Ioannis D Gallos, Idnan Yunas, Adam J Devall, Marcelina Podesek, Aurelio Tobias, Malcolm J Price, Olufemi T Oladapo, Arri Coomarasamy
{"title":"子宫强张剂预防产后出血:网络荟萃分析。","authors":"Ioannis D Gallos, Idnan Yunas, Adam J Devall, Marcelina Podesek, Aurelio Tobias, Malcolm J Price, Olufemi T Oladapo, Arri Coomarasamy","doi":"10.1002/14651858.CD011689.pub4","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Rationale: </strong>Postpartum haemorrhage (PPH) is the leading cause of maternal mortality worldwide. Prophylactic uterotonic agents can prevent PPH. The current World Health Organization (WHO) recommendation for preventing PPH is 10 IU (international units) of intramuscular or intravenous oxytocin. Several uterotonics prevent PPH, but there remains uncertainty about the most effective agent with the fewest side effects. This is an update of a review first published in April 2018, and incorporates trustworthiness screening of eligible trials.</p><p><strong>Objectives: </strong>To identify the most effective uterotonic agent(s) to prevent PPH with the fewest side effects, and generate a ranking according to their effectiveness and side effect profile.</p><p><strong>Search methods: </strong>On 5 February 2024, we searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase and CINAHL in collaboration with the Cochrane Information Specialist.</p><p><strong>Eligibility criteria: </strong>All randomised controlled trials (RCTs) or cluster-RCTs that compared the effectiveness and side effects of uterotonic agents with other uterotonic agents, placebo or no treatment for preventing PPH were eligible for inclusion. We screened eligible trials for trustworthiness. We included randomised trials published only as abstracts if we could retrieve sufficient information; we excluded quasi-randomised trials.</p><p><strong>Outcomes: </strong>Primary outcomes were PPH ≥ 500 mL and PPH ≥ 1000 mL. Secondary outcomes included use of additional uterotonics, blood transfusion, vomiting, hypertension, and fever.</p><p><strong>Risk of bias: </strong>We used RoB 1 to assess risk of bias.</p><p><strong>Synthesis methods: </strong>At least three review authors independently assessed trials for inclusion, trustworthiness, risk of bias, and certainty of evidence using GRADE. We estimated the relative effects and rankings for the primary and secondary outcomes. We reported primary outcomes for prespecified subgroups, stratified by mode of birth (caesarean versus vaginal), setting (hospital versus community), prior risk of PPH (high versus low), dose of misoprostol (≥ 600 μg versus < 600 μg), and regimen of oxytocin (bolus versus bolus plus infusion versus infusion only). We performed pairwise meta-analyses and network meta-analysis to determine the relative effects and rankings of all available agents.</p><p><strong>Included studies: </strong>The network meta-analysis included 122 trials (121,931 women), involving seven uterotonic agents and placebo or no treatment, conducted across 48 high-, middle- and low-income countries. Most were in a hospital setting (115/122, 94%), with women having a vaginal birth (87/122, 71%).</p><p><strong>Synthesis of results: </strong>Relative effects from the network meta-analysis suggested that all agents, except injectable prostaglandins, for which data were limited, were effective for preventing PPH ≥ 500 mL compared with placebo or no treatment. The two highest-ranked agents were ergometrine plus oxytocin and misoprostol plus oxytocin. Compared with oxytocin, ergometrine plus oxytocin reduces PPH ≥ 500 mL (risk ratio (RR) 0.76, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.64 to 0.90, high-certainty evidence), and misoprostol plus oxytocin probably reduces PPH ≥ 500 mL (RR 0.70, 95% CI 0.57 to 0.87; moderate-certainty evidence). Carbetocin (high-), injectable prostaglandins (moderate-) and ergometrine (low-certainty evidence) have similar effects compared with oxytocin. The evidence for misoprostol is very low certainty. All agents, except ergometrine and injectable prostaglandins, for which data were limited, were effective for preventing PPH ≥ 1000 mL compared with placebo or no treatment. Ergometrine plus oxytocin, and misoprostol plus oxytocin were the highest-ranked agents. Compared with oxytocin, carbetocin and injectable prostaglandins (both moderate-certainty evidence), and misoprostol plus oxytocin (low-certainty evidence) make little or no difference to PPH ≥ 1000 mL. Misoprostol may be less effective in preventing PPH ≥ 1000 mL compared with oxytocin (RR 1.24, 95% CI 1.06 to 1.46; low-certainty evidence). The certainty of evidence for ergometrine and ergometrine plus oxytocin was very low. Compared with oxytocin, misoprostol plus oxytocin probably reduces the use of additional uterotonics (RR 0.55, 95% CI 0.42 to 0.72, moderate-certainty evidence), and carbetocin (RR 0.74, 95% CI 0.59 to 0.94; low-certainty evidence), and ergometrine plus oxytocin may reduce the use of additional uterotonics (RR 0.68, 95% CI 0.56 to 0.83; low-certainty evidence). Misoprostol (low-certainty evidence) makes little or no difference to this outcome. Misoprostol plus oxytocin probably reduces the risk of needing a blood transfusion (RR 0.40, 95% CI 0.28 to 0.58; moderate-certainty-evidence), and ergometrine plus oxytocin may reduce the risk of blood transfusion compared with oxytocin (RR 0.73, 95% CI 0.56 to 0.96, low-certainty evidence). Carbetocin (moderate-certainty evidence) and misoprostol (low-certainty evidence) probably make little or no difference to this outcome compared with oxytocin. All uterotonic agents, except for carbetocin, were associated with increased risks of side effects compared with oxytocin. Misoprostol may increase the likelihood of nausea, vomiting and fever, and probably increases the risk of diarrhoea. Injectable prostaglandins may increase the likelihood of diarrhoea. Ergometrine probably increases the likelihood of nausea and vomiting, and may increase the likelihood of hypertension, headache, and diarrhoea. Ergometrine plus oxytocin may increase the likelihood of nausea, vomiting, and diarrhoea. Misoprostol plus oxytocin probably increases the likelihood of nausea, vomiting and diarrhoea, and may increase the likelihood of fever. Analyses of the prespecified subgroups did not reveal important subgroup differences. Evidence for outcomes not presented above but reported in the summary of findings tables was very low certainty.</p><p><strong>Authors' conclusions: </strong>Most agents are effective for preventing PPH when compared with placebo or no treatment. Ergometrine plus oxytocin, and misoprostol plus oxytocin may be more effective than the current standard oxytocin. All agents, except for carbetocin, are associated with an increased risk of some side effects compared with oxytocin.</p><p><strong>Funding: </strong>Supported by UNDP/UNFPA/UNICEF/WHO/World Bank Special Programme of Research, Development and Research Training in Human Reproduction (HRP), a cosponsored programme executed by the WHO (Award No. HQHRP2220228-22.1-74309).</p><p><strong>Registration: </strong>Cochrane Library; Registration number: CD011689 and protocol [and previous versions] available via DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD011689 [DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD011689.pub3 and DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD011689.pub2].</p>","PeriodicalId":10473,"journal":{"name":"Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews","volume":"4 ","pages":"CD011689"},"PeriodicalIF":8.8000,"publicationDate":"2025-04-16","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC12002006/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Uterotonic agents for preventing postpartum haemorrhage: a network meta-analysis.\",\"authors\":\"Ioannis D Gallos, Idnan Yunas, Adam J Devall, Marcelina Podesek, Aurelio Tobias, Malcolm J Price, Olufemi T Oladapo, Arri Coomarasamy\",\"doi\":\"10.1002/14651858.CD011689.pub4\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Rationale: </strong>Postpartum haemorrhage (PPH) is the leading cause of maternal mortality worldwide. Prophylactic uterotonic agents can prevent PPH. The current World Health Organization (WHO) recommendation for preventing PPH is 10 IU (international units) of intramuscular or intravenous oxytocin. Several uterotonics prevent PPH, but there remains uncertainty about the most effective agent with the fewest side effects. This is an update of a review first published in April 2018, and incorporates trustworthiness screening of eligible trials.</p><p><strong>Objectives: </strong>To identify the most effective uterotonic agent(s) to prevent PPH with the fewest side effects, and generate a ranking according to their effectiveness and side effect profile.</p><p><strong>Search methods: </strong>On 5 February 2024, we searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase and CINAHL in collaboration with the Cochrane Information Specialist.</p><p><strong>Eligibility criteria: </strong>All randomised controlled trials (RCTs) or cluster-RCTs that compared the effectiveness and side effects of uterotonic agents with other uterotonic agents, placebo or no treatment for preventing PPH were eligible for inclusion. We screened eligible trials for trustworthiness. We included randomised trials published only as abstracts if we could retrieve sufficient information; we excluded quasi-randomised trials.</p><p><strong>Outcomes: </strong>Primary outcomes were PPH ≥ 500 mL and PPH ≥ 1000 mL. Secondary outcomes included use of additional uterotonics, blood transfusion, vomiting, hypertension, and fever.</p><p><strong>Risk of bias: </strong>We used RoB 1 to assess risk of bias.</p><p><strong>Synthesis methods: </strong>At least three review authors independently assessed trials for inclusion, trustworthiness, risk of bias, and certainty of evidence using GRADE. We estimated the relative effects and rankings for the primary and secondary outcomes. We reported primary outcomes for prespecified subgroups, stratified by mode of birth (caesarean versus vaginal), setting (hospital versus community), prior risk of PPH (high versus low), dose of misoprostol (≥ 600 μg versus < 600 μg), and regimen of oxytocin (bolus versus bolus plus infusion versus infusion only). We performed pairwise meta-analyses and network meta-analysis to determine the relative effects and rankings of all available agents.</p><p><strong>Included studies: </strong>The network meta-analysis included 122 trials (121,931 women), involving seven uterotonic agents and placebo or no treatment, conducted across 48 high-, middle- and low-income countries. Most were in a hospital setting (115/122, 94%), with women having a vaginal birth (87/122, 71%).</p><p><strong>Synthesis of results: </strong>Relative effects from the network meta-analysis suggested that all agents, except injectable prostaglandins, for which data were limited, were effective for preventing PPH ≥ 500 mL compared with placebo or no treatment. The two highest-ranked agents were ergometrine plus oxytocin and misoprostol plus oxytocin. Compared with oxytocin, ergometrine plus oxytocin reduces PPH ≥ 500 mL (risk ratio (RR) 0.76, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.64 to 0.90, high-certainty evidence), and misoprostol plus oxytocin probably reduces PPH ≥ 500 mL (RR 0.70, 95% CI 0.57 to 0.87; moderate-certainty evidence). Carbetocin (high-), injectable prostaglandins (moderate-) and ergometrine (low-certainty evidence) have similar effects compared with oxytocin. The evidence for misoprostol is very low certainty. All agents, except ergometrine and injectable prostaglandins, for which data were limited, were effective for preventing PPH ≥ 1000 mL compared with placebo or no treatment. Ergometrine plus oxytocin, and misoprostol plus oxytocin were the highest-ranked agents. Compared with oxytocin, carbetocin and injectable prostaglandins (both moderate-certainty evidence), and misoprostol plus oxytocin (low-certainty evidence) make little or no difference to PPH ≥ 1000 mL. Misoprostol may be less effective in preventing PPH ≥ 1000 mL compared with oxytocin (RR 1.24, 95% CI 1.06 to 1.46; low-certainty evidence). The certainty of evidence for ergometrine and ergometrine plus oxytocin was very low. Compared with oxytocin, misoprostol plus oxytocin probably reduces the use of additional uterotonics (RR 0.55, 95% CI 0.42 to 0.72, moderate-certainty evidence), and carbetocin (RR 0.74, 95% CI 0.59 to 0.94; low-certainty evidence), and ergometrine plus oxytocin may reduce the use of additional uterotonics (RR 0.68, 95% CI 0.56 to 0.83; low-certainty evidence). Misoprostol (low-certainty evidence) makes little or no difference to this outcome. Misoprostol plus oxytocin probably reduces the risk of needing a blood transfusion (RR 0.40, 95% CI 0.28 to 0.58; moderate-certainty-evidence), and ergometrine plus oxytocin may reduce the risk of blood transfusion compared with oxytocin (RR 0.73, 95% CI 0.56 to 0.96, low-certainty evidence). Carbetocin (moderate-certainty evidence) and misoprostol (low-certainty evidence) probably make little or no difference to this outcome compared with oxytocin. All uterotonic agents, except for carbetocin, were associated with increased risks of side effects compared with oxytocin. Misoprostol may increase the likelihood of nausea, vomiting and fever, and probably increases the risk of diarrhoea. Injectable prostaglandins may increase the likelihood of diarrhoea. Ergometrine probably increases the likelihood of nausea and vomiting, and may increase the likelihood of hypertension, headache, and diarrhoea. Ergometrine plus oxytocin may increase the likelihood of nausea, vomiting, and diarrhoea. Misoprostol plus oxytocin probably increases the likelihood of nausea, vomiting and diarrhoea, and may increase the likelihood of fever. Analyses of the prespecified subgroups did not reveal important subgroup differences. Evidence for outcomes not presented above but reported in the summary of findings tables was very low certainty.</p><p><strong>Authors' conclusions: </strong>Most agents are effective for preventing PPH when compared with placebo or no treatment. Ergometrine plus oxytocin, and misoprostol plus oxytocin may be more effective than the current standard oxytocin. All agents, except for carbetocin, are associated with an increased risk of some side effects compared with oxytocin.</p><p><strong>Funding: </strong>Supported by UNDP/UNFPA/UNICEF/WHO/World Bank Special Programme of Research, Development and Research Training in Human Reproduction (HRP), a cosponsored programme executed by the WHO (Award No. HQHRP2220228-22.1-74309).</p><p><strong>Registration: </strong>Cochrane Library; Registration number: CD011689 and protocol [and previous versions] available via DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD011689 [DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD011689.pub3 and DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD011689.pub2].</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":10473,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews\",\"volume\":\"4 \",\"pages\":\"CD011689\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":8.8000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-04-16\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC12002006/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.CD011689.pub4\",\"RegionNum\":2,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"MEDICINE, GENERAL & INTERNAL\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.CD011689.pub4","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"MEDICINE, GENERAL & INTERNAL","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
摘要
理由:产后出血(PPH)是全世界孕产妇死亡的主要原因。预防性子宫强直剂可预防PPH。目前世界卫生组织(WHO)建议预防PPH是10 IU(国际单位)肌肉注射或静脉注射催产素。几种子宫强直剂可以预防PPH,但副作用最小的最有效药物仍不确定。这是对2018年4月首次发表的一篇综述的更新,并纳入了对合格试验的可信度筛选。目的:寻找最有效、副作用最小的预防PPH的子宫扩张药物,并根据其疗效和副作用进行排名。检索方法:在2024年2月5日,我们与Cochrane Information Specialist合作检索了CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase和CINAHL。入选标准:所有比较子宫强直药物与其他子宫强直药物、安慰剂或无治疗预防PPH的有效性和副作用的随机对照试验(rct)或集群rct均符合入选条件。我们筛选了符合条件的可信度试验。如果我们能检索到足够的信息,我们只纳入了作为摘要发表的随机试验;我们排除了准随机试验。结果:主要结果是PPH≥500 mL和PPH≥1000 mL。次要结果包括使用额外的子宫强张剂、输血、呕吐、高血压和发烧。偏倚风险:我们使用RoB 1来评估偏倚风险。综合方法:至少有三位综述作者使用GRADE独立评估试验的纳入、可信度、偏倚风险和证据的确定性。我们估计了主要和次要结果的相对影响和排名。我们报告了预先指定的亚组的主要结局,按分娩方式(剖腹产还是阴道分娩)、环境(医院还是社区)、PPH既往风险(高还是低)、米索前列醇剂量(≥600 μg vs < 600 μg)和催产素治疗方案(大剂量vs大剂量+输注vs仅输注)进行分层。我们进行了两两荟萃分析和网络荟萃分析,以确定所有可用药物的相对效果和排名。纳入的研究:网络荟萃分析包括122项试验(121931名妇女),涉及7种子宫强直剂和安慰剂或不治疗,在48个高、中、低收入国家进行。大多数是在医院(115/122,94%),妇女是顺产(87/122,71%)。结果综合:网络荟萃分析的相对效应表明,与安慰剂或不治疗相比,除数据有限的可注射前列腺素外,所有药物都能有效预防PPH≥500 mL。排名最高的两种药物是麦角新碱加催产素和米索前列醇加催产素。与催产素相比,麦角新碱加催产素降低PPH≥500 mL(风险比(RR) 0.76, 95%可信区间(CI) 0.64 ~ 0.90,高确定性证据),米索前列醇加催产素可能降低PPH≥500 mL (RR 0.70, 95% CI 0.57 ~ 0.87;moderate-certainty证据)。与催产素相比,卡比催产素(高剂量)、注射前列腺素(中等剂量)和麦角新碱(低剂量证据)具有相似的效果。米索前列醇的证据是非常低的确定性。除麦角新碱和可注射前列腺素(数据有限)外,与安慰剂或不治疗相比,所有药物都能有效预防PPH≥1000 mL。麦角新碱加催产素,米索前列醇加催产素是排名最高的药物。与催产素相比,卡贝催产素和注射前列腺素(均为中等确定性证据)以及米索前列醇加催产素(低确定性证据)对PPH≥1000 mL的影响很小或没有影响。与催产素相比,米索前列醇预防PPH≥1000 mL的效果可能较差(RR 1.24, 95% CI 1.06 ~ 1.46;确定性的证据)。麦角新碱和麦角新碱加催产素的证据的确定性非常低。与催产素相比,米索前列醇加催产素可能减少额外子宫强张剂的使用(RR 0.55, 95% CI 0.42至0.72,中等确定性证据),卡贝霉素(RR 0.74, 95% CI 0.59至0.94;低确定性证据),麦角新碱加催产素可能减少额外子宫强张剂的使用(RR 0.68, 95% CI 0.56 ~ 0.83;确定性的证据)。米索前列醇(低确定性证据)对这一结果影响很小或没有影响。米索前列醇加催产素可能降低需要输血的风险(RR 0.40, 95% CI 0.28 - 0.58;中度确定性证据),与催产素相比,麦角新碱加催产素可降低输血风险(RR 0.73, 95% CI 0.56 ~ 0.96,低确定性证据)。与催产素相比,催产素(中等确定性证据)和米索前列醇(低确定性证据)对这一结果的影响可能很小或没有影响。
Uterotonic agents for preventing postpartum haemorrhage: a network meta-analysis.
Rationale: Postpartum haemorrhage (PPH) is the leading cause of maternal mortality worldwide. Prophylactic uterotonic agents can prevent PPH. The current World Health Organization (WHO) recommendation for preventing PPH is 10 IU (international units) of intramuscular or intravenous oxytocin. Several uterotonics prevent PPH, but there remains uncertainty about the most effective agent with the fewest side effects. This is an update of a review first published in April 2018, and incorporates trustworthiness screening of eligible trials.
Objectives: To identify the most effective uterotonic agent(s) to prevent PPH with the fewest side effects, and generate a ranking according to their effectiveness and side effect profile.
Search methods: On 5 February 2024, we searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase and CINAHL in collaboration with the Cochrane Information Specialist.
Eligibility criteria: All randomised controlled trials (RCTs) or cluster-RCTs that compared the effectiveness and side effects of uterotonic agents with other uterotonic agents, placebo or no treatment for preventing PPH were eligible for inclusion. We screened eligible trials for trustworthiness. We included randomised trials published only as abstracts if we could retrieve sufficient information; we excluded quasi-randomised trials.
Outcomes: Primary outcomes were PPH ≥ 500 mL and PPH ≥ 1000 mL. Secondary outcomes included use of additional uterotonics, blood transfusion, vomiting, hypertension, and fever.
Risk of bias: We used RoB 1 to assess risk of bias.
Synthesis methods: At least three review authors independently assessed trials for inclusion, trustworthiness, risk of bias, and certainty of evidence using GRADE. We estimated the relative effects and rankings for the primary and secondary outcomes. We reported primary outcomes for prespecified subgroups, stratified by mode of birth (caesarean versus vaginal), setting (hospital versus community), prior risk of PPH (high versus low), dose of misoprostol (≥ 600 μg versus < 600 μg), and regimen of oxytocin (bolus versus bolus plus infusion versus infusion only). We performed pairwise meta-analyses and network meta-analysis to determine the relative effects and rankings of all available agents.
Included studies: The network meta-analysis included 122 trials (121,931 women), involving seven uterotonic agents and placebo or no treatment, conducted across 48 high-, middle- and low-income countries. Most were in a hospital setting (115/122, 94%), with women having a vaginal birth (87/122, 71%).
Synthesis of results: Relative effects from the network meta-analysis suggested that all agents, except injectable prostaglandins, for which data were limited, were effective for preventing PPH ≥ 500 mL compared with placebo or no treatment. The two highest-ranked agents were ergometrine plus oxytocin and misoprostol plus oxytocin. Compared with oxytocin, ergometrine plus oxytocin reduces PPH ≥ 500 mL (risk ratio (RR) 0.76, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.64 to 0.90, high-certainty evidence), and misoprostol plus oxytocin probably reduces PPH ≥ 500 mL (RR 0.70, 95% CI 0.57 to 0.87; moderate-certainty evidence). Carbetocin (high-), injectable prostaglandins (moderate-) and ergometrine (low-certainty evidence) have similar effects compared with oxytocin. The evidence for misoprostol is very low certainty. All agents, except ergometrine and injectable prostaglandins, for which data were limited, were effective for preventing PPH ≥ 1000 mL compared with placebo or no treatment. Ergometrine plus oxytocin, and misoprostol plus oxytocin were the highest-ranked agents. Compared with oxytocin, carbetocin and injectable prostaglandins (both moderate-certainty evidence), and misoprostol plus oxytocin (low-certainty evidence) make little or no difference to PPH ≥ 1000 mL. Misoprostol may be less effective in preventing PPH ≥ 1000 mL compared with oxytocin (RR 1.24, 95% CI 1.06 to 1.46; low-certainty evidence). The certainty of evidence for ergometrine and ergometrine plus oxytocin was very low. Compared with oxytocin, misoprostol plus oxytocin probably reduces the use of additional uterotonics (RR 0.55, 95% CI 0.42 to 0.72, moderate-certainty evidence), and carbetocin (RR 0.74, 95% CI 0.59 to 0.94; low-certainty evidence), and ergometrine plus oxytocin may reduce the use of additional uterotonics (RR 0.68, 95% CI 0.56 to 0.83; low-certainty evidence). Misoprostol (low-certainty evidence) makes little or no difference to this outcome. Misoprostol plus oxytocin probably reduces the risk of needing a blood transfusion (RR 0.40, 95% CI 0.28 to 0.58; moderate-certainty-evidence), and ergometrine plus oxytocin may reduce the risk of blood transfusion compared with oxytocin (RR 0.73, 95% CI 0.56 to 0.96, low-certainty evidence). Carbetocin (moderate-certainty evidence) and misoprostol (low-certainty evidence) probably make little or no difference to this outcome compared with oxytocin. All uterotonic agents, except for carbetocin, were associated with increased risks of side effects compared with oxytocin. Misoprostol may increase the likelihood of nausea, vomiting and fever, and probably increases the risk of diarrhoea. Injectable prostaglandins may increase the likelihood of diarrhoea. Ergometrine probably increases the likelihood of nausea and vomiting, and may increase the likelihood of hypertension, headache, and diarrhoea. Ergometrine plus oxytocin may increase the likelihood of nausea, vomiting, and diarrhoea. Misoprostol plus oxytocin probably increases the likelihood of nausea, vomiting and diarrhoea, and may increase the likelihood of fever. Analyses of the prespecified subgroups did not reveal important subgroup differences. Evidence for outcomes not presented above but reported in the summary of findings tables was very low certainty.
Authors' conclusions: Most agents are effective for preventing PPH when compared with placebo or no treatment. Ergometrine plus oxytocin, and misoprostol plus oxytocin may be more effective than the current standard oxytocin. All agents, except for carbetocin, are associated with an increased risk of some side effects compared with oxytocin.
Funding: Supported by UNDP/UNFPA/UNICEF/WHO/World Bank Special Programme of Research, Development and Research Training in Human Reproduction (HRP), a cosponsored programme executed by the WHO (Award No. HQHRP2220228-22.1-74309).
Registration: Cochrane Library; Registration number: CD011689 and protocol [and previous versions] available via DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD011689 [DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD011689.pub3 and DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD011689.pub2].
期刊介绍:
The Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews (CDSR) stands as the premier database for systematic reviews in healthcare. It comprises Cochrane Reviews, along with protocols for these reviews, editorials, and supplements. Owned and operated by Cochrane, a worldwide independent network of healthcare stakeholders, the CDSR (ISSN 1469-493X) encompasses a broad spectrum of health-related topics, including health services.