Induction of labour with a favourable cervix and/or pre-labour rupture of membranes

Cesarean section "en caul" in preterm twin pregnancy: experience of a single center

PURPOSE

The "en caul" cesarean section (CS) is a method to keep the amnion intact during CS. This amnion protection effect may have benefits in preterm twin pregnancy. This study aimed to explore the benefits and risks of this method in preterm twin pregnancy.

METHODS

This study is a retrospective analysis of preterm twin pregnancies underwent CS in West China Second University Hospital of Sichuan University from January 2011 to December 2022. Data on maternal and fetal outcomes were collected. Univariable analyses and multivariate logistic regression analyses were applied. The level of significance was set at p < 0.05.

RESULTS

A total of 182 patients were included (90 in the "en caul" group, 92 in the conventional group). "en caul" CS was associated with lower incidence for respiratory distress (aOR 0.47, 95% CI 0.25-0.88, for the first fetus; aOR 0.42, 95% CI 0.21-0.82, for the second fetus). This method was proved to have beneficial effects in improving the Apgar scores at 1st minute and reducing the mechanical ventilation rate in the second neonates (aOR 0.41, 95% CI 0.19-0.88).

CONCLUSION

"En caul" CS is an easy and safe technique to perform during CS for preterm twin pregnancy. The efficacy and safety of this method could be tested by future studies with larger sample size.

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

BACKGROUND

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

OBJECTIVES

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

SEARCH METHODS

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

SELECTION CRITERIA

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

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

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

MAIN RESULTS

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

SECONDARY OUTCOMES

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

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

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

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

BACKGROUND

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

OBJECTIVES

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

SEARCH STRATEGY

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

SELECTION CRITERIA

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

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

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

MAIN RESULTS

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

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

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

Misoprostol versus expectant management in premature rupture of membranes at term

OBJECTIVE

To compare the effectiveness of immediate induction of labour with vaginal misoprostol versus expectant management for 24 hours followed by oxytocin induction in women with premature rupture of membranes at term (term PROM).

DESIGN

An open, randomised, controlled trial.

SETTING

Public university hospital in Campinas City, Brazil.

POPULATION

One hundred and fifty pregnancies, half of them allocated to each group.

METHODS

Statistical analysis used Student's t test, the chi2 test, Fisher's exact test, survival analysis and risk ratio estimates with 95% CI.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

Latency period, recruitment to delivery period, period of hospitalisation, mode of delivery, contractility pattern, fetal wellbeing, labour and delivery complications, neonatal and maternal morbidity.

RESULTS

Both groups had similar general characteristics, but the misoprostol group had a significantly shorter latency period (9.4 vs 15.8 hours), a shorter time interval from recruitment to delivery (18.9 vs 27.5 hours), a shorter period of maternal hospitalisation and a slightly higher proportion of alterations of contractility when compared with the expectant group. Caesarean section rates were 20% in the misoprostol group and 30.7% in the other. There were no differences between them regarding fetal wellbeing, complications during labour and delivery and neonatal or postpartum maternal morbidity. Within 24 hours, 44% of women had delivered in the expectant group against 73.3% in the misoprostol group.

CONCLUSIONS

Immediate labour induction with misoprostol in cases of term PROM shortens the latency period, the total time between recruitment to delivery and the time of maternal hospitalisation, increasing the occurrence of alterations of contractility without any maternal and perinatal outcomes disadvantages.