Planned home versus hospital care for preterm prelabour rupture of the membranes (PPROM) prior to 37 weeks' gestation

Outpatient versus inpatient care for preterm premature rupture of membranes before 34 weeks of gestation

Preterm premature rupture of membranes (PPROM) is associated with an increased risk of serious maternal, fetal, and neonatal morbidities. We compared neonatal outcomes of women with PPROM before 34⁺⁰ weeks of gestation according to inpatient or outpatient management policy. 587 women with PPROM >48 hours, 246 (41.9%) in the group with an inpatient care policy (ICP) and 341 (58.1%) in the group with an outpatient care policy (OCP), were identified in France, from 2009 to 2012. Neonatal outcomes were compared between the two groups using logistic regression. A second analysis was performed to compare inpatient care and effective outpatient care (discharge from hospital) through propensity score matching. The outcome was a neonatal composite variable including one or more of the neonatal morbidity complications. The perinatal composite outcome was 14.6% with the ICP and 15.5% with the OCP (p = 0.76). After using the 1:1 ratio propensity score matching, effective outpatient care was not associated with a significantly higher risk of the perinatal composite outcome (OR 0.88, CI 0.35 to 2.25; p = 0.80) compared with inpatient care. Outpatient care is not associated with an increased rate of obstetric or neonatal complications and can be an alternative to hospital care for women with uncomplicated PPROM.

[Antenatal management in case of preterm premature rupture of membranes before fetal viability: CNGOF Preterm Premature Rupture of Membranes Guidelines]

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate the maternal, perinatal and long-term prognosis in the event of previable premature rupture of the membranes (PROM) and to specify the interventions likely to reduce the risks and improve the prognosis.

METHODS

The PubMed database, the Cochrane Library and the recommendations from the French and foreign obstetrical societies or colleges have been consulted.

RESULTS

Previable PROM is a rare event whose frequency varies from 0.3 to 1% according to estimates (NP4). When occurring as a complication of amniocentesis, the prognosis is generally better than when spontaneous (NP3). Between 23 and 39% of women will deliver in the week following PROM and nearly 40% of women will not have given birth 2 weeks after (NP3). The frequency of medical termination of pregnancy varies greatly according to the studies (NP4), as does that of fetal death (NP4). Hospital survival and survival rates without major morbidity as a proportion of conservatively treated patients range from 17-55% and 26-63%, respectively (NP4). Neonatal prognosis is largely dominated by prematurity and its complications (NP3). The frequency of maternal sepsis varies from 0.8 to 4.8% in the most recent studies (NP4). Only one case of maternal death is reported, although 3 cases were identified in France between 2007 and 2012 (NP3). Information is a major component of the care to be provided to women and their partners (Professional consensus). An initial period of hospitalization may be proposed after previable PROM (Professional consensus). Thereafter, there is no argument to recommend hospital management rather than extra-hospital management when there is no argument in favour of intrauterine infection (Professional consensus). An evaluation of the amount of amniotic fluid by ultrasound may be proposed at the initial consultation and after a period of 7 to 14 days if pregnancy continues (Professional consensus). Prophylactic antibiotic treatment is recommended as soon as PROM is diagnosed (Professional consensus). The gestational age at which corticosteroid therapy may be proposed will depend on the thresholds selected for neonatal resuscitation care. In particular, it will take into account parental positioning (Professional consensus). From the time of the decision to perform neonatal resuscitation until the gestational age of 32 weeks, it is recommended to administer MgSO₄ to the woman whose delivery is imminent (Grade A). Tocolysis is not recommended in this context (Professional consensus). In certain situations, meeting strictly the conditions mentioned by the CSP article L. 2213-1, a maternal request for medical interruption of pregnancy may be discussed.

CONCLUSION

The levels of evidence of scientific work on the management of previable PROM are low, therefore, most of the recommendations proposed here are based on professional agreement by "reasonable" extension of recommendations valid for later gestational ages.

Practice Bulletin No. 172: Premature Rupture of Membranes

Preterm delivery occurs in approximately 12% of all births in the United States and is a major factor that contributes to perinatal morbidity and mortality (1, 2). Preterm premature rupture of membranes (PROM) complicates approximately 3% of all pregnancies in the United States (3). The optimal approach to clinical assessment and treatment of women with term and preterm PROM remains controversial. Management hinges on knowledge of gestational age and evaluation of the relative risks of delivery versus the risks of expectant management (eg, infection, abruptio placentae, and umbilical cord accident). The purpose of this document is to review the current understanding of this condition and to provide management guidelines that have been validated by appropriately conducted outcome-based research when available. Additional guidelines on the basis of consensus and expert opinion also are presented.

Fetal assessment methods for improving neonatal and maternal outcomes in preterm prelabour rupture of membranes

BACKGROUND

Fetal assessment following preterm prelabour rupture of membranes (PPROM) may result in earlier delivery due to earlier detection of fetal compromise. However, early delivery may not always be in the fetal or maternal interest, and the effectiveness of different fetal assessment methods in improving neonatal and maternal outcomes is uncertain.

OBJECTIVES

To study the effectiveness of fetal assessment methods for improving neonatal and maternal outcomes in PPROM. Examples of fetal assessment methods that would be eligible for inclusion in this review include fetal cardiotocography, fetal movement counting and Doppler ultrasound.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Pregnancy and Childbirth Group's Trials Register (30 June 2014) and reference lists of retrieved studies.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised controlled trials comparing any fetal assessment methods, or comparing one fetal assessment method to no assessment.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently assessed trials for inclusion into the review. The same two review authors independently assessed trial quality and independently extracted data. Data were checked for accuracy.

MAIN RESULTS

We included three studies involving 275 women (data reported for 271) with PPROM at up to 34 weeks' gestation. All three studies were conducted in the United States. Each study investigated different methods of fetal assessment. One study compared weekly endovaginal ultrasound scans with no assessment (n = 93), one compared amniocentesis with no assessment (n = 47), and one compared daily nonstress testing with daily modified biophysical profiling (n = 135). We were unable to perform a meta-analysis, but were able to report data from individual studies.There was no convincing evidence of increased risk of neonatal death in the group receiving endovaginal ultrasound scans compared with the group receiving no assessment (risk ratio (RR) 7.30, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.39 to 137.54; one study, 92 women), or in the group receiving amniocentesis compared with the group receiving no amniocentesis (RR 1.00, 95% CI 0.07 to 15.00; one study, 44 women). For both these interventions, we inferred that there were no fetal deaths in the intervention or control groups. The study comparing daily nonstress testing with daily modified biophysical profiling did not report fetal or neonatal death. Primary outcomes of maternal death and serious maternal morbidity were not reported in any study. Overall, there were few statistically significant differences in outcomes between the comparisons.The overall quality of evidence is poor, because participant blinding was not possible for any study.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

There is insufficient evidence on the benefits and harms of fetal assessment methods for improving neonatal and maternal outcomes in women with PPROM to draw firm conclusions. The overall quality of evidence that does exist is poor.Further high-quality randomised controlled trials are required to guide clinical practice.

Dichotomisation of a continuous outcome and effect on meta-analyses: illustration of the distributional approach using the outcome birthweight

BACKGROUND

Power and precision are greater in meta-analyses than individual study analyses. However, dichotomisation of continuous outcomes in certain studies poses a problem as estimates from primary studies can only be pooled if they have a common outcome. Meta-analyses may include pooled summaries of either or both the continuous and dichotomous forms, and potentially have a different combination of studies for each depending on whether the outcome was dichotomised in the primary studies or not. This dual-outcome issue can lead to loss of power and/or selection bias. In this study we aimed to illustrate how dichotomisation of a continuous outcome in primary studies may result in biased estimates of pooled risk and odds ratios in meta-analysis using secondary analyses of published meta-analyses with the outcome, birthweight, which is commonly analysed both as continuous, and dichotomous (low birthweight: birthweight < 2,500 g).

METHODS

Meta-analyses published in January 2010 - December 2011 were obtained using searches in PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, and Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews with the outcome birthweight. We used a distributional method to estimate the pooled odds/risk ratio of low birthweight and its standard error as a function of the data reported in the primary studies of the included meta-analyses where accessible.

RESULTS

Seventy-six meta-analyses were identified. Thirty-seven percent (28/76) of the meta-analyses reported only the dichotomous form of the outcome while 26% (20/76) reported only the continuous form. In one meta-analysis (1/76), birthweight was analysed as continuous for one intervention and as binary for another and 36% (27/76) presented both dichotomous and continuous birthweight summaries. In meta-analyses with a continuous outcome, primary studies data were accessible in 39/48 and secondary analyses using the distributional approach provided consistent inferences for both the continuous and distributional estimates in 38/39.

CONCLUSION

The distributional method applied in primary studies allows both a continuous and dichotomous outcome to be estimated providing consistent inferences. The use of this method in primary studies may restrict selective outcome bias in meta-analyses.

Planned home versus hospital care for preterm prelabour rupture of the membranes (PPROM) prior to 37 weeks' gestation

BACKGROUND

Preterm prelabour rupture of membranes (PPROM) is associated with increased risk of maternal and neonatal morbidity and mortality. Women with PPROM have been predominantly managed in hospital. It is possible that selected women could be managed at home after a period of observation. The safety, cost and women's views about home management have not been established.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the safety, cost and women's views about planned home versus hospital care for women with PPROM.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Pregnancy and Childbirth Group's Trials Register (31 July 2013) and the reference lists of all the identified articles.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised and quasi-randomised trials comparing planned home versus hospital management for women with PPROM before 37 weeks' gestation.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently assessed clinical trials for eligibility for inclusion, risk of bias, and carried out data extraction.

MAIN RESULTS

We included two trials (116 women) comparing planned home versus hospital management for PPROM. Overall, the number of included women in each trial was too small to allow adequate assessment of pre-specified outcomes. Investigators used strict inclusion criteria and in both studies relatively few of the women presenting with PPROM were eligible for inclusion. Women were monitored for 48 to 72 hours before randomisation. Perinatal mortality was reported in one trial and there was insufficient evidence to determine whether it differed between the two groups (risk ratio (RR) 1.93, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.19 to 20.05).  There was no evidence of differences between groups for serious neonatal morbidity, chorioamnionitis, gestational age at delivery, birthweight and admission to neonatal intensive care.There was no information on serious maternal morbidity or mortality. There was some evidence that women managed in hospital were more likely to be delivered by caesarean section (RR (random-effects) 0.28, 95% CI 0.07 to 1.15). However, results should be interpreted cautiously as there is moderate heterogeneity for this outcome (I² = 35%). Mothers randomised to care at home spent approximately 10 fewer days as inpatients (mean difference -9.60, 95% CI -14.59 to -4.61) and were more satisfied with their care. Furthermore, home care was associated with reduced costs.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

The review included two relatively small studies that did not have sufficient statistical power to detect meaningful differences between groups. Future large and adequately powered randomised controlled trials are required to measure differences between groups for relevant pre-specified outcomes. Special attention should be given to the assessment of maternal satisfaction with care and cost analysis as they will have social and economic implications in both developed and developing countries.