Active management of third stage of labor by intravenous ergometrine and rectal versus sublingual misoprostol (a double-center study)

Randomised Controlled Trial of Sublingual and Rectal Misoprostol in the Prevention of Primary Postpartum Haemorrhage in a Resource-Limited Community

BACKGROUND/PURPOSE

Misoprostol is beneficial in preventing postpartum haemorrhage (PPH). However, there is no consensus yet as to which route will give the balance of efficacy, safety and patient preference, especially at the recommended dose of 600 mcg. This study compared the efficacy and adverse effects of rectal and sublingual misoprostol for the prevention of PPH.

METHODS

In a prospective fashion, consenting eligible parturients were randomised into two groups to receive either 600 mcg of misoprostol rectally or sublingually after vaginal delivery. All study participants were followed up till 24 h postpartum. Primary outcomes were blood loss of 500 ml or greater and at least 10% change in peripartum haematocrit levels.

RESULTS

Seven (6.7%) and 16 (15.7%) of the sublingual and rectal routes, respectively, had PPH. However, the odds of having PPH after rectal misoprostol were at least twice the odds after the sublingual route (p = 0.041). Also, the mean blood loss after the first, fourth and 24th hour postpartum were significantly higher after rectal administration. Although significantly more patients had shivering and pyrexia after sublingual misoprostol, it was acceptable to more participants than the rectal route.

CONCLUSION

At the recommended dose, sublingually administered misoprostol ('the sweet of life') is associated with a lower incidence of PPH than the rectal route. Despite its higher incidence of shivering and pyrexia, it was accepted by more women than rectally administered misoprostol.ClinicalTrials.gov identifier PACTR201911500348367.

Uterotonic agents for preventing postpartum haemorrhage: a network meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Postpartum haemorrhage (PPH) is the leading cause of maternal mortality worldwide. Prophylactic uterotonic agents can prevent PPH, and are routinely recommended. The current World Health Organization (WHO) recommendation for preventing PPH is 10 IU (international units) of intramuscular or intravenous oxytocin. There are several uterotonic agents for preventing PPH but there is still uncertainty about which agent is most effective with the least side effects. This is an update of a Cochrane Review which was first published in April 2018 and was updated to incorporate results from a recent large WHO trial.

OBJECTIVES

To identify the most effective uterotonic agent(s) to prevent PPH with the least side effects, and generate a ranking according to their effectiveness and side-effect profile.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Pregnancy and Childbirth's Trials Register, ClinicalTrials.gov, the World Health Organization (WHO) International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP) (24 May 2018), and reference lists of retrieved studies.

SELECTION CRITERIA

All randomised controlled trials or cluster-randomised trials comparing the effectiveness and side effects of uterotonic agents with other uterotonic agents, placebo or no treatment for preventing PPH were eligible for inclusion. Quasi-randomised trials were excluded. Randomised trials published only as abstracts were eligible if sufficient information could be retrieved.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

At least three review authors independently assessed trials for inclusion and risk of bias, extracted data and checked them for accuracy. We estimated the relative effects and rankings for preventing PPH ≥ 500 mL and PPH ≥ 1000 mL as primary outcomes. Secondary outcomes included blood loss and related outcomes, morbidity outcomes, maternal well-being and satisfaction and side effects. Primary outcomes were also reported for pre-specified subgroups, stratifying by mode of birth, prior risk of PPH, healthcare setting, dosage, regimen and route of administration. We performed pairwise meta-analyses and network meta-analysis to determine the relative effects and rankings of all available agents.

MAIN RESULTS

The network meta-analysis included 196 trials (135,559 women) involving seven uterotonic agents and placebo or no treatment, conducted across 53 countries (including high-, middle- and low-income countries). Most trials were performed in a hospital setting (187/196, 95.4%) with women undergoing a vaginal birth (71.5%, 140/196).Relative effects from the network meta-analysis suggested that all agents were effective for preventing PPH ≥ 500 mL when compared with placebo or no treatment. The three highest ranked uterotonic agents for prevention of PPH ≥ 500 mL were ergometrine plus oxytocin combination, misoprostol plus oxytocin combination and carbetocin. There is evidence that ergometrine plus oxytocin (RR 0.70, 95% CI 0.59 to 0.84, moderate certainty), carbetocin (RR 0.72, 95% CI 0.56 to 0.93, moderate certainty) and misoprostol plus oxytocin (RR 0.70, 95% CI 0.58 to 0.86, low certainty) may reduce PPH ≥ 500 mL compared with oxytocin. Low-certainty evidence suggests that misoprostol, injectable prostaglandins, and ergometrine may make little or no difference to this outcome compared with oxytocin.All agents except ergometrine and injectable prostaglandins were effective for preventing PPH ≥ 1000 mL when compared with placebo or no treatment. High-certainty evidence suggests that ergometrine plus oxytocin (RR 0.83, 95% CI 0.66 to 1.03) and misoprostol plus oxytocin (RR 0.88, 95% CI 0.70 to 1.11) make little or no difference in the outcome of PPH ≥ 1000 mL compared with oxytocin. Low-certainty evidence suggests that ergometrine may make little or no difference to this outcome compared with oxytocin meanwhile the evidence on carbetocin was of very low certainty. High-certainty evidence suggests that misoprostol is less effective in preventing PPH ≥ 1000 mL when compared with oxytocin (RR 1.19, 95% CI 1.01 to 1.42). Despite the comparable relative treatment effects between all uterotonics (except misoprostol) and oxytocin, ergometrine plus oxytocin, misoprostol plus oxytocin combinations and carbetocin were the highest ranked agents for PPH ≥ 1000 mL.Misoprostol plus oxytocin reduces the use of additional uterotonics (RR 0.56, 95% CI 0.42 to 0.73, high certainty) and probably also reduces the risk of blood transfusion (RR 0.51, 95% CI 0.37 to 0.70, moderate certainty) when compared with oxytocin. Carbetocin, injectable prostaglandins and ergometrine plus oxytocin may also reduce the use of additional uterotonics but the certainty of the evidence is low. No meaningful differences could be detected between all agents for maternal deaths or severe morbidity as these outcomes were rare in the included randomised trials where they were reported.The two combination regimens were associated with important side effects. When compared with oxytocin, misoprostol plus oxytocin combination increases the likelihood of vomiting (RR 2.11, 95% CI 1.39 to 3.18, high certainty) and fever (RR 3.14, 95% CI 2.20 to 4.49, moderate certainty). Ergometrine plus oxytocin increases the likelihood of vomiting (RR 2.93, 95% CI 2.08 to 4.13, moderate certainty) and may make little or no difference to the risk of hypertension, however absolute effects varied considerably and the certainty of the evidence was low for this outcome.Subgroup analyses did not reveal important subgroup differences by mode of birth (caesarean versus vaginal birth), setting (hospital versus community), risk of PPH (high versus low risk for PPH), dose of misoprostol (≥ 600 mcg versus < 600 mcg) and regimen of oxytocin (bolus versus bolus plus infusion versus infusion only).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

All agents were generally effective for preventing PPH when compared with placebo or no treatment. Ergometrine plus oxytocin combination, carbetocin, and misoprostol plus oxytocin combination may have some additional desirable effects compared with the current standard oxytocin. The two combination regimens, however, are associated with significant side effects. Carbetocin may be more effective than oxytocin for some outcomes without an increase in side effects.

Prophylactic use of ergot alkaloids in the third stage of labour

BACKGROUND

Previous research has shown that the prophylactic use of uterotonic agents in the third stage of labour reduces postpartum blood loss and moderate to severe postpartum haemorrhage (PPH). PPH is defined as a blood loss of 500 mL or more within 24 hours after birth. This is one of a series of systematic reviews assessing the effects of prophylactic use of uterotonic drugs; in this review prophylactic ergot alkaloids as a whole, and different regimens of administration of ergot alkaloids, are compared with no uterotonic agents. This is an update of a Cochrane Review which was first published in 2007 and last updated in 2011.

OBJECTIVES

To determine the effectiveness and safety of prophylactic use of ergot alkaloids in the third stage of labour by any route (intravenous (IV), intramuscular (IM), or oral) compared with no uterotonic agents, for the prevention of PPH.

SEARCH METHODS

For this update, we searched the Cochrane Pregnancy and Childbirth Group's Trials Register, ClinicalTrials.gov, the WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP) (19 September 2017); we also searched reference lists of retrieved studies.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included all randomised controlled trials or cluster-randomised trials comparing prophylactic ergot alkaloids by any route (IV, IM, or oral) with no uterotonic agents in the third stage of labour among women giving birth vaginally.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently assessed trials for inclusion, extracted data and checked them for accuracy; they also assessed the risk of bias in included studies. Two review authors assessed the quality of the evidence using the GRADE approach.

MAIN RESULTS

There were eight included studies: three studies had a low risk of bias and five studies had high risk of bias. The studies compared ergot alkaloids with no uterotonic agents, with a total of 2031 women in the ergot alkaloids group and 1978 women in the placebo or no treatment group. Seven studies used the IV/IM route of administration and one study used the oral route.Ergot alkaloids (any route of administration) versus no uterotonic agentsUse of ergot alkaloids in the third stage of labour decreased mean blood loss (mean difference (MD) -80.52 mL, 95% confidence interval (CI) -96.39 to -64.65 mL; women = 2718; studies = 3; moderate-quality evidence); decreased PPH of at least 500 mL (average risk ratio (RR) 0.52, 95% CI 0.28 to 0.94; women = 3708; studies = 5; I2 = 83%; low-quality evidence); increased maternal haemoglobin concentration (g/dL) at 24 to 48 hours postpartum (MD 0.50 g/dL, 95% CI 0.38 to 0.62; women = 1429; studies = 1; moderate-quality evidence); and decreased the use of therapeutic uterotonics (average RR 0.37, 95% CI 0.15 to 0.90; women = 2698; studies = 3; I2 = 89%; low-quality evidence). There were no clear differences between groups in severe PPH of at least 1000 mL (average RR 0.32, 95% CI 0.04 to 2.59; women = 1718; studies = 2; I2 = 74%; very low-quality evidence). The risk of retained placenta or manual removal of the placenta, or both, were inconsistent with high heterogeneity. Ergot alkaloids increased the risk of elevated blood pressure (average RR 2.60, 95% CI 1.03 to 6.57: women = 2559; studies = 3; low-quality evidence) and pain after birth requiring analgesia (RR 2.53, 95% CI 1.34 to 4.78: women = 1429; studies = 1; moderate-quality evidence) but there were no differences between groups in vomiting, nausea, headache or eclamptic fit.Results for IV/IM ergot alkaloids versus no uterotonic agents were similar to those for the main comparison of ergot alkaloids administered by any route, since most of the studies (seven of eight) used the IV/IM route. Only one small study (289 women) compared oral ergometrine with placebo and it showed no benefit of ergometrine over placebo. No maternal adverse effects were reported.None of the studies reported on any of our prespecified neonatal outcomes AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Prophylactic IM or IV injections of ergot alkaloids may be effective in reducing blood loss, reducing PPH (estimated blood loss of at least 500 mL), and increasing maternal haemoglobin. Ergot alkaloids may also decrease the use of therapeutic uterotonics, but adverse effects may include elevated blood pressure and pain after birth requiring analgesia. There were no differences between groups in terms of other adverse effects (vomiting, nausea, headache or eclamptic fit). There is a lack of evidence on the effects of ergot alkaloids on severe PPH, and retained or manual removal of placenta. There is also a lack of evidence on the oral route of administration of ergot alkaloids.

Uterotonic agents for preventing postpartum haemorrhage: a network meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Postpartum haemorrhage (PPH) is the leading cause of maternal mortality worldwide. Prophylactic uterotonic drugs can prevent PPH, and are routinely recommended. There are several uterotonic drugs for preventing PPH but it is still debatable which drug is best.

OBJECTIVES

To identify the most effective uterotonic drug(s) to prevent PPH, and generate a ranking according to their effectiveness and side-effect profile.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched Cochrane Pregnancy and Childbirth's Trials Register (1 June 2015), ClinicalTrials.gov and the World Health Organization (WHO) International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP) for unpublished trial reports (30 June 2015) and reference lists of retrieved studies.

SELECTION CRITERIA

All randomised controlled comparisons or cluster trials of effectiveness or side-effects of uterotonic drugs for preventing PPH.Quasi-randomised trials and cross-over trials are not eligible for inclusion in this review.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

At least three review authors independently assessed trials for inclusion and risk of bias, extracted data and checked them for accuracy. We estimated the relative effects and rankings for preventing PPH ≥ 500 mL and PPH ≥ 1000 mL as primary outcomes. We performed pairwise meta-analyses and network meta-analysis to determine the relative effects and rankings of all available drugs. We stratified our primary outcomes according to mode of birth, prior risk of PPH, healthcare setting, dosage, regimen and route of drug administration, to detect subgroup effects.The absolute risks in the oxytocin are based on meta-analyses of proportions from the studies included in this review and the risks in the intervention groups were based on the assumed risk in the oxytocin group and the relative effects of the interventions.

MAIN RESULTS

This network meta-analysis included 140 randomised trials with data from 88,947 women. There are two large ongoing studies. The trials were mostly carried out in hospital settings and recruited women who were predominantly more than 37 weeks of gestation having a vaginal birth. The majority of trials were assessed to have uncertain risk of bias due to poor reporting of study design. This primarily impacted on our confidence in comparisons involving carbetocin trials more than other uterotonics.The three most effective drugs for prevention of PPH ≥ 500 mL were ergometrine plus oxytocin combination, carbetocin, and misoprostol plus oxytocin combination. These three options were more effective at preventing PPH ≥ 500 mL compared with oxytocin, the drug currently recommended by the WHO (ergometrine plus oxytocin risk ratio (RR) 0.69 (95% confidence interval (CI) 0.57 to 0.83), moderate-quality evidence; carbetocin RR 0.72 (95% CI 0.52 to 1.00), very low-quality evidence; misoprostol plus oxytocin RR 0.73 (95% CI 0.60 to 0.90), moderate-quality evidence). Based on these results, about 10.5% women given oxytocin would experience a PPH of ≥ 500 mL compared with 7.2% given ergometrine plus oxytocin combination, 7.6% given carbetocin, and 7.7% given misoprostol plus oxytocin. Oxytocin was ranked fourth with close to 0% cumulative probability of being ranked in the top three for PPH ≥ 500 mL.The outcomes and rankings for the outcome of PPH ≥ 1000 mL were similar to those of PPH ≥ 500 mL. with the evidence for ergometrine plus oxytocin combination being more effective than oxytocin (RR 0.77 (95% CI 0.61 to 0.95), high-quality evidence) being more certain than that for carbetocin (RR 0.70 (95% CI 0.38 to 1.28), low-quality evidence), or misoprostol plus oxytocin combination (RR 0.90 (95% CI 0.72 to 1.14), moderate-quality evidence)There were no meaningful differences between all drugs for maternal deaths or severe morbidity as these outcomes were so rare in the included randomised trials.Two combination regimens had the poorest rankings for side-effects. Specifically, the ergometrine plus oxytocin combination had the higher risk for vomiting (RR 3.10 (95% CI 2.11 to 4.56), high-quality evidence; 1.9% versus 0.6%) and hypertension [RR 1.77 (95% CI 0.55 to 5.66), low-quality evidence; 1.2% versus 0.7%), while the misoprostol plus oxytocin combination had the higher risk for fever (RR 3.18 (95% CI 2.22 to 4.55), moderate-quality evidence; 11.4% versus 3.6%) when compared with oxytocin. Carbetocin had similar risk for side-effects compared with oxytocin although the quality evidence was very low for vomiting and for fever, and was low for hypertension.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Ergometrine plus oxytocin combination, carbetocin, and misoprostol plus oxytocin combination were more effective for preventing PPH ≥ 500 mL than the current standard oxytocin. Ergometrine plus oxytocin combination was more effective for preventing PPH ≥ 1000 mL than oxytocin. Misoprostol plus oxytocin combination evidence is less consistent and may relate to different routes and doses of misoprostol used in the studies. Carbetocin had the most favourable side-effect profile amongst the top three options; however, most carbetocin trials were small and at high risk of bias.Amongst the 11 ongoing studies listed in this review there are two key studies that will inform a future update of this review. The first is a WHO-led multi-centre study comparing the effectiveness of a room temperature stable carbetocin versus oxytocin (administered intramuscularly) for preventing PPH in women having a vaginal birth. The trial includes around 30,000 women from 10 countries. The other is a UK-based trial recruiting more than 6000 women to a three-arm trial comparing carbetocin, oxytocin and ergometrine plus oxytocin combination. Both trials are expected to report in 2018.Consultation with our consumer group demonstrated the need for more research into PPH outcomes identified as priorities for women and their families, such as women's views regarding the drugs used, clinical signs of excessive blood loss, neonatal unit admissions and breastfeeding at discharge. To date, trials have rarely investigated these outcomes. Consumers also considered the side-effects of uterotonic drugs to be important but these were often not reported. A forthcoming set of core outcomes relating to PPH will identify outcomes to prioritise in trial reporting and will inform futures updates of this review. We urge all trialists to consider measuring these outcomes for each drug in all future randomised trials. Lastly, future evidence synthesis research could compare the effects of different dosages and routes of administration for the most effective drugs.

Randomized double-blind placebo-controlled trial of buccal misoprostol to reduce the need for additional uterotonic drugs during cesarean delivery

OBJECTIVE

To determine whether buccal misoprostol during cesarean delivery in conjunction with active management of the third stage of labor reduces the need for additional uterotonic drugs.

METHOD

A double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled trial was performed in Monterrey, Mexico, between February 2008 and December 2013. Eligible women had risk factors for uterine atony and were to undergo cesarean delivery under epidural block. Using a computer-generated sequence and blocks of six, patients were randomly assigned to receive 400μg misoprostol or 800μg placebo buccally after cord clamping. Both groups received an intravenous oxytocin infusion. The primary outcome was the need for additional uterotonic drugs. Analyses were performed per protocol. Patients, investigators, and data analysts were masked to group assignment.

RESULTS

A total of 120 women were included in analyses (60 in each group). At least one additional uterotonic drug was required in 24 (40%) women in the placebo group versus 6 (10%) women in the misoprostol group (relative risk 0.16; 95% confidence interval 0.06-0.44). No adverse effects due to misoprostol were recorded.

CONCLUSION

Buccal misoprostol during cesarean delivery reduced the need for additional uterotonic drugs to treat uterine atony. ClinicalTrials.gov:NCT01733329.

Postpartum misoprostol for preventing maternal mortality and morbidity

BACKGROUND

The primary objective of postpartum haemorrhage (PPH) prevention and treatment is to reduce maternal deaths. Misoprostol has the major public health advantage over injectable medication that it can more easily be distributed at community level. Because misoprostol might have adverse effects unrelated to blood loss which might impact on mortality or severe morbidity, it is important to continue surveillance of all relevant evidence from randomised trials. This is particularly important as misoprostol is being introduced on a large scale for PPH prevention in low-income countries, and is commonly used for PPH treatment in well-resourced settings as well.

OBJECTIVES

To review maternal deaths and severe morbidity in all randomised trials of misoprostol for prevention or treatment of PPH.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Pregnancy and Childbirth Group's Trials Register (11 January 2013).

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised trials including pregnant women who received misoprostol in the postpartum period, versus placebo/no treatment or other uterotonics for prevention or treatment of PPH, and reporting on maternal death, severe morbidity or pyrexia.We planned to include cluster- and quasi-randomised trials in the analysis, as a very large number of women will be needed to obtain robust estimates of maternal mortality but we did not identify any for this version of the review. In future updates of this review we will include trials reported only as abstracts if sufficient information is available from the abstract or from the authors.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently assessed trials for inclusion and extracted data.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 78 studies (59,216 women) and excluded 34 studies.There was no statistically significant difference in maternal mortality for misoprostol compared with control groups overall (31 studies; 11/19,715 versus 4/20,076 deaths; risk ratio (RR) 2.08, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.82 to 5.28); or for the trials of misoprostol versus placebo: 10 studies, 6/4626 versus 1/4707 ; RR 2.70; 95% CI 0.72 to 10.11; or for misoprostol versus other uterotonics: 21 studies, 5/15,089 versus 3/15,369 (19/100,000); RR 1.54; 95% CI 0.40 to 5.92. All 11 deaths in the misoprostol arms occurred in studies of misoprostol ≥ 600 µg.There was a statistically significant difference in the composite outcome 'maternal death or severe morbidity' for the comparison of misoprostol versus placebo (12 studies; average RR 1.70, 95% CI 1.02 to 2.81; Tau² = 0.00, I² = 0%) but not for the comparison of misoprostol versus other uterotonics (17 studies; average RR 1.50, 95% CI 0.50 to 4.52; Tau² = 1.81, I² = 69%). When we excluded hyperpyrexia from the composite outcome in exploratory analyses, there was no significant difference in either of these comparisons.Pyrexia > 38°C was increased with misoprostol compared with controls (56 studies, 2776/25,647 (10.8%) versus 614/26,800 (2.3%); average RR 3.97, 95% CI 3.13 to 5.04; Tau² = 0.47, I² = 80%). The effect was greater for trials using misoprostol 600 µg or more (27 studies; 2197/17,864 (12.3%) versus 422/18,161 (2.3%); average RR 4.64; 95% CI 3.33 to 6.46; Tau² = 0.51, I² = 86%) than for those using misoprostol 400 µg or less (31 studies; 525/6751 (7.8%) versus 185/7668 (2.4%); average RR 3.07; 95% CI 2.25 to 4.18; Tau² = 0.29, I² = 58%).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Misoprostol does not appear to increase or reduce severe morbidity (excluding hyperpyrexia) when used to prevent or treat PPH. Misoprostol did not increase or decrease maternal mortality. However, misoprostol is associated with an increased risk of pyrexia, particularly in dosages of 600 µg or more. Given that misoprostol is used prophylactically in very large numbers of healthy women, the greatest emphasis should be placed on limiting adverse effects. In this context, the findings of this review support the use of the lowest effective dose. As for any new medication being used on a large scale, continued vigilance for adverse effects is essential and there is a need for large randomised trials to further elucidate both the relative effectiveness and the risks of various dosages of misoprostol.