-
Ultrasound in Obstetrics & Gynecology :... Aug 2017To compare the effectiveness of customized vs population-based growth charts for the prediction of adverse pregnancy outcomes. (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
OBJECTIVE
To compare the effectiveness of customized vs population-based growth charts for the prediction of adverse pregnancy outcomes.
METHODS
MEDLINE, ClinicalTrials.gov and The Cochrane Library were searched up to 31 May 2016 to identify interventional and observational studies comparing adverse outcomes among large- (LGA) and small- (SGA) for-gestational-age neonates, when classified according to customized vs population-based growth charts. Perinatal mortality and admission to the neonatal intensive care unit (NICU) of both SGA and LGA neonates, intrauterine fetal demise (IUFD) and neonatal mortality of SGA neonates, and neonatal shoulder dystocia and hypoglycemia as well as maternal third- and fourth-degree perineal lacerations in LGA pregnancies were evaluated.
RESULTS
The electronic search identified 237 records that were examined based on title and abstract, of which 27 full-text articles were examined for eligibility. After excluding seven articles, 20 observational studies were included in a Bayesian meta-analysis. Neonates classified as SGA according to customized growth charts had higher risks of IUFD (odds ratio (OR), 7.8 (95% CI, 4.2-12.3)), neonatal death (OR, 3.5 (95% CI, 1.1-8.0)), perinatal death (OR, 5.8 (95% CI, 3.8-7.8)) and NICU admission (OR, 3.6 (95% CI, 2.0-5.5)) than did non-SGA cases. Neonates classified as SGA according to population-based growth charts also had increased risk for adverse outcomes, albeit the point estimates of the pooled ORs were smaller: IUFD (OR, 3.3 (95% CI, 1.9-5.0)), neonatal death (OR, 2.9 (95% CI, 1.2-4.5)), perinatal death (OR, 4.0 (95% CI, 2.8-5.1)) and NICU admission (OR, 2.4 (95% CI, 1.7-3.2)). For LGA vs non-LGA, there were no differences in pooled ORs for perinatal death, NICU admission, hypoglycemia and maternal third- and fourth-degree perineal lacerations when classified according to either the customized or the population-based approach. In contrast, both approaches indicated that LGA neonates are at increased risk for shoulder dystocia than are non-LGA ones (OR, 7.4 (95% CI, 4.9-9.8) using customized charts; OR, 8.0 (95% CI, 5.3-10.1) using population-based charts).
CONCLUSIONS
Both customized and population-based growth charts can identify SGA neonates at risk for adverse outcomes. Although the point estimates of the pooled ORs may differ for some outcomes, the overlapping CIs and lack of direct comparisons prevent conclusions from being drawn on the superiority of one method. Future clinical trials should compare directly the two approaches in the management of fetuses of abnormal size. Copyright © 2016 ISUOG. Published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd.
Topics: Bayes Theorem; Birth Weight; Female; Fetal Macrosomia; Growth Charts; Humans; Infant; Infant Mortality; Infant, Newborn; Infant, Small for Gestational Age; Pregnancy; Pregnancy Outcome
PubMed: 27935148
DOI: 10.1002/uog.17381 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... May 2016It has been brought to the authors' attention that there may be an error in the data (Analysis 1.9). This is currently under investigation, and a correction will be made... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
EDITORIAL NOTE
It has been brought to the authors' attention that there may be an error in the data (Analysis 1.9). This is currently under investigation, and a correction will be made if the data are found to be incorrect. Details can be found in the comments.
BACKGROUND
Women with a suspected large-for-dates fetus or a fetus with suspected macrosomia (birthweight greater than 4000 g) are at risk of operative birth or caesarean section. The baby is also at increased risk of shoulder dystocia and trauma, in particular fractures and brachial plexus injury. Induction of labour may reduce these risks by decreasing the birthweight, but may also lead to longer labours and an increased risk of caesarean section.
OBJECTIVES
To assess the effects of a policy of labour induction at or shortly before term (37 to 40 weeks) for suspected fetal macrosomia on the way of giving birth and maternal or perinatal morbidity.
SEARCH METHODS
We searched the Cochrane Pregnancy and Childbirth Group's Trials Register (31 January 2016), contacted trial authors and searched reference lists of retrieved studies.
SELECTION CRITERIA
Randomised trials of induction of labour for suspected fetal macrosomia.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Review authors independently assessed trials for inclusion and risk of bias, extracted data and checked them for accuracy. We contacted study authors for additional information. For key outcomes the quality of the evidence was assessed using the GRADE approach.
MAIN RESULTS
We included four trials, involving 1190 women. It was not possible to blind women and staff to the intervention, but for other 'Risk of bias' domains these studies were assessed as being at low or unclear risk of bias.Compared to expectant management, there was no clear effect of induction of labour for suspected macrosomia on the risk of caesarean section (risk ratio (RR) 0.91, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.76 to 1.09; 1190 women; four trials, moderate-quality evidence) or instrumental delivery (RR 0.86, 95% CI 0.65 to 1.13; 1190 women; four trials, low-quality evidence). Shoulder dystocia (RR 0.60, 95% CI 0.37 to 0.98; 1190 women; four trials, moderate-quality evidence), and fracture (any) (RR 0.20, 95% CI 0.05 to 0.79; 1190 women; four studies, high-quality evidence) were reduced in the induction of labour group. There were no clear differences between groups for brachial plexus injury (two events were reported in the control group in one trial, low-quality evidence). There was no strong evidence of any difference between groups for measures of neonatal asphyxia; low five-minute infant Apgar scores (less than seven) or low arterial cord blood pH (RR 1.51, 95% CI 0.25 to 9.02; 858 infants; two trials, low-quality evidence; and, RR 1.01, 95% CI 0.46 to 2.22; 818 infants; one trial, moderate-quality evidence, respectively). Mean birthweight was lower in the induction group, but there was considerable heterogeneity between studies for this outcome (mean difference (MD) -178.03 g, 95% CI -315.26 to -40.81; 1190 infants; four studies; I(2) = 89%). In one study with data for 818 women, third- and fourth-degree perineal tears were increased in the induction group (RR 3.70, 95% CI 1.04 to 13.17).For outcomes assessed using GRADE, we based our downgrading decisions on high risk of bias from lack of blinding and imprecision of effect estimates.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
Induction of labour for suspected fetal macrosomia has not been shown to alter the risk of brachial plexus injury, but the power of the included studies to show a difference for such a rare event is limited. Also antenatal estimates of fetal weight are often inaccurate so many women may be worried unnecessarily, and many inductions may not be needed. Nevertheless, induction of labour for suspected fetal macrosomia results in a lower mean birthweight, and fewer birth fractures and shoulder dystocia. The unexpected observation in the induction group of increased perineal damage, and the plausible, but of uncertain significance, observation of increased use of phototherapy, both in the largest trial, should also be kept in mind.Findings from trials included in the review suggest that to prevent one fracture it would be necessary to induce labour in 60 women. Since induction of labour does not appear to alter the rate of caesarean delivery or instrumental delivery, it is likely to be popular with many women. In settings where obstetricians can be reasonably confident about their scan assessment of fetal weight, the advantages and disadvantages of induction at or near term for fetuses suspected of being macrosomic should be discussed with parents.Although some parents and doctors may feel the evidence already justifies induction, others may justifiably disagree. Further trials of induction shortly before term for suspected fetal macrosomia are needed. Such trials should concentrate on refining the optimum gestation of induction, and improving the accuracy of the diagnosis of macrosomia.
Topics: Birth Weight; Brachial Plexus Neuropathies; Delivery, Obstetric; Dystocia; Female; Fetal Macrosomia; Humans; Labor, Induced; Obstetric Labor Complications; Pregnancy; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Watchful Waiting
PubMed: 27208913
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD000938.pub2 -
Revista Brasileira de Ortopedia Apr 2020Obstetric palsy is classically defined as the brachial plexus injury due to shoulder dystocia or to maneuvers performed on difficult childbirths. In the last 2 decades,...
Obstetric palsy is classically defined as the brachial plexus injury due to shoulder dystocia or to maneuvers performed on difficult childbirths. In the last 2 decades, several studies have shown that half of the cases of Obstetric palsy are not associated with shoulder dystocia and have raised other possible etiologies for Obstetric palsy. The purpose of the present study is to collect data from literature reviews, classic articles, sentries, and evidence-based medicine to better understand the events involved in the occurrence of Obstetric palsy. A literature review was conducted in the search engine PubMed (MeSH - Medical Subject Headings) with the following keywords: and , completely open, boundless regarding language or date. Later, the inclusion criterion was defined as revisions. A total of 21 review articles associated with the themes described were found until March 8, 2018. Faced with the best available evidence to date, it is well-demonstrated that Obstetric palsy occurs in uncomplicated deliveries and in cesarean deliveries, and there are multiple factors that can cause it, relativizing the responsibility of obstetricians, nurses, and midwives. The present study aims to break the paradigms that associate Obstetric palsy compulsorily with shoulder dystocia, and that its occurrence necessarily implies negligence, malpractice or recklessness of the team involved.
PubMed: 32346188
DOI: 10.1055/s-0039-1698800 -
International Journal of Environmental... May 2021Objective-to overview, compare and generalize results of randomized clinical trials analyzing different oxytocin doses to prevent postpartum hemorrhage, initiate and... (Review)
Review
Objective-to overview, compare and generalize results of randomized clinical trials analyzing different oxytocin doses to prevent postpartum hemorrhage, initiate and maintain uterine contraction after Caesarean delivery. Methods-'PubMed', 'EMBASE', 'CENTRAL', and 'CINAHL' electronic databases were searched for clinical trials analyzing the effectiveness of different dose of oxytocin given intravenously during surgery for uterine contraction and to reduce postpartum hemorrhage. A systematic review of relevant literature sources was performed. Results-our search revealed 813 literature sources. A total of 15 randomized clinical trials, comparing different doses of oxytocin bolus and infusion used after caesarean delivery have met the selection criteria. Conclusion-oxytocin bolus 0.5-3 UI is considered an effective prophylactic dose. Recommended effective prophylactic oxytocin infusion dose is 7.72 IU/h, but it is unanswered whether we really need a prophylactic infusion of oxytocin if we choose effective bolus dose size and rate. Adverse hemodynamic effects were observed when a 5 UI oxytocin bolus was used. However, topics such as bolus dose size, infusion dose size and requirement as well as bolus injection rate, still remain unanswered. The doses that are recommended in the guidelines of peripartum hemorrhage prophylaxis are not confirmed by randomized controlled double-blind trials and more research should cover this topic.
Topics: Cesarean Section; Female; Humans; Oxytocics; Oxytocin; Postpartum Hemorrhage; Pregnancy; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Uterine Inertia
PubMed: 34068723
DOI: 10.3390/ijerph18095029 -
The Journal of Maternal-fetal &... Dec 2024The use of metformin for treating gestational diabetes mellitus (GDM) remains controversial because it can pass through the placenta. This meta-analysis aimed to compare... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
INTRODUCTION
The use of metformin for treating gestational diabetes mellitus (GDM) remains controversial because it can pass through the placenta. This meta-analysis aimed to compare the effects of metformin and insulin on maternal and neonatal outcomes in patients with GDM.
METHODS
We conducted a comprehensive search of the PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane Library databases, focusing on randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that evaluated the impacts of metformin and insulin on both maternal and neonatal outcomes in patients with GDM.
RESULTS
Twenty-four RCTs involving 4934 patients with GDM were included in this meta-analysis. Compared with insulin, metformin demonstrated a significant reduction in the risks of preeclampsia (RR 0.61, 95% CI 0.48 to 0.78, < .0001), induction of labor (RR 0.90, 95% CI 0.82 to 0.98, = .02), cesarean delivery (RR 0.91, 95% CI 0.85 to 0.98, = .01), macrosomia (RR 0.67, 95% CI 0.53 to 0.83, = .0004), neonatal intensive care unit (NICU) admission (RR 0.75, 95% CI 0.66 to 0.86, < .0001), neonatal hypoglycemia (RR 0.55, 95% CI 0.48 to 0.63, < .00001), and large for gestational age (LGA) (RR 0.80, 95% CI 0.68 to 0.94, = .007). Conversely, metformin showed no significant impact on gestational hypertension (RR 0.84, 95% CI 0.67 to 1.06, = .15), spontaneous vaginal delivery (RR 1.13, 95% CI 1.00 to 1.08, = .05), emergency cesarean section (RR 0.94, 95% CI 0.77 to 1.16, = .58), shoulder dystocia (RR 0.65, 95% CI 0.31 to 1.39, = .27), premature birth (RR 0. 92, 95% CI 0.61 to 1.39, = .69), polyhydramnios (RR 1.11, 95% CI 0.54 to 2.30, = .77), birth trauma (RR 0.87, 95% CI 0.54 to 1.39, = .56), 5-min Apgar score < 7 (RR 1.13, 95% CI 0.76 to 1.68, = .55), small for gestational age (SGA) (RR 0.93, 95% CI 0.71 to 1.22, = .62), respiratory distress syndrome (RDS) (RR 0.74, 95% CI 0.50 to 1.08, = .11), jaundice (RR 1.09, 95% CI 0.95 to 1.25, = .24) or birth defects (RR 0.80, 95% CI 0.37 to 1.74, = .57).
CONCLUSIONS
The findings suggest that metformin can reduce the risk of certain maternal and neonatal outcomes compared with insulin therapy for GDM. However, long-term follow-up studies of patients with GDM taking metformin and their offspring are warranted to provide further evidence.
Topics: Female; Humans; Infant, Newborn; Pregnancy; Diabetes, Gestational; Fetal Macrosomia; Hypoglycemia; Insulin; Metformin; Weight Gain
PubMed: 38124287
DOI: 10.1080/14767058.2023.2295809 -
Animals : An Open Access Journal From... Jul 2022The objective of this systematic review and meta-analysis was to identify the benefits and possible adverse side effects of oxytocin use during farrowing. Randomized... (Review)
Review
The objective of this systematic review and meta-analysis was to identify the benefits and possible adverse side effects of oxytocin use during farrowing. Randomized controlled trials that were published in English within the last 50 years were eligible for inclusion. Eligible research needed to contain the PICO elements: population (P)-sows at farrowing; intervention (I):-oxytocin given to sows-comparator (C): sows at farrowing not given oxytocin, as well as sows given different dosages and/or different timing of administration; and outcomes (O):-stillbirths, sow mortality, and piglet viability. Four bibliographic databases were used: PubMed, CAB Direct, Web of Science Core Collection, and ProQuest Dissertations, and Theses Global. In addition, we performed a manual search of the table of contents in the American Association of Swine Veterinarians database for relevant conference proceedings and reports. To assess the risk of bias at the study level, a modified version of the Cochrane 2.0 ROB was used. Meta-analyses were performed to examine the average stillbirth rate, farrowing duration, and birth interval between piglets using random-effect standardized mean difference (SMD) models. To explore heterogeneity, a sub-group analysis was performed on the objectives of the study, dose, time, and route of administration. Of the 46 studies eligible for meta-analyses, only 25 had sufficient information. The pooled analyses of the random effect model demonstrated that the average number of stillborn pigs was lower in the comparator group (SMD = 0.23; CI95% = 0.1, 0.36), and both the farrowing duration (SMD = -8.4; CI95% = -1.1, -0.60) and the birth interval between piglets (SMD = -1.41; CI95% = -1.86, -0.97) were shorter in the oxytocin group. The majority of the studies had an overall risk of bias of 'some concerns'. It was concluded that the use of oxytocin increases the overall number of stillborn piglets, but decreases the farrowing duration and time interval between piglets. However, future studies should focus on the effect of oxytocin on the experience of dystocia among sows.
PubMed: 35883343
DOI: 10.3390/ani12141795 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Oct 2014The use of conventional cardiotocographic (CTG) monitoring of fetal well-being during labour is associated with an increased caesarean section rate, compared with... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
The use of conventional cardiotocographic (CTG) monitoring of fetal well-being during labour is associated with an increased caesarean section rate, compared with intermittent auscultation of the fetal heart rate, resulting in a reduction in neonatal seizures, although no differences in other neonatal outcomes. To improve the sensitivity of this test and therefore reduce the number of caesarean sections performed for nonreassuring fetal status, several additional measures of evaluating fetal well-being have been considered. These have demonstrated some effect on reducing caesarean section rates, for example, fetal scalp blood sampling for pH estimation/lactate measurement. The adaptation of pulse oximetry for use in the unborn fetus could potentially contribute to improved evaluation during labour and therefore lead to a reduction in caesarean sections for nonreassuring fetal status, without any change in neonatal outcomes.
OBJECTIVES
To compare the effectiveness and safety of fetal intrapartum pulse oximetry with other surveillance techniques.
SEARCH METHODS
We searched the Cochrane Pregnancy and Childbirth Group's Trials Register (31 May 2014), contacted experts in the field and searched reference lists of retrieved studies. In previous versions of this review, we performed additional searches of MEDLINE, Embase and Current Contents. These searches were discontinued for this review update, as they consistently failed to identify any trials that were not shown in the Cochrane Pregnancy and Childbirth Group's Trials Register.
SELECTION CRITERIA
All published and unpublished randomised controlled trials that compared maternal and fetal outcomes when fetal pulse oximetry was used in labour, (i) with or without concurrent use of conventional fetal surveillance, that is, cardiotocography (CTG), compared with using CTG alone or (ii) with or without concurrent use of both CTG and other method(s) of fetal surveillance, such as fetal electrocardiography (ECG) plus CTG.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
At least two independent review authors performed data extraction. We sought additional information from the investigators of three of the reported trials.
MAIN RESULTS
We included seven published trials: six comparing fetal pulse oximetry and CTG with CTG alone (or when fetal pulse oximetry values were blinded) and one comparing fetal pulse oximetry plus CTG with fetal ECG plus CTG. The published trials, with some unpublished data, were at high risk of bias in terms of the impractical nature of blinding participants and clinicians, as well as high risk or unclear risk of bias for outcome assessor for all but one report. Selection bias, attrition bias, reporting bias and other sources of bias were of low or unclear risk. The trials reported on a total of 8013 pregnancies. Differing entry criteria necessitated separate analyses, rather than meta-analysis of all trials.Systematic review of four trials from 34 weeks not requiring fetal blood sampling (FBS) prior to study entry showed no evidence of differences in the overall caesarean section rate between those monitored with fetal oximetry and those not monitored with fetal pulse oximetry or for whom the fetal pulse oximetry results were masked (average risk ratio (RR) 0.99 using random-effects, 95% confidence intervals (CI) 0.86 to 1.13, n = 4008, I² = 45%). There was evidence of a higher risk of caesarean section in the group with fetal oximetry plus CTG than in the group with fetal ECG plus CTG (one study, n = 180, RR 1.56, 95% CI 1.06 to 2.29). Neonatal seizures and neonatal encephalopathy were rare in both groups. No studies reported details of long-term disability.There was evidence of a decrease in caesarean section for nonreassuring fetal status in the fetal pulse oximetry plus CTG group compared to the CTG group, gestation from 34 weeks (average RR (random-effects) 0.65, 95% CI 0.46 to 0.90, n = 4008, I² = 63%). There was no evidence of differences between groups in caesarean section for dystocia, although the overall incidence rates varied between the trials.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
The addition of fetal pulse oximetry does not reduce overall caesarean section rates. One study found a higher caesarean section rate in the group monitored with fetal pulse oximetry plus CTG, compared with fetal ECG plus CTG. The data provide limited support for the use of fetal pulse oximetry when used in the presence of a nonreassuring CTG, to reduce caesarean section for nonreassuring fetal status. A better method than pulse oximetry is required to enhance the overall evaluation of fetal well-being in labour.
Topics: Cardiotocography; Cesarean Section; Delivery, Obstetric; Female; Fetal Monitoring; Humans; Oximetry; Pregnancy; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic
PubMed: 25287809
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD004075.pub4 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Mar 2022Routine vaginal examinations are undertaken at regular time intervals during labour to assess whether labour is progressing as expected. Unusually slow progress can be... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
Routine vaginal examinations are undertaken at regular time intervals during labour to assess whether labour is progressing as expected. Unusually slow progress can be due to underlying problems, described as labour dystocia, or can be a normal variation of progress. Evidence suggests that if mother and baby are well, length of labour alone should not be used to decide whether labour is progressing normally. Other methods to assess labour progress include intrapartum ultrasound and monitoring external physical and behavioural cues. Vaginal examinations can be distressing for women, and overdiagnosis of dystocia can result in iatrogenic morbidity due to unnecessary intervention. It is important to establish whether routine vaginal examinations are effective, both as an accurate measure of physiological labour progress and to distinguish true labour dystocia, or whether other methods for assessing labour progress are more effective. This Cochrane Review is an update of a review first published in 2013.
OBJECTIVES
To compare the effectiveness, acceptability, and consequences of routine vaginal examinations compared with other methods, or different timings, to assess labour progress at term.
SEARCH METHODS
For this update, we searched Cochrane Pregnancy and Childbirth Trials Register (which includes trials from CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, and conference proceedings) and ClinicalTrials.gov (28 February 2021). We also searched the reference lists of retrieved studies.
SELECTION CRITERIA
We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of vaginal examinations compared with other methods of assessing labour progress and studies assessing different timings of vaginal examinations. Quasi-RCTs and cluster-RCTs were eligible for inclusion. We excluded cross-over trials and conference abstracts.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Two review authors independently assessed all studies identified by the search for inclusion in the review. Four review authors independently extracted data. Two review authors assessed risk of bias and certainty of the evidence using GRADE.
MAIN RESULTS
We included four studies that randomised a total of 755 women, with data analysed for 744 women and their babies. Interventions used to assess labour progress were routine vaginal examinations, routine ultrasound assessments, routine rectal examinations, routine vaginal examinations at different frequencies, and vaginal examinations as indicated. We were unable to conduct meta-analysis as there was only one study for each comparison. All studies were at high risk of performance bias due to difficulties with blinding. We assessed two studies as high risk of bias and two as low or unclear risk of bias for other domains. The overall certainty of the evidence assessed using GRADE was low or very low. Routine vaginal examinations versus routine ultrasound to assess labour progress (one study, 83 women and babies) Study in Turkey involving multiparous women with spontaneous onset of labour. Routine vaginal examinations may result in a slight increase in pain compared to routine ultrasound (mean difference -1.29, 95% confidence interval (CI) -2.10 to -0.48; one study, 83 women, low certainty evidence) (pain measured using a visual analogue scale (VAS) in reverse: zero indicating 'worst pain', 10 indicating no pain). The study did not assess our other primary outcomes: positive birth experience; augmentation of labour; spontaneous vaginal birth; chorioamnionitis; neonatal infection; admission to neonatal intensive care unit (NICU). Routine vaginal examinations versus routine rectal examinations to assess labour progress (one study, 307 women and babies) Study in Ireland involving women in labour at term. We assessed the certainty of the evidence as very low. Compared with routine rectal examinations, routine vaginal examinations may have little or no effect on: augmentation of labour (risk ratio (RR) 1.03, 95% CI 0.63 to 1.68; one study, 307 women); and spontaneous vaginal birth (RR 0.98, 95% CI 0.90 to 1.06; one study, 307 women). We found insufficient data to fully assess: neonatal infections (RR 0.33, 95% CI 0.01 to 8.07; one study, 307 babies); and admission to NICU (RR 1.32, 95% CI 0.47 to 3.73; one study, 307 babies). The study did not assess our other primary outcomes: positive birth experience; chorioamnionitis; maternal pain. Routine four-hourly vaginal examinations versus routine two-hourly examinations (one study, 150 women and babies) UK study involving primiparous women in labour at term. We assessed the certainty of the evidence as very low. Compared with routine two-hourly vaginal examinations, routine four-hourly vaginal examinations may have little or no effect, with data compatible with both benefit and harm, on: augmentation of labour (RR 0.97, 95% CI 0.60 to 1.57; one study, 109 women); and spontaneous vaginal birth (RR 1.02, 95% CI 0.83 to 1.26; one study, 150 women). The study did not assess our other primary outcomes: positive birth experience; chorioamnionitis; neonatal infection; admission to NICU; maternal pain. Routine vaginal examinations versus vaginal examinations as indicated (one study, 204 women and babies) Study in Malaysia involving primiparous women being induced at term. We assessed the certainty of the evidence as low. Compared with vaginal examinations as indicated, routine four-hourly vaginal examinations may result in more women having their labour augmented (RR 2.55, 95% CI 1.03 to 6.31; one study, 204 women). There may be little or no effect on: • spontaneous vaginal birth (RR 1.08, 95% CI 0.73 to 1.59; one study, 204 women); • chorioamnionitis (RR 3.06, 95% CI 0.13 to 74.21; one study, 204 women); • neonatal infection (RR 4.08, 95% CI 0.46 to 35.87; one study, 204 babies); • admission to NICU (RR 2.04, 95% CI 0.63 to 6.56; one study, 204 babies). The study did not assess our other primary outcomes of positive birth experience or maternal pain.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
Based on these findings, we cannot be certain which method is most effective or acceptable for assessing labour progress. Further large-scale RCT trials are required. These should include essential clinical and experiential outcomes. This may be facilitated through the development of a tool to measure positive birth experiences. Data from qualitative studies are also needed to fully assess whether methods to evaluate labour progress meet women's needs for a safe and positive labour and birth, and if not, to develop an approach that does.
Topics: Chorioamnionitis; Dystocia; Female; Gynecological Examination; Humans; Infant; Infant, Newborn; Labor, Obstetric; Pain; Pregnancy
PubMed: 35244935
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD010088.pub3 -
Acta Obstetricia Et Gynecologica... Nov 2021The objective was to report the role of intrapartum ultrasound examination in affecting maternal and perinatal outcome in women undergoing instrumental vaginal delivery. (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
INTRODUCTION
The objective was to report the role of intrapartum ultrasound examination in affecting maternal and perinatal outcome in women undergoing instrumental vaginal delivery.
MATERIAL AND METHODS
MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, Google Scholar and ClinicalTrial.gov databases were searched. Inclusion criteria were randomized controlled trials comparing ultrasound assessment of fetal head position vs routine standard care (digital examination) before instrumental vaginal delivery (either vacuum or forceps). The primary outcome was failed instrumental delivery extraction followed by cesarean section. Secondary outcomes were postpartum hemorrhage, 3rd or 4th degree perineal lacerations, episiotomy, prolonged hospital stay, Apgar score<7 at 5 min, umbilical artery pH <7.0 and base excess greater than -12 mEq, admission to neonatal intensive care unit (NICU), shoulder dystocia, birth trauma, a composite score of adverse maternal and neonatal outcome and incorrect diagnosis of fetal head position. Risk of bias was assessed using the Revised Cochrane risk-of-bias tool for randomized trials (RoB-2). The quality of evidence and strength of recommendations were assessed using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment Development and Evaluation (GRADE) methodology. Head-to-head meta-analyses using a random-effect model were used to analyze the data and results are reported as relative risk with their 95% confidence intervals.
RESULTS
Five studies were included (1463 women). There was no difference in the maternal, pregnancy or labor characteristics between the two groups. An ultrasound assessment prior to instrumental vaginal delivery did not affect the cesarean section rate compared with standard care (p = 0.805). Likewise, the risk of composite adverse maternal outcome (p = 0.428), perineal lacerations (p = 0.800), postpartum hemorrhage (p = 0.303), shoulder dystocia (p = 0.862) and prolonged stay in hospital (p = 0.059) were not different between the two groups. Composite adverse neonatal outcome was not different between the women undergoing and those not undergoing ultrasound assessment prior to instrumental delivery (p = 0.400). Likewise, there was no increased risk with abnormal Apgar score (p = 0.882), umbilical artery pH < 7.2 (p = 0.713), base excess greater than -12 (p = 0.742), admission to NICU (p = 0.879) or birth trauma (p = 0.968). The risk of having an incorrect diagnosis of fetal head position was lower when ultrasound was performed before instrumental delivery, with a relative risk of 0.16 (95% confidence interval 0.1-0.3; I :77%, p < 0.001).
CONCLUSIONS
Although ultrasound examination was associated with a lower rate of incorrect diagnoses of fetal head position and station, this did not translate to any improvement of maternal or neonatal outcomes.
Topics: Birth Injuries; Cesarean Section; Extraction, Obstetrical; Female; Humans; Postpartum Hemorrhage; Pregnancy; Pregnancy Outcome; Ultrasonography, Prenatal
PubMed: 34314520
DOI: 10.1111/aogs.14236 -
Acta Obstetricia Et Gynecologica... Jul 2017The National Institute of Child Health and Human Development, American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, and Society for Maternal-Fetal Medicine have... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
INTRODUCTION
The National Institute of Child Health and Human Development, American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, and Society for Maternal-Fetal Medicine have emphasized the need to promote vaginal delivery and have offered recommendations to safely prevent primary cesarean delivery. However, there has been limited discussion regarding management of intravenous fluids and other aspects of labor management that may influence mode of delivery. Therefore the aim of our study was to determine whether an intravenous fluid rate of 250 vs. 125 mL/h is associated with a difference in cesarean delivery rate.
MATERIAL AND METHODS
Searches were performed in MEDLINE, OVID, Scopus, ClinicalTrials.gov, the PROSPERO International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews, Embase, Web of Science, and the Cochrane Library for randomized controlled trials. We included all randomized controlled trials comparing intravenous fluid rates of 250 vs. 125 mL/h in nulliparous women in spontaneous labor at term with singleton pregnancies at ≥36 weeks. Studies were included regardless of the type of intravenous fluids used and regardless of whether oral intake was restricted during labor. Studies including multiparous women or women whose labor was induced were excluded. The primary outcome was the incidence of cesarean delivery. We planned to assess a subgroup analysis according to type of fluids used and according to restriction of oral fluid intake.
RESULTS
Seven trials including 1215 nulliparous women in spontaneous labor at term were analyzed; 593 (48.8%) in the 250 mL/h group, and 622 (51.2%) in the 125 mL/h group. Five studies used lactated Ringer's solution, one used normal saline in dextrose water, and in one study it was unclear which intravenous fluid was used. Women who received intravenous fluids at 250 mL/h had a significantly lower incidence of cesarean delivery for any indication (12.5 vs. 18.1%; RR 0.70, 95% CI 0.53-0.92; seven studies, 1215 participants; I = 0%) and for dystocia (4.9 vs. 7.7%; RR 0.60, 95% CI 0.38-0.97; five studies, 1093 participants; I = 18%), a significantly shorter mean duration of labor of about one hour (mean difference -64.38 min, 95% CI -121.88 to -6.88; six studies, 1155 participants; I = 83%) and a significantly shorter mean length of second stage of labor (mean difference -2.80 min, 95% CI -4.49 to -1.10; 899 participants; I = 22%) compared with those who received intravenous fluid at 125 mL/h. No differences were found in the other secondary outcomes. There were no maternal or perinatal deaths and only one woman, in the 125 mL/h group, developed pulmonary edema. The findings persisted regardless of the type of intravenous fluid used. No significant reduction in the incidence of cesarean delivery was demonstrated in women with unrestricted oral intake; however, this was limited to only two studies evaluating 254 women.
CONCLUSIONS
Our findings provide evidence that the duration of labor in low-risk nulliparous women may be shortened by a policy of intravenous fluids at a rate of 250 mL/h rather than 125 mL/h. A rate of 250 mL/h seems to be associated with a reduction in the incidence of cesarean delivery compared to 125 mL/h. The number needed to treat to prevent one cesarean delivery is 18 women. Our data support increased hydration among nulliparous women in labor when oral intake is restricted. Further study is needed regarding risks and benefits of increased hydration among women with unrestricted oral intake, those undergoing induction of labor, and those with medical comorbidities.
Topics: Cesarean Section; Female; Humans; Infusions, Intravenous; Isotonic Solutions; Labor, Obstetric; Parity; Pregnancy
PubMed: 28236651
DOI: 10.1111/aogs.13121