Is rectal misoprostol really effective in the treatment of third stage of labor? A randomized controlled trial

Comparing and combining evidence of treatment effects in randomized and nonrandomized studies on the use of misoprostol to prevent postpartum hemorrhage

OBJECTIVE

Postpartum hemorrhage (PPH) is a preventable condition and the main cause of maternal death worldwide. Evidence on the effectiveness of misoprostol in the prevention of PPH has been generated from both randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and nonrandomized studies (NRS). This study aimed to compare the results of RCTs and NRS, and to compare Classical and Bayesian approaches of combining the results of RCTs and NRS on the use of misoprostol versus placebo in the prevention of PPH.

METHODS

We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials for appropriate studies. We pooled estimates of effects from RCTs and NRS seperately, using random-effects models, then merged them using classical and Bayesian random effects meta-analysis.

RESULTS

A total of 34 studies (20 RCTs and 14 NRS) involving 74 204 participants were identified. The summary odds ratio (OR) from RCTs for the use of misoprostol in the prevention of PPH was 0.69 (95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.59 to 0.80). The summary OR from NRS was 0.46 (95% CI: 0.36 to 0.63). Classical and Bayesian approaches of combining the two study designs both showed benefit of misoprostol in preventing PPH, with similar effects.

CONCLUSIONS

Both RCTs and NRS show comparable significant benefit for the use of misoprostol in the prevention of PPH.

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and the World Health Organization (WHO)'s International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP) were searched for unpublished trial reports (30 June 2015).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.

Randomized controlled trial comparing 400μg sublingual misoprostol versus placebo for prevention of primary postpartum hemorrhage

INTRODUCTION

obstetric hemorrhage is estimated to cause 25% of all maternal deaths and is the leading direct cause of maternal mortality worldwide. The World Health Organization recommended the use of uterotonics that should be offered for all women who will give birth but in some countries or in special situations oxytocin is not available. The goal of this study is to determine whether the 400μg dose of Misoprostol decreases the incidence of postpartum hemorrhage (PPH) of women who did not show signs of hemorrhage.

METHODS

a prospective randomized double blind controlled trial was conducted between February 2012 and June 2012, among women in the active stage of labor attending the Obstetric Gynecology Department, University Hospital Farhat Hached of Sousse, Tunisia. Women with term singleton pregnancies greater than 32 weeks of amenorrhea with anticipated vaginal delivery were eligible for the study. Participants were randomly assigned to receive 400 μg sublingual Misoprostol or 2 ets of placebo immediately after cord clamping. The primary outcome measures were an estimation of blood loss including the subjective finding of vaginal hemorrhage > 500 ml, the decrease of hemoglobin and hematocrit, a change in hemodynamic parameters, and the need for additional dose of oxytocin. Secondary outcomes were occurrence of possible side effects such as: headache, nausea, vomiting, pyrexia, diarrhea and abdominal pain.

RESULTS

a total of 211 patients were randomized: 111 in the Misoprostol group (Cytotec*) and 100 patients in the placebo group. The two groups were similar in terms of sociodemographic characteristics. Significant difference between the 400-μg of Misoprostol and placebo group were recorded in mean postpartum blood and PPH occurrence. The difference in pre- and postpartum hemoglobin loss (expressed in grams per 100 ml) was 1.21 ± 1.05 for the Misoprostol group and 1.51 ± 0.74 for the placebo group with significant difference (p = 0.02). No differences were observed in the occurrence of headache, dizziness, vomiting, diarrhea and metallic taste but the incidence of shivering was more than twice as great among women receiving Misoprostol than among those treated with placebo with a significant difference (p = 0.01). Similarly, women who received Misoprostol had a significantly higher mean temperature after delivery in comparison with those receiving placebo.

CONCLUSION

misoprostol, administered as 400 μg after delivery, appears to be effective for the prevention of post-partum hemorrhage, but its side effects appears to be significant.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Rectal Misoprostol Versus Oxytocin in the Management of the Third Stage of Labour

OBJECTIVE

To compare the effect of rectal misoprostol with intramuscular oxytocin in the routine management of the third stage in a rural developing country.

METHODS

A randomized controlled trial was performed at two district hospitals in Ghana, West Africa. Four hundred fifty women in advanced labour were enrolled. The only exclusion criterion was a known medical contraindication to prostaglandin administration. Women were randomized to receive rectal misoprostol 800 microg or intramuscular oxytocin 10 IU with delivery of the anterior shoulder. The main outcome measure was change in hemoglobin concentration from before to after delivery. Secondary outcomes included the need for additional uterotonics, estimated blood loss, transfusion, and medication side effects.

RESULTS

Demographic characteristics were similar in each treatment group. There was no significant difference between treatment groups in change in hemoglobin (misoprostol 1.19 g/dL and oxytocin 1.16 g/dL; relative difference 2.6%; 95% confidence intervals [CI]-16.8% to 19.4%; P = 0.80). The only significant secondary outcome was shivering, which was more common in the misoprostol group (misoprostol 7.5% vs. oxytocin 0.9%; relative risk 8.0; 95% CI 1.86-34.36; P = 0.001).

CONCLUSION

Rectal misoprostol 800 microg is as effective as 10 IU intramuscular oxytocin in minimizing blood loss in the third stage of labour. Rectal misoprostol has a lower incidence of side effects than the equivalent oral dose. This confirms the utility of misoprostol as a safe and effective uterotonic for use in the rural and remote areas of developing nations where other pharmacologic agents may be less feasible.

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.

Placebo-controlled randomized comparison of vaginal with rectal misoprostol in the prevention of postpartum hemorrhage

AIM

To compare vaginally administered misoprostol to rectally administered misoprostol and placebo in a prospective randomized placebo-controlled study.

METHODS

One hundred and fifty women with singleton vaginal deliveries were randomized (50 women in each arm) to receive 400-microg misoprostol tablets (crushed and suspended in a microenema) intravaginally, or 400-microg misoprostol tablets rectally, or two placebo lactose tablets rectally. The medication was administered immediately after delivery of the placenta. Women with profuse hemorrhage and delayed placental separation (>30 min) were excluded. Our outcome measures were postpartum blood loss 1 h after administration, and change in hemoglobin and hematocrit values from baseline to postpartum day 1. Analysis of variance and chi-squared tests were used to compare the outcome variables between groups.

RESULTS

One hundred and twenty-six women were available for analysis. Baseline characteristics were similar across the groups. The number of excluded subjects, the estimated blood loss, and the drop in hemoglobin and hematocrit values did not differ between the three groups (P > 0.05).

CONCLUSIONS

Misoprostol administered vaginally or rectally at a dosage of 400 microg following placental separation was not effective for decreasing postpartum bleeding in women without excessive hemorrhage.

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.

Misoprostol 50 μg Sublingually versus Vaginally for Labor Induction at Term: A Randomized Study

OBJECTIVE

To compare the efficacy of misoprostol 50 mug vaginally and 50 mug sublingually for labor induction at term.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

One hundred and sixty women were randomized to receive misoprostol 50 microg vaginally (n = 80) or 50 microg sublingually misoprostol (n = 80). The doses were given every 4 h (maximum 6 doses). Primary outcome measure was number of cesarean deliveries. Induction to delivery time, delivery within 24 h, the number of misoprostol doses given; the need for oxytocin augmentation, tachysystole and uterine hyperstimulation rates and neonatal outcomes were secondary outcome measures.

RESULTS

The mean induction to delivery time was 748 +/- 379 min in the vaginal group and 711 +/- 425 in the sublingual group (p = 0.56). The number of women delivering within 24 h was 73 (91.3%) in the vaginal group and 74 (92.5%) in the sublingual group (p = 0.78). The mean number of misoprostol doses required was significantly higher in the sublingual group (1.9 +/- 1.2) compared with the vaginal group (1.1 +/- 0.4; p < 0.001). More women in the sublingual group experienced tachysystole (n = 14, 17.5%) compared with the vaginal group (n = 3, 3.8%; p = 0.005). Seven cases (8.8%) in the vaginal group and 12 cases in the sublingual group (15%) required emergent cesarean delivery for fetal heart rate abnormalities (p = 0.22). Other neonatal outcomes including umbilical artery pH, Apgar scores and intensive care unit admission were similar in the two groups.

CONCLUSION

Sublingual misoprostol is as efficacious as vaginal misoprostol for induction of labor. More frequent tachysystole is observed with misoprostol 50 microg sublingually, but neonatal outcomes are similar.

Buccal Misoprostol to Decrease Blood Loss After Vaginal Delivery: A Randomized Trial

OBJECTIVE

To assess the efficacy of buccal misoprostol to decrease bleeding after vaginal delivery.

METHODS

This was a randomized study of patients between 22 weeks and 42 weeks of gestation with anticipated vaginal delivery. Patients were given either a 200-mug misoprostol tablet or placebo in the buccal space at the time of cord clamping. A continuous dilute intravenous oxytocin infusion was given to all patients at delivery of the placenta. Postpartum hemorrhage was defined as blood loss exceeding 500 mL. Sample size calculations based on previous studies assumed a 13% incidence of postpartum hemorrhage in the control group. To show a statistically significant reduction of postpartum hemorrhage a total of 1,604 patients would be required in each group.

RESULTS

A total of 848 patients were enrolled and 756 randomly assigned, 377 in the misoprostol group and 379 in the placebo group. Demographic, antepartum, and intrapartum characteristics were similar between the groups. The incidence of postpartum hemorrhage, 3% compared with 5%, (relative risk 0.65, 95% confidence interval 0.33-1.29, P = .22), mean estimated blood loss, 322 compared with 329 mL, (P = .45), and mean minutes of the third stage of labor, 6.7 compared with 6.9 (P = .52) were similar between the groups, misoprostol and placebo, respectively. Hemoglobin difference before and after delivery, need for second or third uterotonic agent, and all measured neonatal variables including birth weights, and umbilical cord pH were similar between the groups.

CONCLUSION

Buccal misoprostol at cord clamping is no more effective than placebo in reducing postpartum hemorrhage.

Postpartum hemorrhage in developing countries: is the public health community using the right tools?

OBJECTIVES

To identify new and underutilized technologies that may assist in reducing maternal mortality due to obstetric hemorrhage.

METHODS

Review of published and unpublished literature, including systematic reviews of randomized trials and individual clinical studies.

RESULTS

Hemorrhage, primarily postpartum, accounts for approximately 25% of maternal deaths globally. Uterotonic drugs offer great promise for both prevention and management of postpartum hemorrhage (PPH). Other technologies--such as anti-shock garments, umbilical vein injection of oxytocin, and simple anemia detection methods--represent potential new opportunities to reduce PPH-related mortality.

CONCLUSIONS

Clinical and operational research is needed to answer remaining questions about misoprostol, the anti-shock garment, and umbilical vein injection of oxytocin for retained placenta. Efforts are needed to ensure the availability of technologies with proven value, such as oxytocin in Uniject prefilled injection devices. Equally important, technologies and techniques with proven efficacy--such as active management of third-stage labor and aortic compression--must be translated into general use by disseminating the evidence for them, incorporating them into national guidelines and training curricula, and ensuring the availability of supportive supplies and equipment.

Does the route of administration of misoprostol make a difference? The uterotonic effect and side effects of misoprostol given by different routes after vaginal delivery

OBJECTIVE

To compare the postpartum uterotonic effect and side effects of misoprostol administered by different routes.

STUDY DESIGN

Fifty women were given misoprostol 400 microg either by the oral solution, oral tablet, rectal or vaginal route, or intramuscular syntometrine 1 ml after spontaneous vaginal delivery. Pre- and post-treatment uterine activity were measured with intrauterine pressure catheters.

RESULTS

Uterine activity produced by oral solution misoprostol 400 microg was significantly higher than that of oral tablet, rectal and vaginal misoprostol (P = 0.004, 0.002, respectively). Onset of action after oral solution misoprostol was faster than by the oral tablet (P = 0.01), rectal (P < 0.001) and vaginal (P< 0.001) routes. Shivering and pyrexia were most common with oral solution misoprostol. Maximum body temperature recorded was significantly higher with oral solution misoprostol than with oral tablet, rectal and vaginal misoprostol (P = 0.009, 0.001, respectively).

CONCLUSION

Different routes of administering misoprostol greatly influence the effects achieved. Oral solution misoprostol produces the fastest and strongest uterotonic effect, with the most side effects.

Misoprostol: A Quarter Century of Use, Abuse, and Creative Misuse

Misoprostol is a prostaglandin E1 analog originally intended for use to prevent NSAID-induced gastric ulcers. However, because of its cervical ripening and uterotonic property, misoprostol has become one of the most useful drugs in obstetrics and gynecology. Misoprostol has proven to be a very convenient and flexible drug because of its formulation as a tablet that is stable and that can be administered orally, rectally, vaginally and by the sublingual route. Beginning with its abuse for illegal abortion in the late 1980s, misoprostol has quickly become established as one of the most effective drugs for terminating pregnancies in the first and second trimesters, as well as for inducing labor in the third trimester. Its use for routine prevention of postpartum hemorrhage has not been so successful, partly as the high doses required for this indication often result in troublesome side effects. Despite the large body of medical evidence about its efficacy and relative safety, the use of misoprostol in pregnant women remained off-label until the spring of 2002.

Prostaglandins for prevention of postpartum haemorrhage

BACKGROUND

Prostaglandins have mainly been used for postpartum haemorrhage 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 trials register (March 2003).

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomized or quasi-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. There were no language preferences.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Eligibility, trial quality and data extraction were done by two reviewers independently.

MAIN RESULTS

Twenty-four misoprostol and eight intramuscular prostaglandin trials (34,203 participants) were included. The data comparing oral misoprostol to no uterotonics/placebo are from five trials and difficult to interpret because of the heterogeneity between trials. However, the data do not suggest a substantive reduction in the rate of postpartum haemorrhage or other measures of blood loss. Oral misoprostol 600 mcg shows clinically and statistically significantly more blood loss = 1000 ml compared with conventional injectable uterotonics (seven trials, 22,749 women, 3.6% versus 2.7%; relative risk (RR) 1.34, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.16 to 1.55). Shivering and elevated body temperature (> 38 masculine C) are the main side-effects of misoprostol and are dose related (600 mcg versus 400 mcg: shivering - two trials, RR: 1.33; 95% CI: 1.07 to 1.64). Compared to oxytocin the RR of any shivering with 600 mcg oral misoprostol is 3.29 (seven trials, 22746 women; 19.7% versus 6.0%, 95% CI 3.03 to 3.56) and temperature greater than 38 masculine C is RR 6.78 (seven trials, 22,09 women; 6.3% versus, 95% CI 5.55 to 8.30). Injectable prostaglandins are associated with reduced mean blood loss in the third stage of labour (weighted mean difference -70 ml, 95% CI -73 to -67 ml) when compared to conventional injectable uterotonics but have more side-effects. There are scarce data from this comparison on severe postpartum haemorrhage and the use of additional uterotonics, the primary outcomes of this review.

REVIEWER'S CONCLUSIONS

Neither intramuscular prostaglandins nor misoprostol are preferable to conventional injectable uterotonics as part of the active management of the third stage of labour especially for low-risk women. Future research on prostaglandin use after birth should focus on the treatment of postpartum haemorrhage rather than prevention where they seem to be more promising.

Medical and Conservative Surgical Management of Postpartum Hemorrhage

Massive postpartum hemorrhage (PPH) is a major cause of maternal mortality in the United Kingdom and worldwide. Life-threatening PPH occurs with a frequency of 1 in 1000 deliveries in the developed world. In the latest triennial Why Mothers Die: Confidential Enquiries into Maternal Deaths in the United Kingdom (1997-1999), PPH was the fifth most common cause of maternal mortality. In this review, we discuss the role of medical management in primary PPH and the use of the "tamponade test" when such management fails. The less radical surgical options discussed include uterine compression sutures, uterine or internal iliac artery ligation, and arterial embolization, all of which have the advantage of potentially preserving reproductive function. Radical surgical options, including subtotal or total hysterectomy, are not discussed in this review. A systematic or algorithmic method of tackling the problem is described. The suggested management approach is likely to reduce maternal morbidity from bleeding, hysterectomies, and maternal deaths.