Ambulation versus oxytocin in protracted labour: a pilot study

Early versus delayed oxytocin infusion following amniotomy for induction of labor: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

BACKGROUND

Oxytocin infusion prior to confirmation of delay in labor is discouraged by the World Health Organization. However, evidence from the Cochrane library seems to support early amniotomy and oxytocin to reduce the rates of cesarean sections (CS).

OBJECTIVES

To investigate differences in mode of delivery among parturient receiving early versus delayed oxytocin infusion following amniotomy as a mean for augmentation of labor.

SEARCH STRATEGY

We searched Medline, Scopus, EMBASE, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials and Google Scholar databases from inception till February 2020. Selection criteria: Randomized controlled trials.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Data were collected using a modified Cochrane data collection form for intervention reviews. Meta-analysis was performed using the meta function in RStudio.

MAIN RESULTS

Five studies were included that involved 1.232 parturient. The meta-analysis did not reveal significant differences in the mode of delivery among women that were randomized to receive immediate oxytocin infusion and those that received delayed oxytocin infusion (operative vaginal delivery OR 1.14, 95% CI 0.48, 2.69) and CS OR 0.81, 95% CI 0.53, 1.25)). The interval from amniotomy to delivery was significantly smaller in the immediate oxytocin infusion group; however, prediction intervals were not significant.

CONCLUSIONS

The results of our meta-analysis suggest that there is no difference in the mode of delivery and interval from amniotomy to delivery when oxytocin is delayed for at least one hour following amniotomy. Taking in mind this information as well as current recommendations drawn from the WHO physicians should consider withholding oxytocin infusion at least until protracted labor is confirmed.

Comparison of the Effects of Maternal Supportive Care and Acupressure (at BL32 Acupoint) on Labor Length and Infant's Apgar Score

BACKGROUND & OBJECTIVES

Prolonged labor leads to increase of cesarean deliveries, reduction of fetal heart rate, and maternal as well as infantile complications. Therefore, many women tend to use pharmacological or non-pharmacological methods for reduction of labor length. The present study aimed to compare the effects of maternal supportive care and acupressure (at BL32 acupoint) on labor length and infant's Apgar score.

METHODS

In this clinical trial, 150 women with low-risk pregnancy were randomly divided into supportive care, acupressure, and control groups each containing 50 subjects. The data were collected using a questionnaire including demographic and pregnancy characteristics. Then, the data were analyzed using Chi-square test and one-way ANOVA.

RESULTS

The mean length of the first and second stages of labor was respectively 157.0±29.5 and 58.9±5.8 minutes in the supportive care group, 161.7±37.3 and 56.1±31.4 minutes in the acupressure group, ad 281.0±9.8 and 128.4±44.9 minutes in the control group. The difference between the length of labor stages was significant in the three study groups (P<0.001). Moreover, the frequency of Apgar score>8 in the first and 5th minutes was higher in the supportive care and acupressure groups compared to the control group, and the difference was statistically significant (P<0.001).

CONCLUSION

Continuous support and acupressure could reduce the length of labor stages and increase the infants' Apgar scores. Therefore, these methods, as effective non-pharmacological strategies, can be introduced to the medical staff to improve the delivery outcomes.

A prospective observational study of ethnic and racial differences in neuraxial labor analgesia request and pain relief

BACKGROUND

As ethnic and racial diversity increases, it is important that anesthesia providers understand the expectations and concerns of this changing population regarding labor analgesia. Our objective was to evaluate ethnic/racial differences in labor analgesia characteristics with regard to the timing of request for neuraxial analgesia.

METHODS

Three hundred ninety-seven parturients were enrolled in this prospective observational cohort study. Term laboring parturients who planned vaginal delivery and requested neuraxial labor analgesia were eligible for inclusion. Data collected included cervical dilation at the time of neuraxial analgesia request, self-identified ethnicity/race, parity, education, insurance status, pain score before and after the initiation of neuraxial analgesia, and mode of delivery. The primary outcome was cervical dilation at the time of neuraxial analgesia request. Ethnicity/race classification was determined by asking the patient, "How would you define your ethnicity?" Patients were categorized into the ethnic/racial groups of non-Hispanic White, African American, Hispanic, or other. Univariate associations between cervical dilation and categorical variables were examined. Multivariate analysis was performed for the primary outcome of cervical dilation at the time of initiation of neuraxial analgesia.

RESULTS

At the time of neuraxial analgesia placement, the mean difference in cervical dilation of Hispanic parturients was 0.8 cm compared to non-Hispanic Whites (95% confidence interval [CI], 0.1-1.4; P = 0.047). After controlling for education, reason for placement, labor augmentation, and mode of delivery in a multivariate model, Hispanic parturients had 0.5 cm greater cervical dilation compared to non-Hispanic Whites, which was not significant (95% confidence interval, -0.1 to 1.1; P = 0.089).

CONCLUSIONS

Our data indicate that ethnicity/race plays a small role in acceptance and request for neuraxial labor analgesia.

Polymorphism in the ADRB2 gene explains a small portion of intersubject variability in pain relative to cervical dilation in the first stage of labor

BACKGROUND

Variability in labor pain has been associated with demographic, clinical, and psychological factors. Polymorphisms of the β2-adrenergic receptor gene (ADRB2) influence sensitivity to experimental pain in humans and are a risk factor for chronic pain. The authors hypothesized that polymorphisms in ADRB2 may influence labor pain.

METHODS

After Institutional Review Board approval and written informed consent, the authors prospectively obtained hourly pain reports from 233 nulliparous parturients during the first stage of labor, of which 199 were included in the current analysis. DNA from blood samples was genotyped at polymorphisms in the genes for the β2-adrenergic receptor, the μ opioid receptor subtype 1, catechol-O-methyltransferase, fatty acid amide hydrolase, and the oxytocin receptor. Labor pain as a function of cervical dilation was modeled with previously described methods. Patient covariates, ADRB2 genotype, and obstetrical and anesthesia treatment were evaluated as covariates in the model.

RESULTS

Labor pain more rapidly became severe in parturients heterozygous or homozygous for the G allele at rs1042714 in the ADRB2 gene. Labor pain increased more rapidly after artificial rupture of membranes, augmentation with oxytocin, and in younger women. Inclusion of covariates explained approximately 10% of the variability between subjects. ADRB2 genotype explained less than 1% of the intersubject variability.

CONCLUSION

ADRB2 genotype correlates with labor pain but explained less than 1% of the intersubject variance in the model.

Maternal positions and mobility during first stage labour

BACKGROUND

It is more common for women in both high- and low-income countries giving birth in health facilities, to labour in bed. There is no evidence that this is associated with any advantage for women or babies, although it may be more convenient for staff. Observational studies have suggested that if women lie on their backs during labour this may have adverse effects on uterine contractions and impede progress in labour, and in some women reduce placental blood flow.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effects of encouraging women to assume different upright positions (including walking, sitting, standing and kneeling) versus recumbent positions (supine, semi-recumbent and lateral) for women in the first stage of labour on duration of labour, type of birth and other important outcomes for mothers and babies.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Pregnancy and Childbirth Group's Trials Register (31 January 2013).

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised and quasi-randomised trials comparing women randomised to upright versus recumbent positions in the first stage of labour.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We used methods described in the Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions for carrying out data collection, assessing study quality and analysing results. Two review authors independently evaluated methodological quality and extracted data for each study. We sought additional information from trial authors as required. We used random-effects analysis for comparisons in which high heterogeneity was present. We reported results using the average risk ratio (RR) for categorical data and mean difference (MD) for continuous data.

MAIN RESULTS

Results should be interpreted with caution as the methodological quality of the 25 included trials (5218 women) was variable.For Comparison 1: Upright and ambulant positions versus recumbent positions and bed care, the first stage of labour was approximately one hour and 22 minutes shorter for women randomised to upright as opposed to recumbent positions (average MD -1.36, 95% confidence interval (CI) -2.22 to -0.51; 15 studies, 2503 women; random-effects, T(2) = 2.39, Chi(2) = 203.55, df = 14, (P < 0.00001), I(2) = 93%). Women who were upright were also less likely to have caesarean section (RR 0.71, 95% CI 0.54 to 0.94; 14 studies, 2682 women) and less likely to have an epidural (RR 0.81, 95% CI 0.66 to 0.99, nine studies, 2107 women; random-effects, T(2) = 0.02, I(2) = 61%). Babies of mothers who were upright were less likely to be admitted to the neonatal intensive care unit, however this was based on one trial (RR 0.20, 95% CI 0.04 to 0.89, one study, 200 women). There were no significant differences between groups for other outcomes including duration of the second stage of labour, or other outcomes related to the well being of mothers and babies.For Comparison 2: Upright and ambulant positions versus recumbent positions and bed care (with epidural: all women), there were no significant differences between groups for outcomes including duration of the second stage of labour, or other outcomes related to the well being of mothers and babies.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

There is clear and important evidence that walking and upright positions in the first stage of labour reduces the duration of labour, the risk of caesarean birth, the need for epidural, and does not seem to be associated with increased intervention or negative effects on mothers' and babies' well being. Given the great heterogeneity and high performance bias of study situations, better quality trials are still required to confirm with any confidence the true risks and benefits of upright and mobile positions compared with recumbent positions for all women. Based on the current findings, we recommend that women in low-risk labour should be informed of the benefits of upright positions, and encouraged and assisted to assume whatever positions they choose.

Maternal positions and mobility during first stage labour

BACKGROUND

It is more common for women in both high- and low-income countries giving birth in health facilities, to labour in bed. There is no evidence that this is associated with any advantage for women or babies, although it may be more convenient for staff. Observational studies have suggested that if women lie on their backs during labour this may have adverse effects on uterine contractions and impede progress in labour, and in some women reduce placental blood flow.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effects of encouraging women to assume different upright positions (including walking, sitting, standing and kneeling) versus recumbent positions (supine, semi-recumbent and lateral) for women in the first stage of labour on duration of labour, type of birth and other important outcomes for mothers and babies.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Pregnancy and Childbirth Group's Trials Register (31 January 2013).

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised and quasi-randomised trials comparing women randomised to upright versus recumbent positions in the first stage of labour.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We used methods described in the Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions for carrying out data collection, assessing study quality and analysing results. Two review authors independently evaluated methodological quality and extracted data for each study. We sought additional information from trial authors as required. We used random-effects analysis for comparisons in which high heterogeneity was present. We reported results using the average risk ratio (RR) for categorical data and mean difference (MD) for continuous data.

MAIN RESULTS

Results should be interpreted with caution as the methodological quality of the 25 included trials (5218 women) was variable.For Comparison 1: Upright and recumbent positions versus recumbent positions and bed care, the first stage of labour was approximately one hour and 22 minutes shorter for women randomised to upright as opposed to recumbent positions (average MD -1.36, 95% confidence interval (CI) -2.22 to -0.51; 15 studies, 2503 women; random-effects, T(2) = 2.39, Chi(2) = 203.55, df = 14, (P < 0.00001), I(2) = 93%). Women who were upright were also less likely to have caesarean section (RR 0.71, 95% CI 0.54 to 0.94; 14 studies, 2682 women) and less likely to have an epidural (RR 0.81, 95% CI 0.66 to 0.99, nine studies, 2107 women; random-effects, T(2) = 0.02, I(2) = 61%). Babies of mothers who were upright were less likely to be admitted to the neonatal intensive care unit, however this was based on one trial (RR 0.20, 95% CI 0.04 to 0.89, one study, 200 women). There were no significant differences between groups for other outcomes including duration of the second stage of labour, or other outcomes related to the well being of mothers and babies.For Comparison 2: Upright and recumbent positions versus recumbent positions and bed care (with epidural: all women), there were no significant differences between groups for outcomes including duration of the second stage of labour, or other outcomes related to the well being of mothers and babies.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

There is clear and important evidence that walking and upright positions in the first stage of labour reduces the duration of labour, the risk of caesarean birth, the need for epidural, and does not seem to be associated with increased intervention or negative effects on mothers' and babies' well being. Given the great heterogeneity and high performance bias of study situations, better quality trials are still required to confirm with any confidence the true risks and benefits of upright and mobile positions compared with recumbent positions for all women. Based on the current findings, we recommend that women in low-risk labour should be informed of the benefits of upright positions, and encouraged and assisted to assume whatever positions they choose.

Oxytocin versus no treatment or delayed treatment for slow progress in the first stage of spontaneous labour

BACKGROUND

Slow progress in the first stage of spontaneous labour is associated with an increased caesarean section rate and fetal and maternal morbidity. Oxytocin has long been advocated as a treatment for slow progress in labour but it is unclear to what extent it improves the outcomes for that labour and whether it actually reduces the caesarean section rate or maternal and fetal morbidity. This review will address the use of oxytocin and whether it improves the outcomes for women who are progressing slowly in labour compared to situations where it is not used or where its administration is delayed.

OBJECTIVES

To determine if the use of oxytocin for the treatment of slow progress in the first stage of spontaneous labour is associated with a reduction in the incidence of caesarean sections, or maternal and fetal morbidity compared to situations where it is not used or where its administration is delayed.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Pregnancy and Childbirth Group's Trials Register (23 February 2013) and bibliographies of relevant papers.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised controlled trials which compared oxytocin with either placebo, no treatment or delayed oxytocin in the active stage of spontaneous labour in low-risk women at term.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two authors independently assessed studies for inclusion, assessed risk of bias and extracted data. We sought additional information from trial authors.

MAIN RESULTS

We included eight studies in the review involving a total of 1338 low-risk women in the first stage of spontaneous labour at term. Two comparisons were made; 1) the use of oxytocin versus placebo or no treatment (three trials); 2) the early use of oxytocin versus its delayed use (five trials). There were no significant differences in the rates of caesarean section or instrumental vaginal delivery in either comparison. Early use of oxytocin resulted in an increase in uterine hyperstimulation associated with fetal heart changes. However, the early use of oxytocin versus its delayed use resulted in no significant differences in a range of neonatal and maternal outcomes. Use of early oxytocin resulted in a statistically significant reduction in the mean duration in labour of approximately two hours but did not increase the normal delivery rate. There was significant heterogeneity for this analysis and we carried out a random-effects meta-analysis; however, all of the trials are strongly in the same direction so it is reasonable to conclude that this is the true effect. We also performed a random-effects meta-analysis for the four other analyses which showed substantial heterogeneity in the review.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

For women making slow progress in spontaneous labour, treatment with oxytocin as compared with no treatment or delayed oxytocin treatment did not result in any discernable difference in the number of caesarean sections performed. In addition there were no detectable adverse effects for mother or baby. The use of oxytocin was associated with a reduction in the time to delivery of approximately two hours which might be important to some women. However, if the primary goal of this treatment is to reduce caesarean section rates, then doctors and midwives may have to look for alternative options.

Oxytocin versus no treatment or delayed treatment for slow progress in the first stage of spontaneous labour

BACKGROUND

Slow progress in the first stage of spontaneous labour is associated with an increased caesarean section rate and fetal and maternal morbidity. Oxytocin has long been advocated as a treatment for slow progress in labour but it is unclear to what extent it improves the outcomes for that labour and whether it actually reduces the caesarean section rate or maternal and fetal morbidity. This review will address the use of oxytocin and whether it improves the outcomes for women who are progressing slowly in labour compared to situations where it is not used or where its administration is delayed.

OBJECTIVES

To determine if the use of oxytocin for the treatment of slow progress in the first stage of spontaneous labour is associated with a reduction in the incidence of caesarean sections, or maternal and fetal morbidity compared to situations where it is not used or where its administration is delayed.

SEARCH STRATEGY

We searched the Cochrane Pregnancy and Childbirth Group's Trials Register (30 April 2011) and bibliographies of relevant papers.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised controlled trials which compared oxytocin with either placebo, no treatment or delayed oxytocin in the active stage of spontaneous labour in low-risk women at term.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two authors independently assessed studies for inclusion, assessed risk of bias and extracted data. We sought additional information from trial authors.

MAIN RESULTS

We included eight studies in the review involving a total of 1338 low-risk women in the first stage of spontaneous labour at term. Two comparisons were made; 1) the use of oxytocin versus placebo or no treatment (three trials); 2) the early use of oxytocin versus its delayed use (five trials). There were no significant differences in the rates of caesarean section or instrumental vaginal delivery in either comparison. Early use of oxytocin resulted in an increase in uterine hyperstimulation associated with fetal heart changes. However, the early use of oxytocin versus its delayed use resulted in no significant differences in a range of neonatal and maternal outcomes. Use of early oxytocin resulted in a statistically significant reduction in the mean duration in labour of approximately two hours but did not increase the normal delivery rate. There was significant heterogeneity for this analysis and we carried out a random-effects meta-analysis; however, all of the trials are strongly in the same direction so it is reasonable to conclude that this is the true effect. We also performed a random-effects meta-analysis for the four other analyses which showed substantial heterogeneity in the review.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

For women making slow progress in spontaneous labour, treatment with oxytocin as compared with no treatment or delayed oxytocin treatment did not result in any discernable difference in the number of caesarean sections performed. In addition there were no detectable adverse effects for mother or baby. The use of oxytocin was associated with a reduction in the time to delivery of approximately two hours which might be important to some women. However, if the primary goal of this treatment is to reduce caesarean section rates, then doctors and midwives may have to look for alternative options.

High-dose vs low-dose oxytocin for labor augmentation: a systematic review

The objective of this systematic review was to estimate the efficacy and safety of high-dose vs low-dose oxytocin for labor augmentation on the risk of cesarean section and on indicators of maternal and neonatal morbidity. We searched PubMed, MEDLINE, EMBASE, and the Cochrane Library for randomized clinical trials published until January 2010. Ten randomized clinical trials, including 5423 women, met the inclusion criteria. High-dose oxytocin was associated with a moderate decrease in the risk of cesarean section (relative risk [RR], 0.85; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.75-0.97), a small increase in spontaneous vaginal delivery (RR, 1.07; 95% CI, 1.02-1.12), and a decrease in labor duration (mean difference: -1.54 hours, 95% CI, -2.44 to -0.64). While hyperstimulation was increased with high-dose oxytocin (RR, 1.91; 95% CI, 1.49-2.45), there was no evidence of an increase in maternal or neonatal morbidity. We conclude that high-dose oxytocin for labor augmentation is associated with a decrease in cesarean section and shortened labor.

[Role of deambulation during labour: A prospective randomized study]

OBJECTIVE

To assess the effects of ambulation during the first stage of labor on the duration of labor and other maternal and infant outcomes.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

A prospective randomized trial conducted from 1st November 2008 to 31st March 2009 at the department of obstetrics and gynecology, CHU Farhat Hached, Sousse, Tunisia. Two hundred mothers with uncomplicated term pregnancies were randomly assigned to one of two groups: first group (100 parturients) authorized to ambulate until 6cm of cervical dilation and a second group (100 parturients) confined to bed in dorsal or lateral recumbence.

RESULTS

Upright position reduces significantly (for about 34%) the duration of the first stage of labor (P<0.0001), the pain intensity, the oxytocin consumption (P=0.001), the rate of delivery by cesarean section and of instrumental deliveries. Upright position leads also to a net improvement of the maternal outcome (7% side effects versus 13%) and the fetal outcome (net improvement of the Apgar's score at first and fifth minute, and reduction of a factor 5 of the rate of transfer to the neonatology clinical care unit.

CONCLUSION

Our study allowed to confirm the benefits of ambulation on labor progress as well as on the maternal comfort and the maternofetal outcome.

The vertical position during labor: pain and satisfaction

OBJECTIVES: to evaluate the vertical position adopted by nulliparous women during labor in terms of pain and satisfaction with the position. METHODS: the study was based on a secondary efficacy analysis of data from 107 nulliparous women enrolled in a randomized controlled trial in which the vertical position adopted during the dilation phase of labor was evaluated. The analysis involved comparing the median percentages of the duration for which women remained in the vertical position for each of the variables studied . The Kruskal-Wallis and Mann-Whitney tests were used to determine the difference s betwee n th e groups. Statistical significance was set at p<0.05. RESULTS: at 4cm of dilation , the women with a pain score < 5 remained longer in the vertical position during labor compared to those with a score > 7 (p=0.02) . At 4 and 6 cm of dilation , the women who reported greater satisfaction remained more than 50 % of the time in the vertical position (p=0.0 2 an d p=0.03 , respectively). CONCLUSIONS: the vertical position helped relieve labor pain and increased comfort and patient satisfaction.

The effect of early oxytocin augmentation in labor: a meta-analysis

OBJECTIVE

To estimate the effects of early augmentation with oxytocin for slow progress of labor on the delivery method and on indicators of maternal and neonatal morbidity.

DATA SOURCES

We conducted electronic database searches of PubMed, MEDLINE, EMBASE, and the Cochrane Library for articles published through February 2009 using the keywords "oxytocin," "augmentation," "active management of labor," "cesarean section," and "labor." Primary authors were contacted directly if the data sought were unavailable.

METHODS OF STUDY SELECTION

We included randomized controlled trials comparing early oxytocin augmentation with a more conservative approach to care in labor. We included only those studies in which membrane management was similar in the two groups. Early oxytocin augmentation was defined as immediate oxytocin administration when dystocia was identified. Data were extracted by two authors independently and evaluated for potential sources of bias. Relative risk (RR) and 95% confidence interval (CI) were calculated using fixed and random effects models.

TABULATION, INTEGRATION, AND RESULTS

Nine trials with 1,983 women met the inclusion criteria. Early oxytocin was associated with an increase in the probability of spontaneous vaginal delivery (RR 1.09, 95% CI 1.03-1.17). For every 20 patients treated with early oxytocin augmentation, one additional spontaneous vaginal delivery is expected. Although the point estimate for the effect on cesarean delivery (RR 0.87, 95% CI 0.71-1.06) and on operative vaginal delivery (RR 0.84, 95% CI 0.70-1.00) showed modest protective effects, the CIs for both estimates included the null effect. A decrease in antibiotic use (RR 0.45, 95% CI 0.21-0.99) was observed with early intervention. Early oxytocin was associated with an increased risk of hyperstimulation (RR 2.90, 95% CI 1.21-6.94) without evidence of adverse neonatal effects. Women in the early oxytocin group reported higher levels of pain and discomfort in labor.

CONCLUSION

Early oxytocin for augmentation in labor is associated with an increase in spontaneous vaginal delivery.

Maternal positions and mobility during first stage labour

BACKGROUND

It is more common for women in the developed world, and those in low-income countries giving birth in health facilities, to labour in bed. There is no evidence that this is associated with any advantage for women or babies, although it may be more convenient for staff. Observational studies have suggested that if women lie on their backs during labour this may have adverse effects on uterine contractions and impede progress in labour.

OBJECTIVES

The purpose of the review is to assess the effects of encouraging women to assume different upright positions (including walking, sitting, standing and kneeling) versus recumbent positions (supine, semi-recumbent and lateral) for women in the first stage of labour on length of labour, type of delivery and other important outcomes for mothers and babies.

SEARCH STRATEGY

We searched the Cochrane Pregnancy and Childbirth Group's Trials Register (November 2008).

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised and quasi-randomised trials comparing women randomised to upright versus recumbent positions in the first stage of labour.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We used methods described in the Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions for carrying out data collection, assessing study quality and analysing results. A minimum of two review authors independently assessed each study.

MAIN RESULTS

The review includes 21 studies with a total of 3706 women. Overall, the first stage of labour was approximately one hour shorter for women randomised to upright as opposed to recumbent positions (MD -0.99, 95% CI -1.60 to -0.39). Women randomised to upright positions were less likely to have epidural analgesia (RR 0.83 95% CI 0.72 to 0.96).There were no differences between groups for other outcomes including length of the second stage of labour, mode of delivery, or other outcomes related to the wellbeing of mothers and babies. For women who had epidural analgesia there were no differences between those randomised to upright versus recumbent positions for any of the outcomes examined in the review. Little information on maternal satisfaction was collected, and none of the studies compared different upright or recumbent positions.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

There is evidence that walking and upright positions in the first stage of labour reduce the length of labour and do not seem to be associated with increased intervention or negative effects on mothers' and babies' wellbeing. Women should be encouraged to take up whatever position they find most comfortable in the first stage of labour.

Maternal position during the first stage of labor: a systematic review

Background

Policy makers and health professionals are progressively using evidence-based rationale to guide their decisions. There has long been controversy regarding which maternal position is more appropriate during the first stage of labor. This problem has been examined often and repeatedly and the optimal recommendation remains unclear.

Methods

This is a systematic review of the effect of maternal position during the first stage of labor. The main question addressed here is: Does encouraging women to adopt an upright position or to ambulate during the first stage of labor reduce the duration of this stage? All randomized controlled trials carried out to assess this effect were taken into consideration in this review. The following electronic databases were accessed to identify studies: MEDLINE, Popline, the Scientific Electronic Library On-line and the Latin American and Caribbean Health Science Information. Citation eligibility was independently assessed by two reviewers. The methodological quality of each trial was also evaluated independently by two reviewers and a trial under consideration was included only when consensus had been attained. Allocation concealment and screening for the occurrence of attrition, performance and detection biases were considered when studies were appraised. The decision whether to perform data pooling was based on the clinical similarity of studies.

Results

The search strategy resulted in 260 citations, of which 18 were assessed in full-text. Nine eligible randomized controlled trials were included in the systematic review. Randomization methods were not fully described in eight studies. The allocation concealment was considered adequate in four studies and unclear in five. The investigators pooled the data from seven studies in which the length of the first stage of labor and results were in favor of the intervention, but the high level of heterogeneity (I² = 88.4%) impaired the meaning of this finding. The intervention did not affect other outcomes studied (mode of delivery, use of analgesia, labor augmentation and condition of the child at birth).

Conclusion

Adoption of the upright position or ambulation during first stage of labor may be safe, but considering the available evidence and its consistency, it cannot be recommended as an effective intervention to reduce duration of the first stage of labor.

A comparison of breast stimulation and intravenous oxytocin for the augmentation of labor

BACKGROUND

Breast stimulation to augment labor has been used for centuries in tribal societies and by midwives. In recent years it has been shown to be effective in ripening the cervix, inducing labor, and as an alternative to oxytocin for the contraction stress test. This study compared the effectiveness of breast stimulation with oxytocin infusion in augmenting labor.

METHODS

Women admitted to the labor ward were eligible for the study if they had inadequate labor with premature rupture of the membranes and met inclusion criteria. They were assigned to oxytocin augmentation or breast stimulation (manual or pump), and were switched to oxytocin in the event of method failure. Outcomes included time to delivery, intervention to delivery, proportion of spontaneous deliveries, and Apgar scores. One hundred participants were needed in each arm of the study to demonstrate a 2- to 3-hour difference in delivery time, with a power of 80 percent.

RESULTS

Analysis was performed on 79 women, of whom 49 were in the breast stimulation group and 30 in the oxytocin group. Sixty-five percent of the participants failed breast stimulation and were switched to oxytocin infusion. Although augmentation start to delivery was shorter for the oxytocin group (p < 0.001), no differences in total labor time occurred between the groups. Nulliparas receiving breast stimulation had more spontaneous (relative risk 1.7, p = 0.04), and fewer instrumental deliveries than those receiving oxytocin (relative risk 0.2, p = 0.02). No significant differences in adverse fetal outcomes occurred between the study groups.

CONCLUSIONS

The small number of participants and a variety of problems with the conduct of the study prevented the formulation of reliable conclusions from the results. However, the study provided important insights into the feasibility and problems of developing a high-quality randomized trial of augmentation by breast stimulation.

Effects of early augmentation of labour with amniotomy and oxytocin in nulliparous women: a meta-analysis

OBJECTIVES

To estimate the effects among nulliparae of early augmentation with amniotomy and oxytocin on caesarean delivery, and on other indicators of maternal and neonatal morbidity including transfusion. Apgar score < 7 at 5 minutes, and admission to the special care nursery.

DESIGN

Meta-analysis.

METHODS

Published studies were identified through manual and computerised searches. Two unpublished studies were identified through direct communication with the investigators. Twelve trials were identified which compared a policy of early labour augmentation including amniotomy followed by oxytocin with a less active form of management. Two methodologically unacceptable studies were excluded. Studies were grouped according to whether they admitted only women with abnormal progress (therapy trials: n = 3) or accepted women with normal labour (prevention trials: n = 7).

RESULTS

Unstratified analysis did not provide support for the hypothesis that early augmentation reduces the risk of caesarean section (typical odds ratio [OR] 0.9; 95% CI 0.7-1.1). The typical odds ratio for prevention trials was similar to that obtained in the unstratified analysis (typical OR 0.9, 95% CI 0.7-1.2). Although only a small number of women have been randomised in therapy trials, a trend toward a reduction in the rate of caesarean section with early intervention was seen in this group (typical OR 0.6, 95% CI 0.2-1.4).

CONCLUSIONS

Early augmentation does not appear to provide benefit over a more conservative form of management in the context of care of nulliparous women with mild delays in the progress of labour. In the context of established delay in labour, an active policy of augmentation may reduce the risk of caesarean section. However, only three small trials have been performed in this context, and they do not have adequate power to allow firm conclusions to be drawn.

Dysfunctional labour: a randomised trial

Sixty-one women making slow progress in the active phase of spontaneous labour with intact membranes were randomised to oxytocin and amniotomy, amniotomy only or expectant management. The data show that oxytocin significantly increases the rate of cervical dilatation and shortens prolonged labour, when compared with amniotomy alone and expectant management (P = 0.0144 and 0.0006, respectively). The impact on the operative delivery rate and neonatal outcome is difficult to assess due to the small number of relevant adverse outcomes. Women reported higher satisfaction score in the two groups where intervention followed the diagnosis of dysfunctional labour.

Oxytocics in developing countries

OBJECTIVES

A prospective multicenter study of obstetric practices was conducted in three developing countries (Benin, Congo and Senegal) to analyze oxytocic use during labor. One of the objectives was to assess the possible negative effects of the treatment regimens instituted during the labor monitoring phase.

METHODS

Four health districts participated in the study. All women who gave birth in one of the participating health facilities over a 6-month period in Benin and Congo, and over a 3-month period in Senegal, were recruited. The number of deliveries studied in each district varied from 457 to 1048. For each case a partogram was used to assess the progress of labor and the onset of dysfunctional labor. Information was collected on the risk factors for dysfunctional labor, stillbirths and resuscitation of the neonate.

RESULTS

Each of the four collaborating centers used oxytocics preferentially to treat dysfunctional labor, but even in normal labor (i.e. with a normal partogram) oxytocics were used in 4.4-21.5% of cases. In normal labor the incidence of neonatal resuscitation was higher in cases with than in those without oxytocic use: the relative risks (R.R.) varied from 1.9 to 5.6; the odds ratios varied from 2.4 to 7.0, and both were statistically significant in the four settings. In addition the stillbirth rate was always higher, though not significantly, when oxytocics were used in normal labor (R.R. 1.2-2.2). When the data of the four centers were pooled, the global relative risk for stillbirths was 1.9, and the 95% confidence interval was 1.1-3.4. Logistic regression analysis was carried out for five confounding factors (primiparity, a previous complicated delivery, presence of meconium, ruptured membranes and educational level) to adjust the odds ratio for the risk of neonatal resuscitation when oxytocics were used in normal labor. Except in the case of Abomey in Benin, where the variable 'presence of meconium' decreased the odds ratio from 6.4 to 3.4, the adjusted odds ratios remained similar to their non-adjusted values. In cases of non-dysfunctional labor, nurses and midwives used oxytocics more often than lesser trained health personnel (R.R. 4.0 [3.2-5.1]).

CONCLUSION

Our results show that an obstetric treatment which is safe when used in certain well-defined indications, may have significant negative effects when used in situations where the same technical quality of care cannot be guaranteed.