-
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Jan 2017Prelabour rupture of membranes (PROM) at term is managed expectantly or by planned early birth. It is not clear if waiting for birth to occur spontaneously is better... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Prelabour rupture of membranes (PROM) at term is managed expectantly or by planned early birth. It is not clear if waiting for birth to occur spontaneously is better than intervening, e.g. by inducing labour.
OBJECTIVES
The objective of this review is to assess the effects of planned early birth (immediate intervention or intervention within 24 hours) when compared with expectant management (no planned intervention within 24 hours) for women with term PROM on maternal, fetal and neonatal outcomes.
SEARCH METHODS
We searched Cochrane Pregnancy and Childbirth's Trials Register (9 September 2016) and reference lists of retrieved studies.
SELECTION CRITERIA
Randomised or quasi-randomised controlled trials of planned early birth compared with expectant management (either in hospital or at home) in women with PROM at 37 weeks' gestation or later.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Two review authors independently assessed trials for inclusion, extracted the data, and assessed risk of bias of the included studies. Data were checked for accuracy.
MAIN RESULTS
Twenty-three trials involving 8615 women and their babies were included in the update of this review. Ten trials assessed intravenous oxytocin; 12 trials assessed prostaglandins (six trials in the form of vaginal prostaglandin E2 and six as oral, sublingual or vaginal misoprostol); and one trial each assessed Caulophyllum and acupuncture. Overall, three trials were judged to be at low risk of bias, while the other 20 were at unclear or high risk of bias.Primary outcomes: women who had planned early birth were at a reduced risk of maternal infectious morbidity (chorioamnionitis and/or endometritis) than women who had expectant management following term prelabour rupture of membranes (average risk ratio (RR) 0.49; 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.33 to 0.72; eight trials, 6864 women; Tau² = 0.19; I² = 72%; low-quality evidence), and their neonates were less likely to have definite or probable early-onset neonatal sepsis (RR 0.73; 95% CI 0.58 to 0.92; 16 trials, 7314 infants;low-quality evidence). No clear differences between the planned early birth and expectant management groups were seen for the risk of caesarean section (average RR 0.84; 95% CI 0.69 to 1.04; 23 trials, 8576 women; Tau² = 0.10; I² = 55%; low-quality evidence); serious maternal morbidity or mortality (no events; three trials; 425 women; very low-quality evidence); definite early-onset neonatal sepsis (RR 0.57; 95% CI 0.24 to 1.33; six trials, 1303 infants; very low-quality evidence); or perinatal mortality (RR 0.47; 95% CI 0.13 to 1.66; eight trials, 6392 infants; moderate-quality evidence).
SECONDARY OUTCOMES
women who had a planned early birth were at a reduced risk of chorioamnionitis (average RR 0.55; 95% CI 0.37 to 0.82; eight trials, 6874 women; Tau² = 0.19; I² = 73%), and postpartum septicaemia (RR 0.26; 95% CI 0.07 to 0.96; three trials, 263 women), and their neonates were less likely to receive antibiotics (average RR 0.61; 95% CI 0.44 to 0.84; 10 trials, 6427 infants; Tau² = 0.06; I² = 32%). Women in the planned early birth group were more likely to have their labour induced (average RR 3.41; 95% CI 2.87 to 4.06; 12 trials, 6945 women; Tau² = 0.05; I² = 71%), had a shorter time from rupture of membranes to birth (mean difference (MD) -10.10 hours; 95% CI -12.15 to -8.06; nine trials, 1484 women; Tau² = 5.81; I² = 60%), and their neonates had lower birthweights (MD -79.25 g; 95% CI -124.96 to -33.55; five trials, 1043 infants). Women who had a planned early birth had a shorter length of hospitalisation (MD -0.79 days; 95% CI -1.20 to -0.38; two trials, 748 women; Tau² = 0.05; I² = 59%), and their neonates were less likely to be admitted to the neonatal special or intensive care unit (RR 0.75; 95% CI 0.66 to 0.85; eight trials, 6179 infants), and had a shorter duration of hospital (-11.00 hours; 95% CI -21.96 to -0.04; one trial, 182 infants) or special or intensive care unit stay (RR 0.72; 95% CI 0.61 to 0.85; four trials, 5691 infants). Women in the planned early birth group had more positive experiences compared with women in the expectant management group.No clear differences between groups were observed for endometritis; postpartum pyrexia; postpartum antibiotic usage; caesarean for fetal distress; operative vaginal birth; uterine rupture; epidural analgesia; postpartum haemorrhage; adverse effects; cord prolapse; stillbirth; neonatal mortality; pneumonia; Apgar score less than seven at five minutes; use of mechanical ventilation; or abnormality on cerebral ultrasound (no events).None of the trials reported on breastfeeding; postnatal depression; gestational age at birth; meningitis; respiratory distress syndrome; necrotising enterocolitis; neonatal encephalopathy; or disability at childhood follow-up.In subgroup analyses, there were no clear patterns of differential effects for method of induction, parity, use of maternal antibiotic prophylaxis, or digital vaginal examination. Results of the sensitivity analyses based on trial quality were consistent with those of the main analysis, except for definite or probable early-onset neonatal sepsis where no clear difference was observed.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
There is low quality evidence to suggest that planned early birth (with induction methods such as oxytocin or prostaglandins) reduces the risk of maternal infectious morbidity compared with expectant management for PROM at 37 weeks' gestation or later, without an apparent increased risk of caesarean section. Evidence was mainly downgraded due to the majority of studies contributing data having some serious design limitations, and for most outcomes estimates were imprecise.Although the 23 included trials in this review involved a large number of women and babies, the quality of the trials and evidence was not high overall, and there was limited reporting for a number of important outcomes. Thus further evidence assessing the benefits or harms of planned early birth compared with expectant management, considering maternal, fetal, neonatal and longer-term childhood outcomes, and the use of health services, would be valuable. Any future trials should be adequately designed and powered to evaluate the effects on short- and long-term outcomes. Standardisation of outcomes and their definitions, including for the assessment of maternal and neonatal infection, would be beneficial.
Topics: Cesarean Section; Female; Fetal Membranes, Premature Rupture; Humans; Labor, Induced; Misoprostol; Obstetric Labor Complications; Oxytocics; Oxytocin; Pregnancy; Pregnancy Outcome; Prostaglandins; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Term Birth; Time Factors; Watchful Waiting
PubMed: 28050900
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD005302.pub3 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Dec 2014Manual rotation is commonly performed to increase the chances of normal vaginal delivery and is perceived to be safe. Manual rotation has the potential to prevent... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
Manual rotation is commonly performed to increase the chances of normal vaginal delivery and is perceived to be safe. Manual rotation has the potential to prevent operative delivery and caesarean section, and reduce obstetric and neonatal complications.
OBJECTIVES
To assess the effect of prophylactic manual rotation for women with malposition in labour on mode of delivery, and maternal and neonatal outcomes.
SEARCH METHODS
We searched the Cochrane Pregnancy and Childbirth Group's Trials Register (31 October 2014), the Australian and New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry (ANZCTR), ClinicalTrials.gov, Current Controlled Trials and the WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP) (all searched 23 February 2014), previous reviews and, references of retrieved studies.
SELECTION CRITERIA
Randomised, quasi-randomised or cluster-randomised clinical trials comparing prophylactic manual rotation in labour for fetal malposition versus expectant management, augmentation of labour or operative delivery. We defined prophylactic manual rotation as rotation performed without immediate assisted delivery.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Two review authors independently assessed study eligibility and quality, and extracted data.
MAIN RESULTS
We included only one small pilot study (involving 30 women). The study, which we considered to be at low risk of bias, was conducted in a tertiary referral hospital in Australia, and involved women with cephalic, singleton pregnancies. The primary outcome was operative delivery (instrumental delivery or caesarean section).In the manual rotation group, 13/15 women went on to have an instrumental delivery or caesarean section, whereas in the control group, 12/15 women had an operative delivery. The estimated risk ratio was 1.08 (95% confidence interval 0.79 to 1.49). There were no maternal or fetal mortalities in either groupThere were no clear differences for any of the secondary maternal or neonatal outcomes reported (e.g. perineal trauma, analgesia use duration of labour).In terms of adverse events, there were no reported cases of umbilical cord prolapse or cervical laceration and a single case of a non-reassuring or pathological cardiotocograph during the procedure.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
Currently, there is insufficient evidence to determine the efficacy of prophylactic manual rotation early in the second stage of labour for prevention of operative delivery. One additional study is ongoing. Further appropriately designed trials are required to determine the efficacy of manual rotation.
Topics: Adult; Analgesia, Obstetrical; Cesarean Section; Extraction, Obstetrical; Female; Humans; Labor Presentation; Obstetric Labor Complications; Perineum; Pilot Projects; Pregnancy; Version, Fetal
PubMed: 25532081
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD009298.pub2 -
Heliyon Oct 2021To this date, there are 4 systematic reviews and meta-analyses studies about the burden and associated factors of birth asphyxia in Ethiopia. However, findings of these...
BACKGROUND
To this date, there are 4 systematic reviews and meta-analyses studies about the burden and associated factors of birth asphyxia in Ethiopia. However, findings of these studies are inconsistent which is difficult to make use of the findings for preventing birth asphyxia in the country. Therefore, umbrella review of these studies is required to pool the inconsistent findings into a single summary estimate that can be easily referred by the information users in Ethiopia.
METHODS
PubMed, Science direct, web of science, data bases specific to systematic reviews such as the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews and the Database of Abstracts of Reviews of Effects were searched for systematic reviews and meta-analyses (SRM) studies on the magnitude and risk factors of perinatal asphyxia in Ethiopia. The methodological quality of the included studies was assessed using the Assessment of Multiple Systematic Reviews (AMSTAR) tool. The estimates of the included SRM studies on the prevalence and predictors of perinatal asphyxia were pooled and summarized with random-effects meta-analysis models. From checking PROSPERO, this umbrella review wasn't registered.
RESULTS
We included four SRM studies with a total of 49,417 neonates. The summary estimate for prevalence of birth asphyxia was 22.52% (95% CI = 17.01%-28.02%; I = 0.00). From the umbrella review, the reported factors of statistical significance include: maternal illiteracy [AOR = 1.96; 95% CI: 1.44-2.67], primiparity [AOR = 1.29; 95% CI: 1.03-1.62], antepartum hemorrhage [AOR = 3.43; 95% CI: 1.74-6.77], pregnancy induced hypertension [AOR = 4.35; 95% CI: 2.98-6.36], premature rupture of membrane [AOR = 12.27; 95% CI: 2.41, 62.38], prolonged labor [AOR = 3.18; 95% CI: 2.75, 3.60], meconium-stained amniotic fluid [AOR = 5.94; 95% CI: 4.86, 7.03], instrumental delivery [AOR = 3.39; 95% CI: 2.46, 4.32], non-cephalic presentation [AOR = 3.39; 95% CI: 1.53, 5.26], cord prolapse [AOR = 2.95; 95% CI: 1.64, 5.30], labor induction [AOR = 3.69; 95% CI: 2.26-6.01], cesarean section delivery [AOR = 3.62; 95% CI: 3.36, 3.88], low birth weight [AOR = 6.06; 95% CI: 5.13, 6.98] and prematurity [AOR = 3.94; 95% CI: 3.67, 4.21] at 95% CI.
CONCLUSION
This umbrella review revealed high burden of birth asphyxia in Ethiopia. The study also indicated significant risk of birth asphyxia among mothers who were unable to read and write, primiparous mothers, those mothers having antepartum hemorrhage, pregnancy induced hypertension, premature rupture of membrane, prolonged labor, meconium-stained amniotic fluid, instrumental delivery, cesarean section delivery, non-cephalic presentation, cord prolapse and labor induction. Moreover, low birth weight and premature neonates were more vulnerable to birth asphyxia compared to their normal birth weight and term counterparts. Therefore, burden of birth asphyxia should be mitigated through special consideration of these risk mothers and neonates during antenatal care, labor and delivery. Mitigation of the problem demands the collaborative efforts of national, regional and local stakeholders of maternal and neonatal health.
PubMed: 34746456
DOI: 10.1016/j.heliyon.2021.e08128