Efficacy of oxytocin antagonist infusion in improving in vitro fertilization outcomes on the day of embryo transfer: A meta-analysis

Objective

Uterine contraction induced by the embryo transfer (ET) process has an adverse effect on embryo implantation. The aim of this study was to determine the effect of oxytocin antagonist supplementation on the day of ET on in vitro fertilization outcomes via a meta-analysis.

Methods

We performed a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials (RCTs). Four online databases (Embase, Medline, PubMed, and Cochrane Library) were searched through May 2015 for RCTs that investigated oxytocin antagonist supplementation on the day of ET. Studies were selected according to predefined inclusion criteria and meta-analyzed using RevMan 5.3. Only RCTs were included in this study. The main outcome measures were the clinical pregnancy rate, the implantation rate, and the miscarriage rate.

Results

A total of 123 studies were reviewed and assessed for eligibility. Three RCTs, which included 1,020 patients, met the selection criteria. The implantation rate was significantly better in patients who underwent oxytocin antagonist infusion (19.8%) than in the control group (11.3%) (n=681; odds ratio [OR], 1.92; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.25–2.96). No significant difference was found between the two groups in the clinical pregnancy rate (n=1,020; OR, 1.57; 95% CI, 0.92–2.67) or the miscarriage rate (n=456; OR, 0.76; 95% CI, 0.44–1.33).

Conclusion

The results of this meta-analysis of the currently available literature suggest that the administration of an oxytocin antagonist on the day of ET improves the implantation rate but not the clinical pregnancy rate or miscarriage rate. Additional, large-scale, prospective, randomized studies are necessary to confirm these findings.

Atosiban improves implantation and pregnancy rates in patients with repeated implantation failure

This prospective cohort study examined the effects of atosiban on uterine contraction, implantation rate (IR) and clinical pregnancy rate (CPR) in women undergoing IVF/embryo transfer. The study enrolled 71 women with repeated implantation failure (RIF; no pregnancies from an average of 4.8 previous embryo transfers with a mean of 12 top-quality embryos) undergoing IVF/embryo transfer using cryopreserved embryos. The total atosiban dose was 36.75 mg. The IR per transfer and CPR per cycle were 13.9% and 43.7%, respectively. Before atosiban, 14% of subjects had a high frequency of uterine contractions (≥ 16 in 4 min). The frequency of uterine contractions was reduced after atosiban. This reduction of uterine contractions in all cycles was significant overall (from 6.0 to 2.6/4 min; P<0.01), in cycles with ≥ 16 uterine contractions/4 min at baseline (from 18.8 to 5.1; P<0.01) and in cycles with <16 uterine contractions/4 min (from 3.9 to 2.2; P<0.01). IR and CPR improved in all subjects, irrespective of baseline uterine contraction frequency. This is the first prospective study showing that atosiban may benefit subjects with RIF undergoing IVF/embryo transfer with cryopreserved embryos. One potential mechanism is the reduction in uterine contractility, but others may also contribute. Many women undergoing IVF/embryo transfer do not achieve the outcome that they wish for. In fact, IVF/embryo transfer repeatedly fails for a subgroup of patients. There are limited options available to help these patients with repeat implantation failure (RIF) to become pregnant. This study looks at one potential new treatment option for women who experience RIF. A drug called atosiban is already being used to delay premature labour by inhibiting contractions of the uterus. In this study, atosiban was given at the time of embryo transfer to women undergoing IVF/embryo transfer. Atosiban reduced the number of uterine contractions in these patients and also increased the implantation and pregnancy rates. The pregnancy rate went from zero to 43.7%. The beneficial effects of atosiban were observed not only in patients who had a high frequency of uterine contractions at baseline but also in those who had a low frequency. These findings suggest that atosiban may have other benefits in addition to its effect on contractions of the uterus. More studies are required to find out exactly how atosiban works and to increase the knowledge of its use in patients with RIF undergoing IVF/embryo transfer.

Tocolytic therapy for acute preterm labor

The pathophysiology leading to preterm labor is not well understood and often multifactorial; initiating factors include intrauterine infection, inflammation, ischemia, overdistension, and hemorrhage. Given these different potential causes, directing therapy for preterm labor has been difficult and suboptimal. To date, no single drug has been identified as successful in treating all of the underlying mechanisms leading to preterm labor. In addition, the methodology of many of the tocolytic studies is limited by lack of sufficient patient numbers, lack of comparison with a placebo, and inconsistent use of glucocorticoids. The limitations in these individual studies make it difficult to evaluate the efficacy of a single tocolytic by meta-analysis. Despite these limitations, the goals for tocolysis for preterm labor are clear: To complete a course of glucocorticoids and secure the appropriate level of neonatal care for the fetus in the event of preterm delivery. The literature demonstrates that many tocolytic agents inhibit uterine contractility. The decision as to which tocolytic agent should be used as first-line therapy for a patient is based on multiple factors, including gestational age, the patient’s medical history, common and severe side effects, and a patient’s response to therapy. In a patient at less than 32 weeks gestation, indomethacin may be a reasonable first choice based on its efficacy, ease of administration, and minimal side effects. Concurrent administration of magnesium for neuroprotection may be given. At 32 to 34 weeks, nifedipine may be a reasonable first choice because it does not carry the fetal risks of indomethacin at these later gestational ages, is easy to administer, and has limited side effects relative to beta-mimetics. In an effort to review a commonly faced obstetrical complication, this article has provided a summary of the most commonly used tocolytics, their mechanisms of action, side effects, and clinical data regarding their efficacy.

Atosiban in the Management of Preterm Labour

The purpose of this review was to look at the evidence available for the use of atosiban as a tocolytic in cases of threatened preterm labour. A Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists Green Top Guideline concluded that there was no clear evidence to show a benefit to tocolysis in reducing perinatal and neonatal morbidity and mortality. Using a systematic literature search, we summarise the evidence available on the use of atosiban for the prevention of preterm birth and compare it with other commonly used tocolytic agents in terms of efficacy, patient preference and drug safety. We conclude that although atosiban appears to be the tocolytic of choice, a clear benefit of using tocolysis in all cases of threatened preterm labour remains to be justified and clinical management should be tailored according to individual needs.

Safety concerns for the use of calcium channel blockers in pregnancy for the treatment of spontaneous preterm labour and hypertension: a systematic review and meta-regression analysis

BACKGROUND

Calcium channel blockers (CCBs) are not licensed for use in pregnancy but are used without robust surveillance to treat hypertension in pregnancy and preterm labour. The objective of this study was to evaluate the fetomaternal safety of CCB in pregnancy by a quantitative systematic review.

METHODS

Medline (1996-2005), EMBASE (1996-2003), BIOSIS (1993-2003), Current contents (1995-2003), DERWENT DRUGFILE (1983-2003) and Cochrane Library (2005: issue 3). The number of women reporting an adverse event was used to compute a percentage of the total number of women in whom the occurrence of that event or confirmation of its absence was reported. Meta-regression with generalised estimation equations modelling explored reasons for heterogeneity, seeking factors that increased the rates of the most commonly reported adverse events.

FINDINGS

Of 269 relevant reports, including 5607 women, adverse fetomaternal events varied according to the total dose of nifedipine and study design. Adverse events were highest amongst women given more than 60 mg total dose of nifedipine [odds ratio (OR) 3.78, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.27-11.2, p = 0.017] and in reports from case series compared to controlled studies (OR 2.45, 95% CI 1.17-5.15, p = 0.018).

INTERPRETATION

Adverse event rates generated from this study provide an evidence base for clinical guidelines and informed patient consent for CCB use in pregnancy.

Different effects of tocolytic medication on blood pressure and blood pressure amplification

BACKGROUND

The importance of tocolysis has been discussed extensively. Beta-2 adrenoceptor agonistic drugs like ritodrine have been the reference tocolytic drugs in most countries. Cardiovascular side-effects are frequent. Atosiban, a newer tocolytic drug, is a competitive antagonist of oxytocin and has fewer cardiovascular side effects. Although large studies exist, there is mainly subjective reporting of adverse reactions with a focus on blood pressure data.

OBJECTIVES

Evaluation of the acute effects of therapeutic doses of ritodrine and atosiban in comparison to placebo on central and peripheral blood pressures, central-to-peripheral blood pressure amplification and the augmentation index (AIx) in healthy non-pregnant female volunteers.

METHODS

A double-blind, randomized, crossover trial was carried out in 20 healthy non-pregnant female volunteers. Hemodynamic measurements were performed under standardized conditions.

RESULTS

At steady state, central and peripheral pressures did not differ from placebo in the atosiban group. During ritodrine -infusion, central SBP increased by 11% versus placebo (p = 0.012) and peripheral SBP by 10% (p = 0.004). In contrast to atosiban and placebo, blood pressure amplification was absent in the ritodrine group. While the AIx did not change in the atosiban group, with ritodrine, the AIx tended to decrease.

CONCLUSIONS

The present study shows the significant effects of ritodrine on the cardiovascular system. Atosiban has no significant effects and may be an appropriate alternative to tocolyticum, particularly in cardiovascularly complicated pregnancies.

A cost decision analysis of 4 tocolytic drugs

OBJECTIVE

The purpose of this study was to determine the optimal tocolytic agent, based on a cost decision analysis.

STUDY DESIGN

A PubMed search of commonly used tocolytics was performed to determine the probability of adverse events. Cost for an agent was determined by acquisition cost and the probability and cost of adverse events. A decision tree was constructed to determine which tocolytic had the lowest total costs, with subsequent sensitivity analysis.

RESULTS

A total of 19 clinical trials combined for a cohort of 1073 patients (indomethacin, 176 patients; magnesium sulfate, 451 patients; nifedipine, 176 patients; and terbutaline, 270 patients). The probability of adverse events was 57.9% for terbutaline, 22.0% for magnesium sulfate, 27.2% for nifedipine, and 11.4% for indomethacin. Nifedipine ($16.75) and indomethacin ($15.40) were the least expensive treatment options, compared with magnesium sulfate ($197.90) and terbutaline ($399.02) because of the cost of monitoring and treating adverse events.

CONCLUSION

If one elects a tocolytic, both nifedipine and indomethacin should be the agents of choice, based on a cost decision analysis.

The choice of a tocolytic for the treatment of preterm labor: a critical evaluation of nifedipine versus atosiban

Preterm birth is the major cause of neonatal mortality and morbidity in the developed world. The perfect tocolytic that is uniformly effective with complete fetomaternal safety does not exist. Tocolytic agents differ in cost, utero-specificity, safety, efficacy and whether they are licensed for use. The main three agents that are used worldwide are beta-agonists, Ca(2+) channel blockers and vasopressin/oxytocin receptor antagonists. beta-Agonists are gradually being phased out of use and are being replaced by either nifedipine or atosiban. The evidence base for atosiban is strong but the evidence is of poor quality for nifedipine. The balance of evidence indicates that atosiban is as effective as nifedipine and more effective than beta-agonists and is significantly safer than both. Atosiban was developed specifically to treat preterm labor, so the cost is higher than nifedipine or ritodrine. However, the cost of a course of atosiban (approximately 200 pounds) should not only be considered in comparison with other tocolytic agents but to other medical budgets (e.g., oncology, fertility, cardiology and psychiatry) and to the huge healthcare costs associated with the morbidity and mortality caused by preterm birth. Atosiban is a new advance in the management of spontaneous preterm labor.

A quality assessment tool to evaluate tocolytic studies

Over the past 15 years, the use of beta-agonists has declined worldwide. Following the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists guidelines in 2002, clinicians in the UK and beyond were faced with the dilemma of continuing to use beta-agonists, desist from using tocolytic therapy completely or choosing to change to atosiban or calcium channel blockers (CCBs). While grade A level 1 evidence exists to show that atosiban is significantly more efficacious than placebo and significantly safer than beta-agonists for the treatment of spontaneous preterm labour, the evidence for CCBs, such as nifedipine, is much less robust and no placebo-controlled trials have been performed. Published studies on nifedipine are largely investigator-led studies of small sample size, which lack sufficient power. As a result, most of the evidence has been based on meta-analyses of these studies, which look retrospectively at pooled data and are only as good as the quality of the studies included. In light of this, a tool was developed to produce a systematic review of studies on tocolytic effectiveness, which can and should be applied to all tocolytics and which considered both method- and topic-specific markers of quality. In the process of applying this tool to nifedipine, an extensive literature search identified 31 studies for a systematic review of the quality of nifedipine studies assessed by eight paired reviewers with wide experience in the subject of spontaneous preterm labour and preterm birth. Forty topic- and method-specific items of quality were assessed. The paucity of good quality studies of nifedipine used for the treatment of spontaneous preterm labour should be highlighted in meta-analyses or systematic reviews, which measure efficacy and should limit and influence the degree to which recommendations and guidelines are made on the basis of such studies.

Pragmatic comparison of β2-agonist side effects within the Worldwide Atosiban versus Beta Agonists Study

OBJECTIVE

While beta2-agonists for the acute treatment of preterm labour unequivocally reduce the odds of delivery within 48 h and 7 days, they have been associated with substantial maternal and fetal side effects. We aimed to compare side effect profiles of beta2-agonist tocolytics.

STUDY DESIGN

Pragmatic comparison of ritodrine, salbutamol and terbutaline from re-analysis of data obtained within three comparator arms of three simultaneous comparable randomised controlled trials of beta2-agonists against atosiban in 742 women in preterm labour. The prevalence of categoric side effects between treatment groups was analysed using a chi2 test. The differences in continuous variables between treatment groups were analysed in analyses of covariance.

RESULTS

The prevalence of categoric side effects was similar with the three drugs, with the exception of the subjective symptom of palpitations (ritodrine 24.0%, terbutaline 9.3% and salbutamol 12.3%, P=0.003). There were also some differences in maternal diastolic blood pressure (P<0.001) and serum glucose levels (P<0.001), although these were small (<3 mmHg and < or =2.8 mmol/L, respectively) and clinically unimportant.

CONCLUSION

Side effects were common with all three drugs. Thus, choosing one beta2-agonist over the other to minimise side effects has little rationale, especially now that safer tocolytics are available.

Calcium channel blockers for tocolysis: A review of their role and safety following reports of serious adverse events

The use of nifedipine and other calcium channel blockers has become commonplace in the management of preterm labour. Several relatively small randomised trials have compared calcium channel blockers with beta-agonists and the meta-analyses of these studies have demonstrated superior or comparable efficacy and a superior adverse events profile. The safety of calcium channel blockers in pregnancy has not been rigorously evaluated and they remain unlicensed for use as tocolytics. Indeed, there is concern following a number of recent case studies that have reported serious adverse events after the administration of a calcium channel blocker as a tocolytic. In this article all these recently reported cases are critically reviewed and the pros and cons of tocolytic treatment options are discussed. Based on the findings of this review the following recommendations can be made with regard to tocolysis with calcium channel blockers: firstly, calcium channel blockers should not be combined with intravenous beta-agonists; secondly, intravenous nicardipine or high oral doses of nifedipine should not be used in cases where the mother is cardiovascular compromised or in cases of multiple gestation; finally, blood pressure should be monitored and cardiotocography recorded during the administration of immediate release tablets and patients should be advised to avoid chewing them. To truly establish the safety of tocolytics, all serious adverse effects of tocolytics should be reported to a central point and be critically reviewed.

Atosiban and nifedipin for the treatment of preterm labor

OBJECTIVE

To perform a comparison between atosiban (oxytocin antagonist) and nifedipin (calcium channel blocker) for acute treatment of preterm labor and their maternal safety.

METHODS

A randomized controlled trial study was performed on 80 pregnant women with preterm labor, between 26 and 34 weeks of pregnancy, in Akbar Abadi Teaching Hospital in Tehran, Iran. 40 women (the atosiban group) were compared with another 40 women (the nifedipin group) for the drugs' efficacy in delaying delivery for more than 48 h in order to undergo steroid therapy, and for more than 7 days or more, and also to assess their maternal safety. The duration between the drugs' administration and delivery were compared. The statistical analysis was performed using the Statistical Package for Social Science (SPSS).

RESULTS

There was no statistically significant difference between the two groups in the treatment of preterm labor. Atosiban was effective in 82.5% of cases, and nifedipin in 75% of the cases (p=1.000), for delaying delivery for 48 h. Atosiban was effective in 75% of the cases, and nifedipin in 65% of the cases, for delaying delivery for more than 7 days. The maternal side effects in the atosiban group were 17.5%, and in the nifedipin group they were 40%, which had a statistically significant difference (p=0.027). The duration between treatment and delivery was 29.03+/-16.12 days in the atosiban group and 22.85+/-13.9 days in the nifedipin group with no statistically significant difference (p=0.79).

CONCLUSION

Atosiban is an effective and safe drug for the acute treatment of preterm labor with minimal side effects, and it can be an option in the treatment of preterm labor, especially in patients with heart disease and multi-fetal pregnancies.

Oxytocin receptor antagonists for inhibiting preterm labour

BACKGROUND

Preterm birth, defined as birth before 37 completed weeks, is the single most important cause of perinatal mortality and morbidity in high-income countries. Oxytocin receptor antagonists have been proposed as effective tocolytic agents for women in preterm labour to postpone the birth, with fewer side-effects than other tocolytic agents.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effects on maternal, fetal and neonatal outcomes of tocolysis with oxytocin receptor antagonists for women with preterm labour compared with placebo or no intervention and compared with any other tocolytic agent.

SEARCH STRATEGY

We searched the Cochrane Pregnancy and Childbirth Group's Trials Register (September 2004), CENTRAL (The Cochrane Library, Issue 3, 2004), MEDLINE (1965 to June 2004), EMBASE (1988 to June 2004).

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised trials of oxytocin receptor antagonists for tocolysis in the management of women in labour between 20 and 36 weeks' gestation.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two authors independently evaluated methodological quality and extracted trial data. We sought additional information from trial authors.

MAIN RESULTS

Six trials (1695 women) were included. Compared with placebo, atosiban did not reduce incidence of preterm birth or improve neonatal outcome. In one trial (583 infants), atosiban was associated with an increase in infant deaths at 12 months of age compared with placebo (relative risk (RR) 6.15; 95% confidence intervals (CI) 1.39 to 27.22). However, this trial randomised significantly more women to atosiban before 26 weeks' gestation. Use of atosiban resulted in lower infant birthweight (weighted mean difference -138.31 gm; 95% CI -248.76 to -27.86) and more maternal adverse drug reactions (RR 4.02; 95% CI 2.05 to 7.85, 2 trials, 613 women).Compared with betamimetics, atosiban increased the numbers of infants born under 1500 gm (RR 1.96; 95% CI 1.15 to 3.35, 2 trials, 575 infants). Atosiban was associated with fewer maternal drug reactions requiring treatment cessation (RR 0.04; 95% CI 0.02 to 0.11, number needed to treat 6; 95% CI 5 to 7, 4 trials, 1035 women).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

This review failed to demonstrate the superiority of atosiban over betamimetics or placebo in terms of tocolytic efficacy or infant outcomes. The finding of an increase in infant deaths in one placebo controlled trial warrants caution. A recent Cochrane review suggests that calcium channel blockers (mainly nifedipine) are associated with better neonatal outcome and fewer maternal side-effects than betamimetics. However, a randomised comparison of nifedipine with placebo is not available. Further well-designed randomised controlled trials of tocolytic therapy are needed. Such trials should incorporate a placebo arm.

Recent pharmacological advances in the treatment of preterm membrane rupture, labour and delivery

Preterm delivery (before 37 completed weeks of gestation) is the major determinant of infant mortality. In women with a previous preterm birth associated with bacterial vaginosis, prophylactic antibiotics (e.g., metronidazole) reduce the risk of preterm birth and low birth weight. Trichomonas vaginalis increases the risk of preterm delivery, but metronidazole is not beneficial for this and may even be detrimental. Antibiotic use (e.g., erythromycin) prolongs pregnancy in late premature rupture and has health benefits for the neonate. However, antibiotics are probably not useful in preterm labour. Intramuscular 17alpha-progesterone and vaginal progesterone reduce the rate of preterm labour in high-risk pregnancies, including previous spontaneous preterm delivery. Magnesium sulfate, beta2-adrenoceptor agonists and the oxytocin-receptor antagonist, atosiban, are effective in reducing uterine contractions short-term, but there is little evidence that this leads to improved outcomes for the neonate. However, tocolysis with calcium-channel blockers does seem to lead to better outcomes for the neonate. Fetal side effects, such as ductus arteriosus constriction and impaired renal function, are associated with the inhibition of prostaglandin synthesis with indomethacin. New approaches and more effective drugs are required in the treatment of preterm delivery.

Evaluación farmacoeconómica de dos protocolos de tocolisis para la inhibición del parto prematuro

OBJECTIVE

Pharmacoeconomic assessment of two tocolysis protocols alternatively using atosiban or ritodrine as first-choice tocolytic agent able to delay birth for 48 hours in the acute management of premature birth risk in gravid women.

METHODS

The modeling technique used for the selection of the most efficient protocol was the decision analysis. A search for controlled clinical trials comparing the effectiveness and/or safety of atosiban versus ritodrine was performed in Medline and the Cochrane Library. Only differential costs were considered for cost analysis.

RESULTS

Cost-effectiveness obtained with the protocol including ritodrine as first-choice drug was Euros 194/effectiveness unit, and Euros 632/effectiveness unit when atosiban is used. The sensitivity analysis shows sensitivity only for an incidence of acute lung edema greater than 8% or a cost of at least Euros 50,000.

CONCLUSION

A tocolysis protocol using ritodrine as first-choice agent and atosiban as rescue drug is the most efficient option based on available evidence. In pregnant women where the likelihood of developing acute pulmonary edema is high, or when therapy cost is high, atosiban may be an appropriate alternative option.

Current medical therapy in the prevention and treatment of preterm labour

The prevention of preterm birth should be one of the major aims of antenatal care. Unfortunately, identification of women who will subsequently deliver preterm is imprecise. Prevention is also difficult. Surgical prevention with cerclage may help a proportion of women. Medical prevention is currently limited to the identification and treatment of bacterial vaginosis, although recent studies have suggested that progesterone prophylaxis may be helpful in some women. Confirmation of efficacy and safety is required before progesterone is introduced as long-term prophylaxis for all women at high risk. The optimal medical treatment (rather than prevention) of threatened preterm labour is controversial. Tocolysis is generally accepted to improve neonatal outcome although this has never been convincingly demonstrated in appropriate trials. Antibiotics confer benefit in the presence of ruptured membranes but are not indicated in uncomplicated preterm labour. In future, it may be possible to identify a subgroup of women in preterm labour with intact membranes who will benefit from tocolysis. The choice of first-line tocolytic therapy is currently debated but atosiban or nifedipine are suggested in current UK guidelines. A direct comparison of these drugs is required in a clinical trial. Although indirect comparisons have been made, these are difficult to interpret due to methodological differences. Each of these drugs have their advocates. Nifedipine has been reported to delay delivery and improve outcome but there are inconsistencies in the clinical trials. Atosiban is also reported to delay delivery and is well tolerated but improved neonatal outcome may have been hidden in clinical trials due to the requirement for rescue tocolysis.

Évaluation de l'algorithme de prise en charge des appels pour menace d'accouchement prématuré utilisé par la cellule de transfert périnatal de la région Rhône-Alpes

OBJECTIVE

Preterm labor is one of the major causes of concern for level I and II obstetricians. The purpose of this study was to determine the incidence of in utero transfer performed for preterm labor. We also aimed to evaluate the algorithm we used in case of call for preterm labor. This algorithm allowed us to study the rate of endovaginal sonography use prior to in utero transfer, to calculate its predictive value and to evaluate the risk of delivery during transfer.

PATIENTS AND METHOD

We conducted an 8-months prospective study of all calls for preterm labor received at a regional call center in France (EU). All obstetrical data were entered in a computerized anonymous database. Three months after the first call midwives collected data from the receiving hospital.

RESULTS

Calls for preterm labor account for 40% of calls for in utero transfer. Two hundred and sixty-five calls have been received for preterm labor; among them 50 cases were associated with a preterm rupture of membrane, a maternal or fetal pathology and 14 cases were lost for follow-up. Those 64 cases were excluded leaving 201 cases for analysis. Twenty-eight had a cervix dilated 4 cm, or more, while 173 had a cervix dilated less than 4 cm. Fifty percent of woman that had a cervical dilatation of 4 cm or more delivered more than 4 h after the call. Among the 173 patients that had a cervix dilated less than 4 cm, 71% had not delivered 7 days after the hotline call and 26% had an endovaginal ultrasonography performed before the transfer. None of the women that had a cervical length longer than 27 mm delivered in the 7 following days. None of the 176 women that were transferred delivered during the transfer.

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION

In utero transfer for preterm labor is the leading cause of in utero transfer. Endovaginal ultrasonography prior to transfer should be performed in order to avoid unnecessary transfer. Women who have a preterm labor with a cervical dilatation of 4 cm or more are not an absolute contra-indication to in utero transfer. In those cases the transfer indication should be discussed on a case-to-case basis including the actual term and the distance between hospitals.

Preterm delivery: an overview

Preterm delivery is the leading factor causing neonatal mortality and morbidity. We have conducted a PubMed literature search to obtain an update on the etiology, diagnostic problems and therapeutic considerations of preterm delivery. Approximately 5-10% of all births are premature. Preterm labor is associated with preterm rupture of membranes, cervical incompetence, polyhydramnion, fetal and uterine anomalies, infections, social factors, stress, smoking, heavy work and other risk factors. The diagnosis is made on the patients presenting symptoms, clinical findings and of progressive effacement and dilatation of the cervix. Biochemical markers of preterm delivery are of minor importance in daily clinical work. Measurement of the cervix, however, is a practical and valuable tool to predict preterm delivery. Cervical cerclage can be useful in selected cases. Antibiotics may help to prevent preterm labor in cases of known etiologic agents (e.g. preterm rupture of membranes and urinary infection). The use of tocolytic agents such as beta-sympathetic receptor stimulators can be advocated for a few days. There is evidence that their long-term use is not beneficial and could even be harmful to the fetus. Calcium channel blockers (nifedipine) and a new selective oxytocin receptor antagonist, atosiban, appear to be as effective as beta-sympathomimetic drugs on uterine contractions with fewer side-effects. Prostaglandin synthetase inhibitors such as indomethacin may prevent uterine contractions and can be used prior to the 32nd week of pregnancy. A single course of corticosteroid treatment in two doses of 12 mg betamethasone or 6 mg of dexamethasone is important for the prevention of respiratory distress between the 24th and 34th weeks of pregnancy. Multiple doses may be harmful and should be avoided. In these cases management should depend on gestation age (fetal maturity). Uterine contractions after 34 weeks' gestation are not an indication for tocolytic treatment.

Development and clinical experience with the new evidence-based tocolytic atosiban

The incidence of preterm birth has remained unchanged for the last few decades. This is due, in part, to the complex etiology of preterm labor, and the limited ability of tocolytic agents to prolong pregnancy as a result of limited efficacy and poor safety profiles. The recent introduction of the oxytocin antagonist, atosiban, represents a new generation of uterine-specific tocolytics, which are associated with more favorable safety profiles. This paper discusses the rationale behind the development of the oxytocin antagonists and provides a review of the phase II and III trials that have investigated atosiban. Also included is a retrospective analysis of 83 women assessed in the Vienna Medical School, providing an insight into the benefits associated with atosiban in the everyday clinical setting. The introduction of a safer tocolytic agent offers the potential to change the current approach to the management of preterm labor. This includes a prolonged period of treatment at earlier or later gestational ages and possibly an extended use to women with contraindications who would normally have been excluded from treatment, e.g. preterm premature rupture of the membranes.

Preterm labour

Studies in the past year have clarified the roles of inflammatory mediators in preterm labour. Exploration of possible genetic predisposition is just beginning. Ultrasound measurement of cervical length has the potential to predict women at risk of preterm delivery several weeks before it occurs. Biochemical testing such as fetal fibronectin can possibly increase its predictive value and differentiate true preterm labour from more innocent preterm contractions. The use of antibiotics for preterm premature rupture of membranes has been clarified with the ORACLE I trial, which shows health benefits for the neonate with the use of erythromycin, whereas antibiotics do not seem to play a beneficial role in spontaneous preterm labour without evidence of clinical infection. There have been further studies suggesting that agents other than beta-agonists are preferable for acute tocolysis and that repeated doses of corticosteroids should be used with caution.