球囊导管和口服米索前列醇对分娩前胎膜破裂妇女宫颈成熟的比较:芬兰的一项随机对照试验。

IF 3.5 2区 医学 Q1 OBSTETRICS & GYNECOLOGY
Heidi Kruit, Leena Rahkonen
{"title":"球囊导管和口服米索前列醇对分娩前胎膜破裂妇女宫颈成熟的比较:芬兰的一项随机对照试验。","authors":"Heidi Kruit,&nbsp;Leena Rahkonen","doi":"10.1111/aogs.15036","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div>\n \n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Introduction</h3>\n \n <p>Pre-labor rupture of membranes (PROM) occurs in about 8% of term pregnancies with over 70% delivering spontaneously within 24 h. However, prolonged PROM increases the risk of chorioamnionitis and neonatal sepsis. While misoprostol and oxytocin are considered safe and effective methods of labor induction, most guidelines do not encourage balloon catheter (BC) use following PROM given concerns about increased risk of chorioamnionitis. However, lack of robust evidence exists. This study aimed to compare BC and low-dose oral misoprostol (OM) regarding infectious morbidity and assess the impact of routine antibiotic prophylaxis during BC use on infection prevention.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Material and Methods</h3>\n \n <p>A randomized controlled trial comparing BC and low-dose 25 μg OM for pre-induction cervical ripening in an inpatient setting and assessing the preventive effect of prophylactic antibiotics during BC use in 175 women with PROM was carried out between 1.2.2021 and 31.12.2023 in Helsinki University Hospital. The study protocol was registered in the ISCTN registry (ISRCTN10972090). The primary outcome measures of the study were the mode of delivery, and maternal and neonatal infections.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Results</h3>\n \n <p>Eighty-nine women (50.9%) were allocated in the BC arm and 86 women (49.1%) in the OM arm. The cesarean delivery rates were comparable (BC 19.1% [<i>n</i> = 17] vs. OM 11.6% [<i>n</i> = 10]; <i>p</i> = 0.17). The rate of chorioamnionitis (BC 9.1% [<i>n</i> = 8] vs. OM 3.5% [<i>n</i> = 3]; <i>p</i> = 0.21) or neonatal infection (BC 4.5% [<i>n</i> = 4] vs. OM 2.3% [<i>n</i> = 2]; <i>p</i> = 0.68) were not statistically significantly different between the groups, although there was a trend towards higher frequency of infections in the BC arm. There were no differences in the incidence of chorioamnionitis or neonatal infections when routine antibiotic prophylaxis was administered during the BC use compared to those who did not receive antibiotics (chorioamnionitis 10.9% with antibiotics vs. 8.0% without antibiotics; <i>p</i> = 0.68, and neonatal infection 5.3% vs. 3.9%; <i>p</i> = 1.00). Maternal childbirth satisfaction was similar in the BC and OM groups.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Conclusions</h3>\n \n <p>Our results showed almost threefold frequency of chorioamnionitis and twofold frequency of neonatal infections following the use of BC compared to OM, although the study was underpowered for reaching statistical significance. The use of prophylactic antibiotics during BC retention did not reduce the incidence of infections.</p>\n </section>\n </div>","PeriodicalId":6990,"journal":{"name":"Acta Obstetricia et Gynecologica Scandinavica","volume":"104 2","pages":"400-407"},"PeriodicalIF":3.5000,"publicationDate":"2024-12-19","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11782060/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Comparison of balloon catheter and oral misoprostol for cervical ripening in women with pre-labor rupture of membranes: A Finnish randomized controlled trial\",\"authors\":\"Heidi Kruit,&nbsp;Leena Rahkonen\",\"doi\":\"10.1111/aogs.15036\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<div>\\n \\n \\n <section>\\n \\n <h3> Introduction</h3>\\n \\n <p>Pre-labor rupture of membranes (PROM) occurs in about 8% of term pregnancies with over 70% delivering spontaneously within 24 h. However, prolonged PROM increases the risk of chorioamnionitis and neonatal sepsis. While misoprostol and oxytocin are considered safe and effective methods of labor induction, most guidelines do not encourage balloon catheter (BC) use following PROM given concerns about increased risk of chorioamnionitis. However, lack of robust evidence exists. This study aimed to compare BC and low-dose oral misoprostol (OM) regarding infectious morbidity and assess the impact of routine antibiotic prophylaxis during BC use on infection prevention.</p>\\n </section>\\n \\n <section>\\n \\n <h3> Material and Methods</h3>\\n \\n <p>A randomized controlled trial comparing BC and low-dose 25 μg OM for pre-induction cervical ripening in an inpatient setting and assessing the preventive effect of prophylactic antibiotics during BC use in 175 women with PROM was carried out between 1.2.2021 and 31.12.2023 in Helsinki University Hospital. The study protocol was registered in the ISCTN registry (ISRCTN10972090). The primary outcome measures of the study were the mode of delivery, and maternal and neonatal infections.</p>\\n </section>\\n \\n <section>\\n \\n <h3> Results</h3>\\n \\n <p>Eighty-nine women (50.9%) were allocated in the BC arm and 86 women (49.1%) in the OM arm. The cesarean delivery rates were comparable (BC 19.1% [<i>n</i> = 17] vs. OM 11.6% [<i>n</i> = 10]; <i>p</i> = 0.17). The rate of chorioamnionitis (BC 9.1% [<i>n</i> = 8] vs. OM 3.5% [<i>n</i> = 3]; <i>p</i> = 0.21) or neonatal infection (BC 4.5% [<i>n</i> = 4] vs. OM 2.3% [<i>n</i> = 2]; <i>p</i> = 0.68) were not statistically significantly different between the groups, although there was a trend towards higher frequency of infections in the BC arm. There were no differences in the incidence of chorioamnionitis or neonatal infections when routine antibiotic prophylaxis was administered during the BC use compared to those who did not receive antibiotics (chorioamnionitis 10.9% with antibiotics vs. 8.0% without antibiotics; <i>p</i> = 0.68, and neonatal infection 5.3% vs. 3.9%; <i>p</i> = 1.00). Maternal childbirth satisfaction was similar in the BC and OM groups.</p>\\n </section>\\n \\n <section>\\n \\n <h3> Conclusions</h3>\\n \\n <p>Our results showed almost threefold frequency of chorioamnionitis and twofold frequency of neonatal infections following the use of BC compared to OM, although the study was underpowered for reaching statistical significance. The use of prophylactic antibiotics during BC retention did not reduce the incidence of infections.</p>\\n </section>\\n </div>\",\"PeriodicalId\":6990,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Acta Obstetricia et Gynecologica Scandinavica\",\"volume\":\"104 2\",\"pages\":\"400-407\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":3.5000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-12-19\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11782060/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Acta Obstetricia et Gynecologica Scandinavica\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/aogs.15036\",\"RegionNum\":2,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"OBSTETRICS & GYNECOLOGY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Acta Obstetricia et Gynecologica Scandinavica","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/aogs.15036","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"OBSTETRICS & GYNECOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

引言:产前胎膜破裂(PROM)发生在约8%的足月妊娠中,超过70%在24小时内自然分娩。然而,延长胎膜早破会增加绒毛膜羊膜炎和新生儿败血症的风险。虽然米索前列醇和催产素被认为是安全有效的引产方法,但大多数指南不鼓励在胎膜早破后使用球囊导管(BC),因为担心会增加绒毛膜羊膜炎的风险。然而,缺乏有力的证据。本研究旨在比较BC和低剂量口服米索前列醇(OM)在感染发病率方面的影响,并评估BC使用期间常规抗生素预防对感染预防的影响。材料与方法:于2021年2月1日至2023年12月31日在赫尔辛基大学医院进行了一项随机对照试验,比较BC和低剂量25 μg OM在住院环境中诱导前宫颈成熟的效果,并评估BC使用期间预防性抗生素的预防效果。研究方案已在ISCTN注册中心注册(ISRCTN10972090)。该研究的主要结局指标是分娩方式、孕产妇和新生儿感染。结果:89名女性(50.9%)被分配到BC组,86名女性(49.1%)被分配到OM组。剖宫产率具有可比性(BC组19.1% [n = 17], OM组11.6% [n = 10];p = 0.17)。绒毛膜羊膜炎发生率(BC为9.1% [n = 8], OM为3.5% [n = 3];p = 0.21)或新生儿感染(公元前4.5% (n = 4)和OM 2.3% [n = 2];p = 0.68),两组间差异无统计学意义,但BC组有较高感染频率的趋势。与未使用抗生素的患者相比,在使用BC期间给予常规抗生素预防的绒毛膜羊膜炎或新生儿感染的发生率没有差异(使用抗生素的绒毛膜羊膜炎10.9% vs.未使用抗生素的8.0%;P = 0.68,新生儿感染5.3% vs. 3.9%;p = 1.00)。产妇分娩满意度在BC组和OM组相似。结论:我们的研究结果显示,与OM相比,使用BC后,绒毛膜羊膜炎的发生率几乎是三倍,新生儿感染的发生率是两倍,尽管这项研究不足以达到统计学意义。在BC滞留期间使用预防性抗生素并没有减少感染的发生率。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。

Comparison of balloon catheter and oral misoprostol for cervical ripening in women with pre-labor rupture of membranes: A Finnish randomized controlled trial

Comparison of balloon catheter and oral misoprostol for cervical ripening in women with pre-labor rupture of membranes: A Finnish randomized controlled trial

Introduction

Pre-labor rupture of membranes (PROM) occurs in about 8% of term pregnancies with over 70% delivering spontaneously within 24 h. However, prolonged PROM increases the risk of chorioamnionitis and neonatal sepsis. While misoprostol and oxytocin are considered safe and effective methods of labor induction, most guidelines do not encourage balloon catheter (BC) use following PROM given concerns about increased risk of chorioamnionitis. However, lack of robust evidence exists. This study aimed to compare BC and low-dose oral misoprostol (OM) regarding infectious morbidity and assess the impact of routine antibiotic prophylaxis during BC use on infection prevention.

Material and Methods

A randomized controlled trial comparing BC and low-dose 25 μg OM for pre-induction cervical ripening in an inpatient setting and assessing the preventive effect of prophylactic antibiotics during BC use in 175 women with PROM was carried out between 1.2.2021 and 31.12.2023 in Helsinki University Hospital. The study protocol was registered in the ISCTN registry (ISRCTN10972090). The primary outcome measures of the study were the mode of delivery, and maternal and neonatal infections.

Results

Eighty-nine women (50.9%) were allocated in the BC arm and 86 women (49.1%) in the OM arm. The cesarean delivery rates were comparable (BC 19.1% [n = 17] vs. OM 11.6% [n = 10]; p = 0.17). The rate of chorioamnionitis (BC 9.1% [n = 8] vs. OM 3.5% [n = 3]; p = 0.21) or neonatal infection (BC 4.5% [n = 4] vs. OM 2.3% [n = 2]; p = 0.68) were not statistically significantly different between the groups, although there was a trend towards higher frequency of infections in the BC arm. There were no differences in the incidence of chorioamnionitis or neonatal infections when routine antibiotic prophylaxis was administered during the BC use compared to those who did not receive antibiotics (chorioamnionitis 10.9% with antibiotics vs. 8.0% without antibiotics; p = 0.68, and neonatal infection 5.3% vs. 3.9%; p = 1.00). Maternal childbirth satisfaction was similar in the BC and OM groups.

Conclusions

Our results showed almost threefold frequency of chorioamnionitis and twofold frequency of neonatal infections following the use of BC compared to OM, although the study was underpowered for reaching statistical significance. The use of prophylactic antibiotics during BC retention did not reduce the incidence of infections.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
8.00
自引率
4.70%
发文量
180
审稿时长
3-6 weeks
期刊介绍: Published monthly, Acta Obstetricia et Gynecologica Scandinavica is an international journal dedicated to providing the very latest information on the results of both clinical, basic and translational research work related to all aspects of women’s health from around the globe. The journal regularly publishes commentaries, reviews, and original articles on a wide variety of topics including: gynecology, pregnancy, birth, female urology, gynecologic oncology, fertility and reproductive biology.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信