Planned early birth versus expectant management for women with preterm prelabour rupture of membranes at 34 to 37 weeks' gestation for improving pregnancy outcome

Timing of antibiotic prophylaxis in term prelabor rupture of membranes: A retrospective cohort study using propensity-score matching

OBJECTIVE

To assess whether earlier administration of antibiotic prophylaxis after prelabor rupture of membranes (PROM) at term would decrease the incidence of maternal and neonatal infections.

METHODS

This is a retrospective cohort study comparing women with term PROM who were initiated antibiotic prophylaxis within or after 6 h, and within or after 12 h from PROM to delivery during January 2019 to December 2021. Women with term PROM receiving cephalosporin and without contraindications to vaginal delivery or confirmed or suspected infection were included in the study. The primary outcome was puerperal infection, which refers to the reproductive tract infection occurring within 42 days of delivery. The type of pharmacoeconomic evaluation was selected based on the results of compared effectiveness between the early group and the late group. Propensity-score matching (PSM) was used to adjust confounding. Subgroup and sensitivity analyses were used to verify the robustness of results.

RESULTS

We enrolled 5353 women with term PROM, including 4331 initiated with antibiotic within 6 h, 1022 after 6 h, 5077 within 12 h, and 276 after 12 h. After PSM, no significant difference was observed in the baseline characteristics of the groups. There was no statistical difference between antibiotic use within 6 h and after 6 h, or within 12 h and after 12 h, in puerperal infection (4.6% vs. 4.3%, P = 0.826; 2.9% vs. 4.6%, P = 0.471, respectively), total maternal infection, neonatal sepsis, and total neonatal infection. Cost-minimization analysis showed there was no significant difference between antibiotic use within 6 h and after 6 h, or within 12 h and after 12 h, in direct medical costs.

CONCLUSION

This study showed that there was no statistical difference in the efficacy and economy of antibiotic prophylaxis used within 6-12 h after rupture of membranes versus after 6-12 h in women with term PROM.

Planned early birth versus expectant management (waiting) for prelabour rupture of membranes at term (37 weeks or more)

BACKGROUND

Prelabour rupture of membranes (PROM) at term is managed expectantly or by planned early birth. It is not clear if waiting for birth to occur spontaneously is better than intervening, e.g. by inducing labour.

OBJECTIVES

The objective of this review is to assess the effects of planned early birth (immediate intervention or intervention within 24 hours) when compared with expectant management (no planned intervention within 24 hours) for women with term PROM on maternal, fetal and neonatal outcomes.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched Cochrane Pregnancy and Childbirth's Trials Register (9 September 2016) and reference lists of retrieved studies.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised or quasi-randomised controlled trials of planned early birth compared with expectant management (either in hospital or at home) in women with PROM at 37 weeks' gestation or later.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently assessed trials for inclusion, extracted the data, and assessed risk of bias of the included studies. Data were checked for accuracy.

MAIN RESULTS

Twenty-three trials involving 8615 women and their babies were included in the update of this review. Ten trials assessed intravenous oxytocin; 12 trials assessed prostaglandins (six trials in the form of vaginal prostaglandin E2 and six as oral, sublingual or vaginal misoprostol); and one trial each assessed Caulophyllum and acupuncture. Overall, three trials were judged to be at low risk of bias, while the other 20 were at unclear or high risk of bias.Primary outcomes: women who had planned early birth were at a reduced risk of maternal infectious morbidity (chorioamnionitis and/or endometritis) than women who had expectant management following term prelabour rupture of membranes (average risk ratio (RR) 0.49; 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.33 to 0.72; eight trials, 6864 women; Tau² = 0.19; I² = 72%; low-quality evidence), and their neonates were less likely to have definite or probable early-onset neonatal sepsis (RR 0.73; 95% CI 0.58 to 0.92; 16 trials, 7314 infants;low-quality evidence). No clear differences between the planned early birth and expectant management groups were seen for the risk of caesarean section (average RR 0.84; 95% CI 0.69 to 1.04; 23 trials, 8576 women; Tau² = 0.10; I² = 55%; low-quality evidence); serious maternal morbidity or mortality (no events; three trials; 425 women; very low-quality evidence); definite early-onset neonatal sepsis (RR 0.57; 95% CI 0.24 to 1.33; six trials, 1303 infants; very low-quality evidence); or perinatal mortality (RR 0.47; 95% CI 0.13 to 1.66; eight trials, 6392 infants; moderate-quality evidence).

SECONDARY OUTCOMES

women who had a planned early birth were at a reduced risk of chorioamnionitis (average RR 0.55; 95% CI 0.37 to 0.82; eight trials, 6874 women; Tau² = 0.19; I² = 73%), and postpartum septicaemia (RR 0.26; 95% CI 0.07 to 0.96; three trials, 263 women), and their neonates were less likely to receive antibiotics (average RR 0.61; 95% CI 0.44 to 0.84; 10 trials, 6427 infants; Tau² = 0.06; I² = 32%). Women in the planned early birth group were more likely to have their labour induced (average RR 3.41; 95% CI 2.87 to 4.06; 12 trials, 6945 women; Tau² = 0.05; I² = 71%), had a shorter time from rupture of membranes to birth (mean difference (MD) -10.10 hours; 95% CI -12.15 to -8.06; nine trials, 1484 women; Tau² = 5.81; I² = 60%), and their neonates had lower birthweights (MD -79.25 g; 95% CI -124.96 to -33.55; five trials, 1043 infants). Women who had a planned early birth had a shorter length of hospitalisation (MD -0.79 days; 95% CI -1.20 to -0.38; two trials, 748 women; Tau² = 0.05; I² = 59%), and their neonates were less likely to be admitted to the neonatal special or intensive care unit (RR 0.75; 95% CI 0.66 to 0.85; eight trials, 6179 infants), and had a shorter duration of hospital (-11.00 hours; 95% CI -21.96 to -0.04; one trial, 182 infants) or special or intensive care unit stay (RR 0.72; 95% CI 0.61 to 0.85; four trials, 5691 infants). Women in the planned early birth group had more positive experiences compared with women in the expectant management group.No clear differences between groups were observed for endometritis; postpartum pyrexia; postpartum antibiotic usage; caesarean for fetal distress; operative vaginal birth; uterine rupture; epidural analgesia; postpartum haemorrhage; adverse effects; cord prolapse; stillbirth; neonatal mortality; pneumonia; Apgar score less than seven at five minutes; use of mechanical ventilation; or abnormality on cerebral ultrasound (no events).None of the trials reported on breastfeeding; postnatal depression; gestational age at birth; meningitis; respiratory distress syndrome; necrotising enterocolitis; neonatal encephalopathy; or disability at childhood follow-up.In subgroup analyses, there were no clear patterns of differential effects for method of induction, parity, use of maternal antibiotic prophylaxis, or digital vaginal examination. Results of the sensitivity analyses based on trial quality were consistent with those of the main analysis, except for definite or probable early-onset neonatal sepsis where no clear difference was observed.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

There is low quality evidence to suggest that planned early birth (with induction methods such as oxytocin or prostaglandins) reduces the risk of maternal infectious morbidity compared with expectant management for PROM at 37 weeks' gestation or later, without an apparent increased risk of caesarean section. Evidence was mainly downgraded due to the majority of studies contributing data having some serious design limitations, and for most outcomes estimates were imprecise.Although the 23 included trials in this review involved a large number of women and babies, the quality of the trials and evidence was not high overall, and there was limited reporting for a number of important outcomes. Thus further evidence assessing the benefits or harms of planned early birth compared with expectant management, considering maternal, fetal, neonatal and longer-term childhood outcomes, and the use of health services, would be valuable. Any future trials should be adequately designed and powered to evaluate the effects on short- and long-term outcomes. Standardisation of outcomes and their definitions, including for the assessment of maternal and neonatal infection, would be beneficial.

Antibiotic prophylaxis for premature rupture of membranes and perinatal outcome

AIM

To evaluate the perinatal outcomes of newborns after premature rupture of membranes (PROM) at the term according to the timing of initial antibiotic administration.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

This is a retrospective, cohort study investigating perinatal outcomes of newborns in pregnant women with PROM at the term who were treated with ampicillin within or after 6 h from the PROM. Statistical analysis was performed using Student's t-test for continuous variables test and chi-square or for categorical data.

RESULTS

The study involved 144 pregnant women with PROM and their newborns, a lower number received antibiotics after birth were in the group who received antibiotics within 6 h of PROM (26.4% versus 73.6%), the mediane values of C-reactive protein were lower (3.0 ± 2.9 mg/l versus 6.1 ± 7.3 mg/l; p < 0.001), their newborns remained shorter in hospital after birth (4.13 versus 4.94; p =0.023) and time between PROM and delivery was shorter (p < 0.001). In group who received prophylactic antibiotics after 6 h of the PROM had significantly higher frequency of infection in newborns (45.3% versus 15.4%), and higher number of chorioamnionitis (9.72% versus 3,47%) compared to group who received antibiotics within 6h.

CONCLUSION

Timely usage of antibiotic prophylaxis and shorter time between PROM and delivery improve perinatal outcomes.

Planned early birth versus expectant management (waiting) for prelabour rupture of membranes at term (37 weeks or more)

BACKGROUND

Prelabour rupture of membranes at term is managed expectantly or by elective birth, but it is not clear if waiting for birth to occur spontaneously is better than intervening.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effects of planned early birth versus expectant management for women with term prelabour rupture of membranes on fetal, infant and maternal wellbeing.

SEARCH STRATEGY

We searched the Cochrane Pregnancy and Childbirth Group Trials Register (November 2004), the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (The Cochrane Library, Issue 4, 2004), MEDLINE (1966 to November 2004) and EMBASE (1974 to November 2004).

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised or quasi-randomised trials of planned early birth compared with expectant management in women with prelabour rupture of membranes at 37 weeks' gestation or more.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently applied eligibility criteria, assessed trial quality and extracted data. A random-effects model was used.

MAIN RESULTS

Twelve trials (total of 6814 women) were included. Planned management was generally induction with oxytocin or prostaglandin, with one trial using homoeopathic caulophyllum. Overall, no differences were detected for mode of birth between planned and expectant groups: relative risk (RR) of caesarean section 0.94, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.82 to 1.08 (12 trials, 6814 women); RR of operative vaginal birth 0.98, 95% 0.84 to 1.16 (7 trials, 5511 women). Significantly fewer women in the planned compared with expectant management groups had chorioamnionitis (RR 0.74, 95% CI 0.56 to 0.97; 9 trials, 6611 women) or endometritis (RR 0.30, 95% CI 0.12 to 0.74; 4 trials, 445 women). No difference was seen for neonatal infection (RR 0.83, 95% CI 0.61 to 1.12; 9 trials, 6406 infants). However, fewer infants under planned management went to neonatal intensive or special care compared with expectant management (RR 0.72, 95% CI 0.57 to 0.92, number needed to treat 20; 5 trials, 5679 infants). In a single trial, significantly more women with planned management viewed their care more positively than those expectantly managed (RR of "nothing liked" 0.45, 95% CI 0.37 to 0.54; 5031 women).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Planned management (with methods such as oxytocin or prostaglandin) reduces the risk of some maternal infectious morbidity without increasing caesarean sections and operative vaginal births. Fewer infants went to neonatal intensive care under planned management although no differences were seen in neonatal infection rates. Since planned and expectant management may not be very different, women need to have appropriate information to make informed choices.