Paula Pernet

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.

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.

Economic analysis comparing induction of labor and expectant management in women with preterm prelabor rupture of membranes between 34 and 37 weeks (PPROMEXIL trial)

To compare the costs of induction of labor and expectant management in women with preterm prelabor rupture of membranes (PPROM).

Cost-effectiveness of salpingotomy and salpingectomy in women with tubal pregnancy (a randomized controlled trial)

STUDY QUESTION Is salpingotomy cost effective compared with salpingectomy in women with tubal pregnancy and a healthy contralateral tube? SUMMARY ANSWER Salpingotomy is not cost effective over salpingectomy as a surgical procedure for tubal pregnancy, as its costs are higher without a better ongoing pregnancy rate while risks of persistent trophoblast are higher. WHAT IS KNOWN ALREADY Women with a tubal pregnancy treated by salpingotomy or salpingectomy in the presence of a healthy contralateral tube have comparable ongoing pregnancy rates by natural conception. Salpingotomy bears the risk of persistent trophoblast necessitating additional medical or surgical treatment. Repeat ectopic pregnancy occurs slightly more often after salpingotomy compared with salpingectomy. Both consequences imply potentially higher costs after salpingotomy. STUDY DESIGN, SIZE, DURATION We performed an economic evaluation of salpingotomy compared with salpingectomy in an international multicentre randomized controlled trial in women with a tubal pregnancy and a healthy contralateral tube. Between 24 September 2004 and 29 November 2011, women were allocated to salpingotomy (n = 215) or salpingectomy (n = 231). Fertility follow-up was done up to 36 months post-operatively. PARTICIPANTS/MATERIALS, SETTINGS, METHODS We performed a cost-effectiveness analysis from a hospital perspective. We compared the direct medical costs of salpingotomy and salpingectomy until an ongoing pregnancy occurred by natural conception within a time horizon of 36 months. Direct medical costs included the surgical treatment of the initial tubal pregnancy, readmissions including reinterventions, treatment for persistent trophoblast and interventions for repeat ectopic pregnancy. The analysis was performed according to the intention-to-treat principle. MAIN RESULTS AND THE ROLE OF CHANCE Mean direct medical costs per woman in the salpingotomy group and in the salpingectomy group were €3319 versus €2958, respectively, with a mean difference of €361 (95% confidence interval €217 to €515). Salpingotomy resulted in a marginally higher ongoing pregnancy rate by natural conception compared with salpingectomy leading to an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio €40 982 (95% confidence interval -€130 319 to €145 491) per ongoing pregnancy. Since salpingotomy resulted in more additional treatments for persistent trophoblast and interventions for repeat ectopic pregnancy, the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio was not informative. LIMITATIONS, REASONS FOR CAUTION Costs of any subsequent IVF cycles were not included in this analysis. The analysis was limited to the perspective of the hospital. WIDER IMPLICATIONS OF THE FINDINGS However, a small treatment benefit of salpingotomy might be enough to cover the costs of subsequent IVF. This uncertainty should be incorporated in shared decision-making. Whether salpingotomy should be offered depends on societys willingness to pay for an additional child. STUDY FUNDING/COMPETING INTERESTS Netherlands Organisation for Health Research and Development, Region Västra Götaland Health & Medical Care Committee. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER ISRCTN37002267.

Women's Experiences with and Preference for Induction of Labor with Oral Misoprostol or Foley Catheter at Term

Objective We assessed experience and preferences among term women undergoing induction of labor with oral misoprostol or Foley catheter. Study Design In 18 of the 29 participating hospitals in the PROBAAT‐II trial, women were asked to complete a questionnaire within 24 hours after delivery. We adapted a validated questionnaire about expectancy and experience of labor and asked women whether they would prefer the same method again in a future pregnancy. Results The questionnaire was completed by 502 (72%) of 695 eligible women; 273 (54%) had been randomly allocated to oral misoprostol and 229 (46%) to Foley catheter. Experience of the duration of labor, pain during labor, general satisfaction with labor, and feelings of control and fear related to their expectation were comparable between both the groups. In the oral misoprostol group, 6% of the women would prefer the other method if induction is necessary in future pregnancy, versus 12% in the Foley catheter group (risk ratio: 0.70; 95% confidence interval: 0.55‐0.90; p = 0.02). Conclusion Womens experiences of labor after induction with oral misoprostol or Foley catheter are comparable. However, women in the Foley catheter group prefer more often to choose a different method for future inductions.

Accuracy of Pulse Oximetry Screening for Critical Congenital Heart Defects after Home Birth and Early Postnatal Discharge

Objective To assess the accuracy of pulse oximetry screening for critical congenital heart defects (CCHDs) in a setting with home births and early discharge after hospital deliveries, by using an adapted protocol fitting the work patterns of community midwives. Study design Pre‐ and postductal oxygen saturations (SpO2) were measured ≥1 hour after birth and on day 2 or 3. Screenings were positive if the SpO2 measurement was <90% or if 2 independent measures of pre‐ and postductal SpO2 were <95% and/or the pre‐/postductal difference was >3%. Positive screenings were referred for pediatric assessment. Primary outcomes were sensitivity, specificity, and false‐positive rate of pulse oximetry screening for CCHD. Secondary outcome was detection of noncardiac illnesses. Results The prenatal detection rate of CCHDs was 73%. After we excluded these cases and symptomatic CCHDs presenting immediately after birth, 23 959 newborns were screened. Pulse oximetry screening sensitivity in the remaining cohort was 50.0% (95% CI 23.7‐76.3) and specificity was 99.1% (95% CI 99.0‐99.2). Pulse oximetry screening was false positive for CCHDs in 221 infants, of whom 61% (134) had noncardiac illnesses, including infections (31) and respiratory pathology (88). Pulse oximetry screening did not detect left‐heart obstructive CCHDs. Including cases with prenatally detected CCHDs increased the sensitivity to 70.2% (95% CI 56.0‐81.4). Conclusion Pulse oximetry screening adapted for perinatal care in home births and early postdelivery hospital discharge assisted the diagnosis of CCHDs before signs of cardiovascular collapse. High prenatal detection led to a moderate sensitivity of pulse oximetry screening. The screening also detected noncardiac illnesses in 0.6% of all infants, including infections and respiratory morbidity, which led to early recognition and referral for treatment.

Early enteral tube feeding in optimizing treatment of hyperemesis gravidarum : the Maternal and Offspring outcomes after Treatment of HyperEmesis by Refeeding (MOTHER) randomized controlled trial

Background: Hyperemesis gravidarum (HG) leads to dehydration, poor nutritional intake, and weight loss. HG has been associated with adverse pregnancy outcomes such as low birth weight. Information about the potential effectiveness of treatments for HG is limited.Objective: We hypothesized that in women with HG, early enteral tube feeding in addition to standard care improves birth weight.Design: We performed a multicenter, open-label randomized controlled trial [Maternal and Offspring outcomes after Treatment of HyperEmesis by Refeeding (MOTHER)] in 19 hospitals in the Netherlands. A total of 116 women hospitalized for HG between 5 and 20 wk of gestation were randomly allocated to enteral tube feeding for ≥7 d in addition to standard care with intravenous rehydration and antiemetic treatment or to standard care alone. Women were encouraged to continue tube feeding at home. On the basis of our power calculation, a sample size of 120 women was anticipated. Analyses were performed according to the intention-to-treat principle.Results: Between October 2014 and March 2016 we randomly allocated 59 women to enteral tube feeding and 57 women to standard care. The mean ± SD birth weight was 3160 ± 770 g in the enteral tube feeding group compared with 3200 ± 680 g in the standard care group (mean difference: -40 g, 95% CI: -230, 310 g). Secondary outcomes, including maternal weight gain, duration of hospital stay, readmission rate, nausea and vomiting symptoms, decrease in quality of life, psychological distress, prematurity, and small-for-gestational-age, also were comparable. Of the women allocated to enteral tube feeding, 28 (47%) were treated according to protocol. Enteral tube feeding was discontinued within 7 d of placement in the remaining women, primarily because of its adverse effects (34%).Conclusions: In women with HG, early enteral tube feeding does not improve birth weight or secondary outcomes. Many women discontinued tube feeding because of discomfort, suggesting that it is poorly tolerated as an early routine treatment of HG. This trial was registered at www.trialregister.nl as NTR4197.

Erratum to: Induction of labour with a Foley catheter or oral misoprostol at term: the PROBAAT-II study, a multicentre randomised controlled trial (vol 13, pg 67, 2013)

Additional author: During the editing process of the artDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, Maasstad Hospital, Rotterdam, the Netherlands. Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, Sint Lucas icle “Induction of labour with a Foley catheter or oral misoprostol at term: the PROBAAT-II study, a multicentre randomised controlled trial“ [1] an author has been accidentally removed from the author list. Gert J van Baaren (Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Academic Medical Centre, Amsterdam, the Netherlands, g.j.vanbaaren@amc.uva.nl) critically revised the first draft, and approved the final version of the manuscript. He was especially involved in the sections relating to the cost-effectiveness analysis.

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

When pregnancy complications pose a threat to the mother or fetus or both, induction of labor is often required. Induction of labor is accomplished through a variety of methods; in pregnant women having an unfavourable cervix, cervical ripening of the cervix is accomplished through various mechanical and pharmacological means. Oral misoprostol and Foley catheter are believed to be equally effective in women with an unfavorable cervix in accomplishing vaginal birth. The current open-label randomized noninferiority trial was conducted in pregnant women with a singleton gestation in 29 hospitals in the Netherlands (2012 to 2013) to directly compare oral misoprostol with Foley catheter. Women with a viable singleton pregnancy in cephalic presentation, intact membranes, gestational age of 37 weeks or more, and an unfavorable cervix were included in the trial. The women were then randomly allocated (1:1) to oral misoprostol (n = 932) or Foley catheter (n = 927). Oral misoprostol dosage given was 50 µg orally once every 4 hours with a maximum of 3 times a day. Placement of a 30-mL Foley catheter in the cervix was done either digitally or using a vaginal speculum. The results of the study showed that the primary outcome (asphyxia or postpartum hemorrhage) occurred in 12.2% women in the misoprostol group and in 11.5% women in the Foley catheter group (adjusted relative risk [RR], 1.06; 90% confidence interval [CI], 0.86–1.31). Cesarean delivery resulted in 16.8% of labors in the misoprostol group and in 20.1% of the time in the Foley catheter group (no significant difference between groups [RR, 0.84; 95% CI, 0.69–1.01]). When the indication for cesarean delivery was examined, fewer cesarean deliveries for failure to progress in the first stage occurred after induction in the misoprostol group than in the Foley catheter group (6.2% vs 10.6%; RR, 0.58; 95% CI, 0.42–0.79). In addition, operative vaginal delivery occurred more frequently in the misoprostol group. Among the misoprostol group spontaneous membrane rupture was more common and labor augmentation with oxytocin was less likely. The study leads to a conclusion that in terms of safety and effectiveness, induction of labour using oral misoprostol is as safe as mechanical induction using Foley catheter.