Sublingual misoprostol versus methylergometrine for active management of the third stage of labor

Uterotonic drugs to prevent postpartum haemorrhage: a network meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Postpartum haemorrhage (PPH) is the leading cause of maternal mortality worldwide. Prophylactic uterotonic drugs can reduce blood loss and are routinely recommended. There are several uterotonic drugs for preventing PPH, but it is still debatable which drug or combination of drugs is the most effective.

OBJECTIVES

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

METHODS

The Cochrane Pregnancy and Childbirth's Trials Register (1 June 2015), ClinicalTrials.gov and the World Health Organization (WHO)'s International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP) were searched for unpublished trial reports (30 June 2015). In addition, reference lists of retrieved studies (updated October 2017) were searched for randomised trials evaluating uterotonic drugs for preventing PPH. The study estimated relative effects and rankings for preventing PPH, defined as blood loss of ≥ 500 ml and ≥ 1000 ml. Pairwise meta-analyses and network meta-analysis were performed to determine the relative effects and rankings of all available drugs and combinations thereof [ergometrine, misoprostol (Cytotec^®; Pfizer Inc., New York, NY, USA), misoprostol plus oxytocin (Syntocinon^®; Novartis International AG, Basel, Switzerland), carbetocin (Pabal^®; Ferring Pharmaceuticals, Saint-Prex, Switzerland), ergometrine plus oxytocin (Syntometrine^®; Alliance Pharma plc, Chippenham, UK), oxytocin, and a placebo or no treatment]. Primary outcomes were stratified according to the mode of birth, prior risk of PPH, health-care setting, drug dosage, regimen and route of drug administration. Sensitivity analyses were performed according to study quality and funding source, among others. A model-based economic evaluation compared the relative cost-effectiveness separately for vaginal births and caesareans with or without including side effects.

RESULTS

From 137 randomised trials and 87,466 women, ergometrine plus oxytocin, carbetocin and misoprostol plus oxytocin were found to reduce the risk of PPH blood loss of ≥ 500 ml compared with the standard drug, oxytocin [ergometrine plus oxytocin: risk ratio (RR) 0.69, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.57 to 0.83; carbetocin: RR 0.72, 95% CI 0.52 to 1.00; misoprostol plus oxytocin: RR 0.73, 95% CI 0.6 to 0.9]. Each of these three strategies had 100% cumulative probability of being ranked first, second or third most effective. Oxytocin was ranked fourth, with an almost 0% cumulative probability of being ranked in the top three. Similar rankings were noted for the reduction of PPH blood loss of ≥ 1000 ml (ergometrine plus oxytocin: RR 0.77, 95% CI 0.61 to 0.95; carbetocin: RR 0.70, 95% CI 0.38 to 1.28; misoprostol plus oxytocin: RR 0.90, 95% CI 0.72 to 1.14), and most secondary outcomes. Ergometrine plus oxytocin and misoprostol plus oxytocin had the poorest ranking for side effects. Carbetocin had a favourable side-effect profile, which was similar to oxytocin. However, the analysis was restricted to high-quality studies, carbetocin lost its ranking and was comparable to oxytocin. The relative cost-effectiveness of the alternative strategies is inconclusive, and the results are affected by both the uncertainty and inconsistency in the data reported on adverse events. For vaginal delivery, when assuming no adverse events, ergometrine plus oxytocin is less costly and more effective than all strategies except carbetocin. The strategy of carbetocin is both more effective and more costly than all other strategies. When taking adverse events into consideration, all prevention strategies, except oxytocin, are more costly and less effective than carbetocin. For delivery by caesarean section, with and without adverse events, the relative cost-effectiveness is different, again because of the uncertainty in the available data.

LIMITATIONS

There was considerable uncertainty in findings within the planned subgroup analyses, and subgroup effects cannot be ruled out.

CONCLUSIONS

Ergometrine plus oxytocin, carbetocin and misoprostol plus oxytocin are more effective uterotonic drug strategies for preventing PPH than the current standard, oxytocin. Ergometrine plus oxytocin and misoprostol plus oxytocin cause significant side effects. Carbetocin has a favourable side-effect profile, which was similar to oxytocin. However, most carbetocin trials are small and of poor quality. There is a need for a large high-quality trial comparing carbetocin with oxytocin; such a trial is currently being conducted by the WHO. The relative cost-effectiveness is inconclusive, and results are affected by uncertainty and inconsistency in adverse events data.

STUDY REGISTRATION

This study is registered as PROSPERO CRD42015020005; Cochrane Pregnancy and Childbirth Group (substudy) reference number 0871; PROSPERO-Cochrane (substudy) reference number CRD42015026568; and sponsor reference number ERN_13-1414 (University of Birmingham, Birmingham, UK).

FUNDING

Funding for this study was provided by the National Institute for Health Research Health Technology Assessment programme in a research award to the University of Birmingham and supported by the UK charity Ammalife (UK-registered charity 1120236). The funders of the study had no role in study design, data collection, data synthesis, interpretation or writing of the report.

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.

Misoprostol for primary versus secondary prevention of postpartum haemorrhage: a cluster-randomised non-inferiority community trial

OBJECTIVE

To assess whether secondary prevention, which preemptively treats women with above-average postpartum bleeding, is non-inferior to universal prophylaxis.

DESIGN

A cluster-randomised non-inferiority community trial.

SETTING

Health sub-centres and home deliveries in the Bijapur district of Karnataka, India.

POPULATION

Women with low-risk pregnancies who were eligible for delivery with an Auxiliary Nurse Midwife at home or sub-centre and who consented to be part of the study.

METHODS

Auxiliary Nurse Midwifes were randomised to secondary prevention using 800 mcg sublingual misoprostol administered to women with postpartum blood loss ≥350 ml or to universal prophylaxis using 600 mcg oral misoprostol administered to all women during the third stage of labour.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

Postpartum haemoglobin ≤7.8 g/dl, mean postpartum blood loss and postpartum haemoglobin, postpartum haemorrhage rate, transfer to higher-level facilities, acceptability and feasibility of the intervention.

RESULTS

Misoprostol was administered to 99.7% of women as primary prevention. In secondary prevention, 92 (4.7%) women had postpartum bleeding ≥350 ml, of which 90 (97.8%) received misoprostol. The proportion of women with postpartum haemoglobin ≤7.8 g/dl was 5.9 and 8.8% in secondary and primary prevention clusters, respectively [difference -2.9%, one-sided 95% confidence interval (CI) <1.3%]. Postpartum transfer and haemorrhage rates were low (<1%) in both groups. Shivering was more common in primary prevention clusters (P = 0.013).

CONCLUSION

Secondary prevention of postpartum haemorrhage with misoprostol is non-inferior to universal prophylaxis based on the primary outcome of postpartum haemoglobin. Secondary prevention could be a good alternative to universal prophylaxis as it medicates fewer women and is an acceptable and feasible strategy at the community level.

TWEETABLE ABSTRACT

Secondary prevention of postpartum haemorrhage with misoprostol is non-inferior to universal prophylaxis.

The Effect of the Combined Use of Methylergonovine and Oxytocin during Caesarean Section in the Prevention of Post-partum Haemorrhage

We aimed to show to patients the benefit of post-partum haemorrhage prophylaxis treatment and the effectiveness as a uterotonic agent of the combined use of methylergonovine and oxytocin infusion in the prevention of haemorrhage during and after Caesarean section, by comparison with a control group which received oxytocin infusion only. Two groups of patients undergoing Caesarean section at the same clinic were included in the study. A combination of methylergonovine and oxytocin was administered to the first group during the intra-operative and post-operative periods. The second group did not receive methylergonovine and was administered only with oxytocin infusion in the intra-operative and post-operative periods. Pre-operative and post-operative haemogram readings were taken for all patients in each of the groups for comparison. No difference was found between the two groups with regard to mean ages and pre-operative haemogram values. The decrease in post-operative haemoglobin values for the group administered with methylergonovine maleate and oxytocin was found to be significantly greater than for the group administered with oxytocin only. Results indicated that prophylactic methylergonovine treatment was clearly successful for the patients and no adverse side effects were found. The routine use of methylergonovine and oxytocin infusion in combination during the intra-operative period of Caesarean section reduced the level of post-partum haemorrhage considerably. We believe that this procedure will also reduce the risk of uterine atony, but clearly, prospective studies will be necessary in future to confirm this assumption.

The Effect of Combined Oxytocin-Misoprostol Versus Oxytocin and Misoprostol Alone in Reducing Blood Loss at Cesarean Delivery: A Prospective Randomized Double-Blind Study

PURPOSE

To compare the effect of combined oxytocin-misoprostol versus oxytocin and misoprostol alone in reducing blood loss at cesarean delivery.

METHODS

One hundred fifty patients of 18-40 years with singleton term pregnancies scheduled for cesarean section under spinal anesthesia were recruited in a prospective double-blind randomized clinical trial to one of the three following groups to receive 20 IU infusion of oxytocin (group O), 400-µg sublingual misoprostol tablets (group M) or 200-µg misoprostol plus 5 IU bolus intravenous oxytocin (group MO) after delivery. The hemoglobin level before surgery and 24 h after surgery, the need for additional oxytocic therapy, and the incidence of adverse effects were recorded.

RESULTS

The mean blood loss during surgery was significantly lower in group MO compared to other groups (P = 0.04). Comparison of mean arterial pressure (P = 0.38) and heart rate (P = 0.23) changes during spinal anesthesia and surgery failed to reveal any statistically significant differences between all groups through repeated measure analysis.

CONCLUSION

The use of combined lower dose of misoprostol-oxytocin significantly reduced the amount of blood loss during and after the lower segment cesarean section compared to higher dose of oxytocin and misoprostol alone, and its use was not associated with any serious side effects.

Sublingual misoprostol versus intramuscular oxytocin for prevention of postpartum hemorrhage in Uganda: a double-blind randomized non-inferiority trial

BACKGROUND

Postpartum hemorrhage (PPH) is a leading cause of maternal death in sub-Saharan Africa. Although the World Health Organization recommends use of oxytocin for prevention of PPH, misoprostol use is increasingly common owing to advantages in shelf life and potential for sublingual administration. There is a lack of data about the comparative efficacy of oxytocin and sublingual misoprostol, particularly at the recommended dose of 600 µg, for prevention of PPH during active management of labor.

METHODS AND FINDINGS

We performed a double-blind, double-dummy randomized controlled non-inferiority trial between 23 September 2012 and 9 September 2013 at Mbarara Regional Referral Hospital in Uganda. We randomized 1,140 women to receive 600 µg of misoprostol sublingually or 10 IU of oxytocin intramuscularly, along with matching placebos for the treatment they did not receive. Our primary outcome of interest was PPH, defined as measured blood loss ≥ 500 ml within 24 h of delivery. Secondary outcomes included measured blood loss ≥ 1,000 ml; mean measured blood loss at 1, 2, and 24 h after delivery; death; requirement for blood transfusion; hemoglobin changes; and use of additional uterotonics. At 24 h postpartum, primary PPH occurred in 163 (28.6%) participants in the misoprostol group and 99 (17.4%) participants in the oxytocin group (relative risk [RR] 1.64, 95% CI 1.32 to 2.05, p<0.001; absolute risk difference 11.2%, 95% CI 6.44 to 16.1). Severe PPH occurred in 20 (3.6%) and 15 (2.7%) participants in the misoprostol and oxytocin groups, respectively (RR 1.33, 95% CI 0.69 to 2.58, p = 0.391; absolute risk difference 0.9%, 95% CI -1.12 to 2.88). Mean measured blood loss was 341.5 ml (standard deviation [SD] 206.2) and 304.2 ml (SD 190.8, p = 0.002) at 2 h and 484.7 ml (SD 213.3) and 432.8 ml (SD 203.5, p<0.001) at 24 h in the misoprostol and oxytocin groups, respectively. There were no significant differences between the two groups in any other secondary outcomes. Women in the misoprostol group more commonly experienced shivering (RR 1.91, 95% CI 1.65 to 2.21, p<0.001) and fevers (RR 5.20, 95% CI 3.15 to 7.21, p = 0.005). This study was conducted at a regional referral hospital with capacity for emergency surgery and blood transfusion. High-risk women were excluded from participation.

CONCLUSIONS

Misoprostol 600 µg is inferior to oxytocin 10 IU for prevention of primary PPH in active management of labor. These data support use of oxytocin in settings where it is available. While not powered to do so, the study found no significant differences in rate of severe PPH, need for blood transfusion, postpartum hemoglobin, change in hemoglobin, or use of additional uterotonics between study groups. Further research should focus on clarifying whether and in which sub-populations use of oxytocin would be preferred over sublingual misoprostol.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ClinicalTrials.gov NCT01866241 Please see later in the article for the Editors' Summary.

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.

Prevention of postpartum haemorrhage with sublingual misoprostol or oxytocin: a double-blind randomised controlled trial

OBJECTIVE

Sublingual misoprostol produces a rapid peak concentration, and is more effective than oral administration. We compared the postpartum measured blood loss with 400 μg powdered sublingual misoprostol and after standard care using 10 iu intramuscular (IM) oxytocin.

DESIGN

Double-blind randomised controlled trial.

SETTING

A teaching hospital: J N Medical College, Belgaum, India.

SAMPLE

A cohort of 652 consenting eligible pregnant women admitted to the labour room.

METHODS

Subjects were assigned to receive the study medications and placebos within 1 minute of clamping and cutting the cord by computer-generated randomisation. Chi-square and bootstrapped Student's t-tests were used to test categorical and continuous outcomes, respectively.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

Measured mean postpartum blood loss and haemorrhage (PPH, loss ≥ 500 ml), >10% pre- to post-partum decline in haemoglobin, and reported side effects.

RESULTS

The mean blood loss with sublingual misoprostol was 192 ± 124 ml (n=321) and 366 ± 136 ml with oxytocin IM (n=331, P ≤ 0.001). The incidence of PPH was 3.1% with misoprostol and 9.1% with oxytocin (P=0.002). No woman lost ≥ 1000 ml of blood. We observed that 9.7% and 45.6% of women experienced a haemoglobin decline of >10% after receiving misoprostol and oxytocin, respectively (P ≤ 0.001). Side effects were significantly greater in the misoprostol group than in the oxytocin group.

CONCLUSION

Unlike other studies, this trial found sublingual misoprostol more effective than intramuscular oxytocin in reducing PPH, with only transient side effects being greater in the misoprostol group. The sublingual mode and/or powdered formulation may increase the effectiveness of misoprostol, and render it superior to injectable oxytocin for the prevention of PPH. Further research is needed to confirm these results.

Prostaglandins for preventing postpartum haemorrhage

BACKGROUND

Prostaglandins have mainly been used for postpartum haemorrhage (PPH) when other measures fail. Misoprostol, a new and inexpensive prostaglandin E1 analogue, has been suggested as an alternative for routine management of the third stage of labour.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effects of prophylactic prostaglandin use in the third stage of labour.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Pregnancy and Childbirth Group's Trials Register (7 January 2011). We updated this search on 25 May 2012 and added the results to the awaiting classification section.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised trials comparing a prostaglandin agent with another uterotonic or no prophylactic uterotonic (nothing or placebo) as part of management of the third stage of labour. The primary outcomes were blood loss 1000 mL or more and the use of additional uterotonics.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently assessed eligibility and trial quality and extracted data.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 72 trials (52,678 women). Oral or sublingual misoprostol compared with placebo is effective in reducing severe PPH (oral: seven trials, 6225 women, not totalled due to significant heterogeneity; sublingual: risk ratio (RR) 0.66; 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.45 to 0.98; one trial, 661 women) and blood transfusion (oral: RR 0.31; 95% CI 0.10 to 0.94; four trials, 3519 women).Compared with conventional injectable uterotonics, oral misoprostol was associated with higher risk of severe PPH (RR 1.33; 95% CI 1.16 to 1.52; 17 trials, 29,797 women) and use of additional uterotonics, but with a trend to fewer blood transfusions (RR 0.84; 95% CI 0.66 to 1.06; 15 trials; 28,213 women). Additional uterotonic data were not totalled due to heterogeneity. Misoprostol use is associated with significant increases in shivering and a temperature of 38º Celsius compared with both placebo and other uterotonics.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Oral or sublingual misoprostol shows promising results when compared with placebo in reducing blood loss after delivery. The margin of benefit may be affected by whether other components of the management of the third stage of labour are used or not. As side-effects are dose-related, research should be directed towards establishing the lowest effective dose for routine use, and the optimal route of administration.Neither intramuscular prostaglandins nor misoprostol are preferable to conventional injectable uterotonics as part of the management of the third stage of labour especially for low-risk women; however, evidence has been building for the use of oral misoprostol to be effective and safe in areas with low access to facilities and skilled healthcare providers and future research on misoprostol use in the community should focus on implementation issues.

Misoprostol for the prevention and treatment of postpartum hemorrhage

INTRODUCTION

Uterotonic drugs are recommended for the prevention and treatment of postpartum hemorrhage (PPH), and oxytocin is considered the gold standard for both indications due to its established efficacy and safety. Unfortunately, access to oxytocin is still limited in many low-resource settings due to the need for cool storage, sterile equipment and administration by skilled personnel. Misoprostol , an E1 prostaglandin analog, has therefore been explored as an alternative for such settings due to its proven ability to induce uterine contractions, low cost, stability at room temperature and ease of administration.

AREAS COVERED

This review covers evidence from 51 randomized controlled trials for both prevention and treatment of PPH. It discusses efficacy and side effects in the context of the various doses that have been studied using oral, sublingual or rectal routes of administration for both indications.

EXPERT OPINION

There is now a solid body of evidence to justify the use of misoprostol for postpartum hemorrhage indications in many settings. The evidence supports use of 600 μg orally for the prevention of PPH and 800 μg sublingually for the treatment of PPH. There is no evidence to support the adjunct use of misoprostol following administration of conventional uterotonics for prevention or treatment purposes.

What measured blood loss tells us about postpartum bleeding: a systematic review

BACKGROUND

Meta-analyses of postpartum blood loss and the effect of uterotonics are biased by visually estimated blood loss.

OBJECTIVES

To conduct a systematic review of measured postpartum blood loss with and without prophylactic uterotonics for prevention of postpartum haemorrhage (PPH).

SEARCH STRATEGY

We searched Medline and PubMed terms (labour stage, third) AND (ergonovine, ergonovine tartrate, methylergonovine, oxytocin, oxytocics or misoprostol) AND (postpartum haemorrhage or haemorrhage) and Cochrane reviews without any language restriction.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Refereed publications in the period 1988-2007 reporting mean postpartum blood loss, PPH (> or =500 ml) or severe PPH (> or =1000 ml) following vaginal births.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Raw data were abstracted into Excel by one author and then reviewed by a co-author. Data were transferred to SPSS 17.0, and copied into RevMan 5.0 to perform random effects meta-analysis.

MAIN RESULTS

The distribution of average blood loss (29 studies) is similar with any prophylactic uterotonic, and is lower than without prophylaxis. Compared with no uterotonic, oxytocin and misoprostol have lower PPH (OR 0.43, 95% CI 0.23-0.81; OR 0.73, 95% CI 0.50-1.08, respectively) and severe PPH rates (OR 0.61, 95% CI 0.29-1.29; OR 0.74, 95% CI 0.52-1.04, respectively). Oxytocin has lower PPH (OR 0.65, 95% CI 0.60-0.70) and severe PPH (OR 0.71, 95% CI 0.56-0.91) rates than misoprostol, but not in developing countries.

CONCLUSION

Oxytocin is superior to misoprostol in hospitals. Misoprostol substantially lowers PPH and severe PPH. A sound assessment of the relative merits of the two drugs is needed in rural areas of developing countries, where most PPH deaths occur.

Misoprostol to prevent and treat postpartum haemorrhage: a systematic review and meta-analysis of maternal deaths and dose-related effects

OBJECTIVE

To review maternal deaths and the dose-related effects of misoprostol on blood loss and pyrexia in randomized trials of misoprostol use for the prevention or treatment of postpartum haemorrhage.

METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Controlled Trials Register and Pubmed, without language restrictions, for '(misoprostol AND postpartum) OR (misoprostol AND haemorrhage) OR (misoprostol AND hemorrhage)', and we evaluated reports identified through the Cochrane Pregnancy and Childbirth Group search strategy. Randomized trials comparing misoprostol with either placebo or another uterotonic to prevent or treat postpartum haemorrhage were checked for eligibility. Data were extracted, tabulated and analysed with Reviewer Manager (RevMan) 4.3 software.

FINDINGS

We included 46 trials with more than 40,000 participants in the final analysis. Of 11 deaths reported in 5 trials, 8 occurred in women receiving >or= 600 microg of misoprostol (Peto odds ratio, OR: 2.49; 95% confidence interval, CI: 0.76-8.13). Severe morbidity, defined as the need for major surgery, admission to intensive care, organ failure or body temperature >or= 40 degrees C, was relatively infrequent. In prevention trials, severe morbidity was experienced by 16 of 10,281 women on misoprostol and by 16 of 10,292 women on conventional uterotonics; in treatment trials, it was experienced by 1 of 32 women on misoprostol and by 1 of 32 women on conventional uterotonics. Misoprostol recipients experienced more adverse events than placebo recipients: 8 of 2070 versus 5 of 2032, respectively, in prevention trials, and 5 of 196 versus 2 of 202, respectively, in treatment trials. Meta-analysis of direct and adjusted indirect comparisons of the results of randomized trials showed no evidence that 600 microg are more effective than 400 microg for preventing blood loss > 1000 ml (relative risk, RR: 1.02; 95% CI: 0.71-1.48). Pyrexia was more than twice as common among women who received > 600 microg rather than 400 microg of misoprostol (RR: 2.53; 95% CI: 1.78-3.60).

CONCLUSION

Further research is needed to more accurately assess the potential beneficial and harmful effects of misoprostol and to determine the smallest dose that is effective and safe. In this review, 400 microg of misoprostol were found to be safer than > 600 microg and just as effective.

Oral misoprostol reduces vaginal bleeding following surgical evacuation for first trimester spontaneous abortion

OBJECTIVE

To assess the effectiveness and tolerability of misoprostol to reduce the amount and duration of vaginal bleeding following surgical evacuation for first trimester spontaneous abortion.

METHODS

A total of 160 patients who underwent surgical evacuation for first trimester spontaneous abortion between 8 and 12 weeks of pregnancy were randomized into 2 groups to receive either 200 microg of oral misoprostol immediately after evacuation followed every 6 hours for 48 hours or no misoprostol. Pain scores, duration and amount of bleeding, and endometrial thickness were assessed over 10 days.

RESULTS

Women who received misoprostol had significantly fewer bleeding days after evacuation (4.11+/-2.69 vs 5.89+/-3.06; P<0.001), fewer patients reported vaginal bleeding lasting 10 days or more (3.8% vs 15.0%; P=0.014), and endometrial thickness 10 days after evacuation was less (6.25+/-2.38 vs 7.23+/-1.94; P=0.05). Pain scores were comparable in both groups (1.54+/-0.65 vs 1.63+/-0.83; P=0.40) after 10 days.

CONCLUSION

Oral misoprostol is effective in reducing the prevalence and amount of vaginal bleeding after surgical evacuation for first trimester spontaneous abortion.

Prostaglandins for preventing postpartum haemorrhage

BACKGROUND

Prostaglandins have mainly been used for postpartum haemorrhage (PPH) when other measures fail. Misoprostol, a new and inexpensive prostaglandin E1 analogue, has been suggested as an alternative for routine management of the third stage of labour.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effects of prophylactic prostaglandin use in the third stage of labour.

SEARCH STRATEGY

The Cochrane Pregnancy and Childbirth Group's Trials Register (February 2007) and PubMed (July 2006).

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomized trials comparing a prostaglandin agent with another uterotonic or no prophylactic uterotonic (nothing or placebo) as part of management of the third stage of labour. The primary outcomes were blood loss 1000 ml or more and the use of additional uterotonics.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently assessed eligibility and trial quality and extracted data.

MAIN RESULTS

Thirty-seven misoprostol and nine intramuscular prostaglandin trials (42,621 women) were included. Oral (seven trials, 2849 women) or sublingual misoprostol (relative risk (RR) 0.66; 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.45 to 0.98; one trial, 661 women) compared to placebo may be effective in reducing severe PPH and blood transfusion (RR 0.31; 95% CI 0.10 to 0.94; five oral misoprostol trials, 3519 women). The severe PPH analysis of oral misoprostol trials was not totalled due to significant heterogeneity. Compared to conventional injectable uterotonics, oral misoprostol was associated with higher risk of severe PPH (RR 1.32; 95% CI 1.16 to 1.51; 16 trials, 29,042 women) and use of additional uterotonics but with fewer blood transfusions (RR 0.81; 95% CI 0.64 to 1.02; 15 trials, 27,858 women). Additional uterotonic data were not totalled due to heterogeneity. Misoprostol use is associated with significant increases in shivering and a temperature of 38 degrees Celsius. There are scarce data comparing injectable prostaglandins with the conventional injectable uterotonics on severe PPH and the use of additional uterotonics, the primary outcomes of this review.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Misoprostol orally or sublingually at a dose of 600 mcg shows promising results when compared to placebo in reducing blood loss after delivery. The margin of benefit may be affected by whether other components of management of the third stage of labour are used or not. As side-effects are dose-related, research should be directed towards establishing the lowest effective dose for routine use, and the optimal route of administration. Neither intramuscular prostaglandins nor misoprostol are preferable to conventional injectable uterotonics as part of the management of the third stage of labour especially for low-risk women.

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. This is one of a series of systematic reviews assessing the effects of prophylactic use of uterotonic drugs - here, prophylactic ergot alkaloids compared with no uterotonic agents, and different regimens of administration of ergot alkaloids.

OBJECTIVES

To determine the effectiveness and safety of prophylactic use of ergot alkaloids in the third stage of labour compared with no uterotonic agents, as well as with different routes or timing of administration for prevention of postpartum haemorrhage.

SEARCH STRATEGY

We searched the Cochrane Pregnancy and Childbirth Group's Trials Register (30 December 2006), the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (The Cochrane Library 2006, Issue 4) and MEDLINE (1966 to December 2006).

SELECTION CRITERIA

All randomised or quasi-randomised controlled trials comparing prophylactic ergot alkaloids with no uterotonic agents or comparing different routes or timings of administration of ergot alkaloids in the third stage of labour among women giving birth vaginally.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We systematically reviewed the potential studies, considered eligible studies, assessed the validity of each included study and extracted data independently.

MAIN RESULTS

We included six studies comparing ergot alkaloids with no uterotonic agents, with a total of 1996 women in ergot alkaloids group and 1945 women in placebo or no treatment group. The use of injected ergot alkaloids in the third stage of labour significantly decreased mean blood loss (weighted mean difference -83.03 ml, 95% confidence interval (CI) -99.39 to -66.66 ml) and postpartum haemorrhage of at least 500 ml (relative risk (RR) 0.38, 95% CI 0.21 to 0.69). The risk of retained placenta or manual removal of the placenta, or both, were inconsistent. Ergot alkaloids increased the risk of vomiting (RR 11.81, 95% CI 1.78 to 78.28), elevation of blood pressure (RR 2.60, 95% CI 1.03 to 6.57) and pain after birth requiring analgesia (RR 2.53, 95% CI 1.34 to 4.78). One study compared oral ergometrine with placebo and showed no significant benefit of ergometrine over placebo. No maternal adverse effects were reported. There were no included trials that compared different administration regimens of ergot alkaloids.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Prophylactic intramuscular or intravenous injections of ergot alkaloids are effective in reducing blood loss and postpartum haemorrhage, but adverse effects include vomiting, elevation of blood pressure and pain after birth requiring analgesia, particularly with the intravenous route of administration.

Misoprostol and active management of the third stage of labor

OBJECTIVE

To compare current practices for the active management of the third stage of labor (AMTSL) with the use of 600 mug of oral misoprostol.

METHODS

An operations research study was designed to compare blood loss with current AMTSL practices and misoprostol use.

RESULTS

Women in the misoprostol group were less likely to bleed 500 ml or more (adjusted odds ratio, 0.30; 95% confidence interval, 0.16-0.56) compared with those in the current practices group. In the current practices group 73% women required interventions because of postpartum hemorrhage, compared with 11% in the misoprostol group.

CONCLUSION

In situations where oxytocin and or ergometrine are not consistently and appropriately used during third stage of labor, misoprostol should be considered for inclusion in the AMTSL protocol.

Sublingual misoprostol versus oxytocin infusion to reduce blood loss at cesarean section

OBJECTIVE

To compare the effectiveness of sublingual misoprostol administered immediately after delivery of the neonate at cesarean section, with intravenous oxytocin infusion in prevention of uterine atony and thereby reducing blood loss at cesarean section.

METHODS

One hundred women with singleton term pregnancy undergoing elective or emergency lower segment cesarean section under spinal anesthesia were included in this study. They were randomly allocated to receive either misoprostol 400 mug sublingually or intravenous infusion of 20 units of oxytocin soon after delivery of the neonate. The main outcome measures were blood loss at cesarean section, change in hemoglobin levels, need for additional oxytocics and drug related side effects.

RESULTS

The mean blood loss estimated was significantly lower in misoprostol group compared to oxytocin group (819 ml versus 974 ml; p = 0.004). The number of women who had blood loss exceeding 500 ml and the change in hemoglobin, however, was comparable between the two groups. There was a need for additional oxytocic therapy in 16% and 18% after use of misoprostol and oxytocin respectively (p = 0.673). The incidence of side effects such as pyrexia, shivering and metallic taste was significantly higher in misoprostol group compared to oxytocin group.

CONCLUSION

Sublingual misoprostol appears to be as effective as intravenous infusion of oxytocin in reducing blood loss at cesarean section. However, occurrence of transient side effects such as shivering and pyrexia were noted more frequently with the use of misoprostol.

Misoprostol in preventing postpartum hemorrhage: A meta-analysis

OBJECTIVE

To assess misoprostol's ability to prevent postpartum hemorrhage (PPH) where no alternatives exist. Comparison to oxytocics demonstrates how similarly misoprostol achieves a level of effectiveness-obtainable only in hospitals-in remote locations around the world.

METHOD

Using the Mantel-Haenszel fixed-effects model and the DerSirmonian and Laird random-effects model, summary statistics indicated that misoprostol's excess risk of PPH was only 4% when compared to oxytocics.

RESULT

This risk difference was well within the range of expected results for all uterotonic agents and does not warrant branding misoprostol as an inferior drug.

CONCLUSION

Conventional uterotonic drugs should not be used to set the lowest-accepted level of effectiveness in settings where they are entirely unsuitable. Continuing to weigh the benefits of one effective drug against another only delays the distribution of misoprostol in countries where it is the only feasible choice and must be measured against no treatment at all.