Low-dose oral misoprostol for induction of labour

BACKGROUND

Misoprostol given orally is a commonly used labour induction method. Our Cochrane Review is restricted to studies with low-dose misoprostol (initially ≤ 50 µg), as higher doses pose unacceptably high risks of uterine hyperstimulation.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the efficacy and safety of low-dose oral misoprostol for labour induction in women with a viable fetus in the third trimester of pregnancy.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched Cochrane Pregnancy and Childbirth's Trials Register, ClinicalTrials.gov,  the WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (14 February 2021) and reference lists of retrieved studies.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised trials comparing low-dose oral misoprostol (initial dose ≤ 50 µg) versus placebo, vaginal dinoprostone, vaginal misoprostol, oxytocin, or mechanical methods; or comparing oral misoprostol protocols (one- to two-hourly versus four- to six-hourly; 20 µg to 25 µg versus 50 µg; or 20 µg hourly titrated versus 25 µg two-hourly static).

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Using Covidence, two review authors independently screened reports, extracted trial data, and performed quality assessments. Our primary outcomes were vaginal birth within 24 hours, caesarean section, and hyperstimulation with foetal heart changes.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 61 trials involving 20,026 women. GRADE assessments ranged from moderate- to very low-certainty evidence, with downgrading decisions based on imprecision, inconsistency, and study limitations. Oral misoprostol versus placebo/no treatment (four trials; 594 women) Oral misoprostol may make little to no difference in the rate of caesarean section (risk ratio (RR) 0.81, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.59 to 1.11; 4 trials; 594 women; moderate-certainty evidence), while its effect on uterine hyperstimulation with foetal heart rate changes is uncertain (RR 5.15, 95% CI 0.25 to 105.31; 3 trials; 495 women; very low-certainty evidence). Vaginal births within 24 hours was not reported. In all trials, oxytocin could be commenced after 12 to 24 hours and all women had pre-labour ruptured membranes. Oral misoprostol versus vaginal dinoprostone (13 trials; 9676 women) Oral misoprostol probably results in fewer caesarean sections (RR 0.84, 95% CI 0.78 to 0.90; 13 trials, 9676 women; moderate-certainty evidence). Subgroup analysis indicated that 10 µg to 25 µg (RR 0.80, 95% CI 0.74 to 0.87; 9 trials; 8652 women) may differ from 50 µg (RR 1.10, 95% CI 0.91 to 1.34; 4 trials; 1024 women) for caesarean section. Oral misoprostol may decrease vaginal births within 24 hours (RR 0.93, 95% CI 0.87 to 1.00; 10 trials; 8983 women; low-certainty evidence) and hyperstimulation with foetal heart rate changes (RR 0.49, 95% CI 0.40 to 0.59; 11 trials; 9084 women; low-certainty evidence). Oral misoprostol versus vaginal misoprostol (33 trials; 6110 women) Oral use may result in fewer vaginal births within 24 hours (average RR 0.81, 95% CI 0.68 to 0.95; 16 trials, 3451 women; low-certainty evidence), and less hyperstimulation with foetal heart rate changes (RR 0.69, 95% CI 0.53 to 0.92, 25 trials, 4857 women, low-certainty evidence), with subgroup analysis suggesting that 10 µg to 25 µg orally (RR 0.28, 95% CI 0.14 to 0.57; 6 trials, 957 women) may be superior to 50 µg orally (RR 0.82, 95% CI 0.61 to 1.11; 19 trials; 3900 women). Oral misoprostol probably does not increase caesarean sections overall (average RR 1.00, 95% CI 0.86 to 1.16; 32 trials; 5914 women; low-certainty evidence) but likely results in fewer caesareans for foetal distress (RR 0.74, 95% CI 0.55 to 0.99; 24 trials, 4775 women). Oral misoprostol versus intravenous oxytocin (6 trials; 737 women, 200 with ruptured membranes) Misoprostol may make little or no difference to vaginal births within 24 hours (RR 1.12, 95% CI 0.95 to 1.33; 3 trials; 466 women; low-certainty evidence), but probably results in fewer caesarean sections (RR 0.67, 95% CI 0.50 to 0.90; 6 trials; 737 women; moderate-certainty evidence). The effect on hyperstimulation with foetal heart rate changes is uncertain (RR 0.66, 95% CI 0.19 to 2.26; 3 trials, 331 women; very low-certainty evidence). Oral misoprostol versus mechanical methods (6 trials; 2993 women) Six trials compared oral misoprostol to transcervical Foley catheter. Misoprostol may increase vaginal birth within 24 hours (RR 1.32, 95% CI 0.98 to 1.79; 4 trials; 1044 women; low-certainty evidence), and probably reduces the risk of caesarean section (RR 0.84, 95% CI 0.75 to 0.95; 6 trials; 2993 women; moderate-certainty evidence). There may be little or no difference in hyperstimulation with foetal heart rate changes (RR 1.31, 95% CI 0.78 to 2.21; 4 trials; 2828 women; low-certainty evidence). Oral misoprostol one- to two-hourly versus four- to six-hourly (1 trial; 64 women) The evidence on hourly titration was very uncertain due to the low numbers reported. Oral misoprostol 20 µg hourly titrated versus 25 µg two-hourly static (2 trials; 296 women) The difference in regimen may have little or no effect on the rate of vaginal births in 24 hours (RR 0.97, 95% CI 0.80 to 1.16; low-certainty evidence). The evidence is of very low certainty for all other reported outcomes.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Low-dose oral misoprostol is probably associated with fewer caesarean sections (and therefore more vaginal births) than vaginal dinoprostone, and lower rates of hyperstimulation with foetal heart rate changes. However, time to birth may be increased, as seen by a reduced number of vaginal births within 24 hours. Compared to transcervical Foley catheter, low-dose oral misoprostol is associated with fewer caesarean sections, but equivalent rates of hyperstimulation. Low-dose misoprostol given orally rather than vaginally is probably associated with similar rates of vaginal birth, although rates may be lower within the first 24 hours. However, there is likely less hyperstimulation with foetal heart changes, and fewer caesarean sections performed due to foetal distress. The best available evidence suggests that low-dose oral misoprostol probably has many benefits over other methods for labour induction. This review supports the use of low-dose oral misoprostol for induction of labour, and demonstrates the lower risks of hyperstimulation than when misoprostol is given vaginally. More trials are needed to establish the optimum oral misoprostol regimen, but these findings suggest that a starting dose of 25 µg may offer a good balance of efficacy and safety.

PPH Butterfly: a novel device to treat postpartum haemorrhage through uterine compression

OBJECTIVE

Postpartum haemorrhage (PPH) is a significant cause of maternal morbidity and mortality. The most common cause is an inability of the uterus to contract adequately after childbirth. In bimanual compression (BMC), one hand is placed within the vagina and the other hand is on the abdominal wall to compress the uterus. It is effective, but very uncomfortable for the woman. We designed a device that could replicate BMC without inserting a hand vaginally, therefore being less invasive. It could also help in diagnosing the source of the bleeding.

DESIGN

Mixed methods, combining an iterative design process with input from clinicians in simulations, and focus groups of clinicians and consumers.

SETTING

Department of Women's and Children's Health and Department of Medical Physics and Clinical Engineering, University of Liverpool, UK.

METHODS

A multidisciplinary team developed the design, using an obstetric manikin. Clinician and consumer groups also gave input on the concept and design. A healthcare product company and prototype manufacturer provided input into strategy, design and manufacture.

RESULTS

The PPH Butterfly is a single piece, plastic medical device that replicates BMC. It is designed to be easy to use and low-cost and allows for smooth insertion and removal. It is acceptable to clinicians and consumers and performs well in tests.

CONCLUSIONS

This is the first device designed to replicate BMC while being less invasive. It could potentially be an effective form of PPH management, while also diagnosing the source of the bleeding. The device will now be tested in humans.

Interventions for varicose veins and leg oedema in pregnancy

BACKGROUND

Pregnancy is presumed to be a major contributory factor in the increased incidence of varicose veins in women, which can in turn lead to venous insufficiency and leg oedema. The most common symptom of varicose veins and oedema is the substantial pain experienced, as well as night cramps, numbness, tingling, the legs may feel heavy, achy, and possibly be unsightly. Treatments for varicose veins are usually divided into three main groups: surgery, pharmacological and non-pharmacological treatments. Treatments of leg oedema comprise mostly symptom reduction rather than cure and use of pharmacological and non-pharmacological approaches.

OBJECTIVES

To assess any form of intervention used to relieve the symptoms associated with varicose veins and leg oedema in pregnancy.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Pregnancy and Childbirth Group's Trials Register (31 May 2015) and reference lists of retrieved studies.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised trials of treatments for varicose veins or leg oedema, or both, in pregnancy.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently assessed trials for inclusion and risk of bias, extracted data and checked them for accuracy.

MAIN RESULTS

We included seven trials (involving 326 women). The trials were largely unclear for selection bias and high risk for performance and detection bias.Two studies were placebo-controlled trials. The first one compared a phlebotonic (rutoside) with placebo for the reduction in symptoms of varicose veins; the second study evaluated the efficacy of troxerutin in comparison to placebo among 30 pregnant women in their second trimester with symptomatic vulvar varicosities and venous insufficiency in their lower extremities. Data from this study were not in useable format, so were not included in the analysis. Two trials compared either compression stockings with resting in left lateral position or reflexology with rest for 15 minutes for the reduction of leg oedema. One trial compared standing water immersion for 20 minutes with sitting upright in a chair with legs elevated for 20 minutes. Women standing in water were allowed to stand or walk in place. One trial compared 20 minutes of daily foot massage for five consecutive days and usual prenatal care versus usual prenatal care. The final trial compared three treatment groups for treating leg oedema in pregnancy. The first group was assigned to lateral supine bed rest at room temperature, women in the second group were asked to sit in a bathtub of waist-deep water at 32 ± 0.5 C with their legs horizontal and the third group included the women who were randomised to sitting immersed in shoulder-deep water at 32 ± 0.5 C with legs extended downward. We did not include this study in the analysis as outcomes reported in the paper were not pre-specified outcomes of this review.We planned to use GRADE methods to assess outcomes for two different comparisons and assign a quality rating. However, only two out of three outcomes for one comparison were reported and could be assessed. Evidence from one trial (rutoside versus placebo) for the outcomes of reduction in symptoms and incidence of complications associated with varicose veins and oedema was assessed as of moderate quality. Rutoside versus placeboOne trial involving 69 women, reported that rutoside significantly reduced the symptoms associated with varicose veins (risk ratio (RR) 1.89, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.11 to 3.22; moderate quality evidence). The incidence of complications (deep vein thrombosis) did not differ significantly between the two groups (risk ratio (RR) 0.17, 95% CI 0.01 to 3.49; moderate quality evidence). There were no significant differences in side-effects (RR 1.30, 95% CI 0.23 to 7.28). Women's perception of pain was not reported in this trial. External pneumatic intermittent compression versus restOne trial, involving 35 women, reported no significant difference in lower leg volume when compression stockings were compared against rest (mean difference (MD) -258.80, 95% CI -566.91 to 49.31). Reflexology versus restingAnother trial, involving 55 women, compared reflexology with rest. Reflexology significantly reduced the symptoms associated with oedema (reduction in symptoms: RR 9.09, 95% CI 1.41 to 58.54). The same study showed a trend towards satisfaction and acceptability with the intervention (RR 6.00, 95% CI 0.92 to 39.11). Water immersion versus leg elevationThere was evidence from one trial, involving 32 women, to suggest that water immersion for 20 minutes in a swimming pool reduces leg volume (RR 0.43, 95% CI 0.22 to 0.83). Foot massage versus routine careOne trial, involving 80 women reported no significant difference in lower leg circumference when foot massage was compared against routine care (MD -0.11, 95% CI -1.02 to 0.80).No other primary or secondary outcomes were reported in the trials.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

There is moderate quality evidence to suggest that rutosides appear to help relieve the symptoms of varicose veins in late pregnancy. However, this finding is based on one study (69 women) and there are not enough data presented in the study to assess its safety in pregnancy. Reflexology or water immersion appears to help improve symptoms for women with leg oedema, but again this is based on two small studies (43 and 32 women, respectively).

High feedback versus low feedback of prenatal ultrasound for reducing maternal anxiety and improving maternal health behaviour in pregnancy

BACKGROUND

Prenatal ultrasound is one of many techniques used in screening and diagnosis. It gives parents instant access to the images of the fetus. Receiving information promotes knowledge and understanding, but it may also increase maternal anxiety.

OBJECTIVES

To compare high feedback versus low feedback during prenatal ultrasound for reducing maternal anxiety and improving maternal health behaviour.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Pregnancy and Childbirth Group's Trials Register (12 May 2015), the Central Register of Controlled Trials (The Cochrane Library 2015, Issue 5), MEDLINE (January 1966 to 12 May 2015), and the ISRCTN Registry (12 May 2015). We handsearched citation lists of relevant publications. We did not apply any language or date restrictions.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of high feedback (women can see the monitor screen and receive detailed visual and verbal explanations) versus low feedback (women can not see the monitor screen and women are given only a summary statement of the scan) during prenatal ultrasound. The primary outcome measure was maternal state anxiety.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently assessed trials for inclusion and risk of bias, extracted data and checked for accuracy. We have expressed results as risk ratio (RR) or mean differences (MD), together with their 95% confidence intervals (CI).

MAIN RESULTS

We included four studies (365 women). Three RCTs (346 participants) reported the effect of high versus low feedback during ultrasound on state anxiety scores (mean difference (MD) 0.92, 95% confidence interval (CI) -0.58 to 2.43; participants = 346; three studies, low quality evidence). Two trials (148 participants) reported women's views of the level of feedback. They do not show that women in the high feedback groups are more likely to choose very positive adjectives to describe their feelings after the scan (risk ratio (RR) 3.30; 95% CI 0.73 to 14.85). Women who had a high feedback during ultrasound were more likely to stop smoking during pregnancy (RR 2.93, 95% CI 1.25 to 6.86; participants = 129; one study; low quality evidence) and to avoid alcohol during pregnancy (RR 2.96, 95% CI 1.15 to 7.60; participants = 129; one study; low quality evidence). Downgrading of evidence was based on the unclear risk of bias of included studies, wide CI crossing the line of no effect or presence of heterogeneity.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

There is insufficient evidence to support either high or low feedback during a prenatal ultrasound to reduce maternal anxiety and promote health behaviour.

Oral misoprostol for induction of labour

BACKGROUND

Misoprostol is an orally active prostaglandin. In most countries misoprostol is not licensed for labour induction, but its use is common because it is cheap and heat stable.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the use of oral misoprostol for labour induction in women with a viable fetus.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Pregnancy and Childbirth Group's Trials Register (17 January 2014).

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised trials comparing oral misoprostol versus placebo or other methods, given to women with a viable fetus for labour induction.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently assessed trial data, using centrally-designed data sheets.

MAIN RESULTS

Overall there were 76 trials (14,412) women) which were of mixed quality.In nine trials comparing oral misoprostol with placebo (1109 women), women using oral misoprostol were more likely to give birth vaginally within 24 hours (risk ratio (RR) 0.16, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.05 to 0.49; one trial; 96 women), need less oxytocin (RR 0.42, 95% CI 0.37 to 0.49; seven trials; 933 women) and have a lower caesarean section rate (RR 0.72, 95% CI 0.54 to 0.95; eight trials; 1029 women).In 12 trials comparing oral misoprostol with vaginal dinoprostone (3859 women), women given oral misoprostol were less likely to need a caesarean section (RR 0.88, 95% CI 0.78 to 0.99; 11 trials; 3592 women). There was some evidence that they had slower inductions, but there were no other statistically significant differences.Nine trials (1282 women) compared oral misoprostol with intravenous oxytocin. The caesarean section rate was significantly lower in women who received oral misoprostol (RR 0.77, 95% CI 0.60 to 0.98; nine trials; 1282 women), but they had increased rates of meconium-stained liquor (RR 1.65, 95% CI 1.04 to 2.60; seven trials; 1172 women).Thirty-seven trials (6417 women) compared oral and vaginal misoprostol and found no statistically significant difference in the primary outcomes of serious neonatal morbidity/death or serious maternal morbidity or death. The results for vaginal birth not achieved in 24 hours, uterine hyperstimulation with fetal heart rate (FHR) changes, and caesarean section were highly heterogenous - for uterine hyperstimulation with FHR changes this was related to dosage with lower rates in those with lower doses of oral misoprostol. However, there were fewer babies born with a low Apgar score in the oral group (RR 0.60, 95% CI 0.44 to 0.82; 19 trials; 4009 babies) and a decrease in postpartum haemorrhage (RR 0.57, 95% CI 0.34 to 0.95; 10 trials; 1478 women). However, the oral misoprostol group had an increase in meconium-stained liquor (RR 1.22, 95% CI 1.03 to 1.44; 24 trials; 3634 women).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Oral misoprostol as an induction agent is effective at achieving vaginal birth. It is more effective than placebo, as effective as vaginal misoprostol and results in fewer caesarean sections than vaginal dinoprostone or oxytocin.Where misoprostol remains unlicensed for the induction of labour, many practitioners will prefer to use a licensed product like dinoprostone. If using oral misoprostol, the evidence suggests that the dose should be 20 to 25 mcg in solution. Given that safety is the primary concern, the evidence supports the use of oral regimens over vaginal regimens. This is especially important in situations where the risk of ascending infection is high and the lack of staff means that women cannot be intensely monitored.