84, 95% CI 0·69-1·02, p=0·067). 27 adverse events were reported in the misoprostol group versus 25 in the Foley catheter group. None were directly related to the study procedure. INTERPRETATION In women with an unfavourable cervix at term, induction of labour with oral misoprostol and Foley catheter has similar safety and effectiveness. FUNDING FondsNutsOhra.

Patient controlled analgesia with remifentanil versus epidural analgesia in labour : randomised multicentre equivalence trial

Objective To determine women’s satisfaction with pain relief using patient controlled analgesia with remifentanil compared with epidural analgesia during labour. Design Multicentre randomised controlled equivalence trial. Setting 15 hospitals in the Netherlands. Participants Women with an intermediate to high obstetric risk with an intention to deliver vaginally. To exclude a clinically relevant difference in satisfaction with pain relief of more than 10%, we needed to include 1136 women. Because of missing values for satisfaction this number was increased to 1400 before any analysis. We used multiple imputation to correct for missing data. Intervention Before the onset of active labour consenting women were randomised to a pain relief strategy with patient controlled remifentanil or epidural analgesia if they requested pain relief during labour. Main outcome measures Primary outcome was satisfaction with pain relief, measured hourly on a visual analogue scale and expressed as area under the curve (AUC), thus providing a time weighted measure of total satisfaction with pain relief. A higher AUC represents higher satisfaction with pain relief. Secondary outcomes were pain intensity scores, mode of delivery, and maternal and neonatal outcomes. Analysis was done by intention to treat. The study was defined as an equivalence study for the primary outcome. Results 1414 women were randomised, of whom 709 were allocated to patient controlled remifentanil and 705 to epidural analgesia. Baseline characteristics were comparable. Pain relief was ultimately used in 65% (447/687) in the remifentanil group and 52% (347/671) in the epidural analgesia group (relative risk 1.32, 95% confidence interval 1.18 to 1.48). Cross over occurred in 7% (45/687) and 8% (51/671) of women, respectively. Of women primarily treated with remifentanil, 13% (53/402) converted to epidural analgesia, while in women primarily treated with epidural analgesia 1% (3/296) converted to remifentanil. The area under the curve for total satisfaction with pain relief was 30.9 in the remifentanil group versus 33.7 in the epidural analgesia group (mean difference −2.8, 95% confidence interval −6.9 to 1.3). For who actually received pain relief the area under the curve for satisfaction with pain relief after the start of pain relief was 25.6 in the remifentanil group versus 36.1 in the epidural analgesia group (mean difference −10.4, −13.9 to −7.0). The rate of caesarean section was 15% in both groups. Oxygen saturation was significantly lower (SpO2 <92%) in women who used remifentanil (relative risk 1.5, 1.4 to 1.7). Maternal and neonatal outcomes were comparable between both groups. Conclusion In women in labour, patient controlled analgesia with remifentanil is not equivalent to epidural analgesia with respect to scores on satisfaction with pain relief. Satisfaction with pain relief was significantly higher in women who were allocated to and received epidural analgesia. Trial registration Netherlands Trial Register NTR2551.

Vaginal birth after a caesarean section: the development of a Western European population‐based prediction model for deliveries at term

To develop and internally validate a model that predicts the outcome of an intended vaginal birth after caesarean (VBAC) for a Western European population that can be used to personalise counselling for deliveries at term.

Nifedipine versus atosiban for threatened preterm birth (APOSTEL III): a multicentre, randomised controlled trial

BACKGROUND In women with threatened preterm birth, delay of delivery by 48 h allows antenatal corticosteroids to improve neonatal outcomes. For this reason, tocolytics are often administered for 48 h; however, there is no consensus about which drug results in the best maternal and neonatal outcomes. In the APOSTEL III trial we aimed to compare the effectiveness and safety of the calcium-channel blocker nifedipine and the oxytocin inhibitor atosiban in women with threatened preterm birth. METHODS We did this multicentre, randomised controlled trial in ten tertiary and nine teaching hospitals in the Netherlands and Belgium. Women with threatened preterm birth (gestational age 25-34 weeks) were randomly assigned (1:1) to either oral nifedipine or intravenous atosiban for 48 h. An independent data manager used a web-based computerised programme to randomly assign women in permuted block sizes of four, with groups stratified by centre. Clinicians, outcome assessors, and women were not masked to treatment group. The primary outcome was a composite of adverse perinatal outcomes, which included perinatal mortality, bronchopulmonary dysplasia, sepsis, intraventricular haemorrhage, periventricular leukomalacia, and necrotising enterocolitis. Analysis was done in all women and babies with follow-up data. The study is registered at the Dutch Clinical Trial Registry, number NTR2947. FINDINGS Between July 6, 2011, and July 7, 2014, we randomly assigned 254 women to nifedipine and 256 to atosiban. Primary outcome data were available for 248 women and 297 babies in the nifedipine group and 255 women and 294 babies in the atosiban group. The primary outcome occurred in 42 babies (14%) in the nifedipine group and in 45 (15%) in the atosiban group (relative risk [RR] 0·91, 95% CI 0·61-1·37). 16 (5%) babies died in the nifedipine group and seven (2%) died in the atosiban group (RR 2·20, 95% CI 0·91-5·33); all deaths were deemed unlikely to be related to the study drug. Maternal adverse events did not differ between groups. INTERPRETATION In women with threatened preterm birth, 48 h of tocolysis with nifedipine or atosiban results in similar perinatal outcomes. Future clinical research should focus on large placebo-controlled trials, powered for perinatal outcomes. FUNDING ZonMw (the Netherlands Organisation for Health Research and Development).

Quantitative fetal fibronectin testing in combination with cervical length measurement in the prediction of spontaneous preterm delivery in symptomatic women.

To evaluate whether in symptomatic women, the combination of quantitative fetal fibronectin (fFN) testing and cervical length (CL) improves the prediction of preterm delivery (PTD) within 7 days compared with qualitative fFN and CL.