Fride E. Austad, Jörg Kessler, Elisabeth Balstad Magnussen, Are Hugo Pripp, Janne Rossen
{"title":"门诊与住院患者口服米索前列醇引产:一项多中心随机对照试验。","authors":"Fride E. Austad, Jörg Kessler, Elisabeth Balstad Magnussen, Are Hugo Pripp, Janne Rossen","doi":"10.1111/1471-0528.18296","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div>\n \n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Objective</h3>\n \n <p>To compare childbirth satisfaction and obstetrical outcomes with outpatient versus inpatient induction of labour (IOL).</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Design</h3>\n \n <p>Multicentre, randomised-controlled trial.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Setting</h3>\n \n <p>Eight hospitals in Norway.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Population</h3>\n \n <p>Women scheduled for IOL, single cephalic presentation, ≥ 37 weeks, no previous uterine scar, and low risk of complications by predefined criteria.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Methods</h3>\n \n <p>Included women received oral misoprostol (25 μg) for up to 48 h as the primary induction agent. The Childbirth Experience Questionnaire (CEQ) and the Experience with Induction Tool (EXIT) were used to assess childbirth satisfaction.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Main Outcome Measures</h3>\n \n <p>CEQ-score.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Secondary Outcome Measures</h3>\n \n <p>EXIT questionnaire and obstetrical outcomes.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Results</h3>\n \n <p>Of 283 women randomised, 152 women were allocated to outpatient and 131 to inpatient settings. Outpatient IOL resulted in a more positive childbirth experience (mean CEQ-score 3.1 [0.44] vs. 3.0 [0.45]), mean difference 0.14, 95% CI (0.02–0.25), <i>p</i> = 0.02. In the outpatient group, women were admitted to the hospital 21 h shorter before delivery (15 vs. 36 h, mean difference −21, 95% CI −25 to −17, <i>p</i> < 0.01). Obstetrical outcomes were similar, and there were no cases of hyperstimulation before labour or serious adverse events.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Conclusion</h3>\n \n <p>Outpatient IOL using oral misoprostol was associated with high maternal satisfaction, with 89% of women expressing a preference for this method in future pregnancies. Labour outcomes appear comparable to those of inpatient induction, while outpatient management also provides potential cost benefits due to shorter hospital admission. We advocate for this method as a feasible option for appropriately selected women; however, the occurrence of rare adverse events necessitates further investigation through larger studies.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Trial Registration</h3>\n \n <p>ID NCT05144048. https://clinicaltrials.gov/study/NCT05144048?locStr=Norway&country=Norway&cond=Induction%20of%20Labor&rank=1</p>\n </section>\n </div>","PeriodicalId":50729,"journal":{"name":"Bjog-An International Journal of Obstetrics and Gynaecology","volume":"132 11","pages":"1562-1573"},"PeriodicalIF":4.3000,"publicationDate":"2025-07-24","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Outpatient Versus Inpatient Induction of Labour With Oral Misoprostol: A Multicentre Randomised-Controlled Trial\",\"authors\":\"Fride E. Austad, Jörg Kessler, Elisabeth Balstad Magnussen, Are Hugo Pripp, Janne Rossen\",\"doi\":\"10.1111/1471-0528.18296\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<div>\\n \\n \\n <section>\\n \\n <h3> Objective</h3>\\n \\n <p>To compare childbirth satisfaction and obstetrical outcomes with outpatient versus inpatient induction of labour (IOL).</p>\\n </section>\\n \\n <section>\\n \\n <h3> Design</h3>\\n \\n <p>Multicentre, randomised-controlled trial.</p>\\n </section>\\n \\n <section>\\n \\n <h3> Setting</h3>\\n \\n <p>Eight hospitals in Norway.</p>\\n </section>\\n \\n <section>\\n \\n <h3> Population</h3>\\n \\n <p>Women scheduled for IOL, single cephalic presentation, ≥ 37 weeks, no previous uterine scar, and low risk of complications by predefined criteria.</p>\\n </section>\\n \\n <section>\\n \\n <h3> Methods</h3>\\n \\n <p>Included women received oral misoprostol (25 μg) for up to 48 h as the primary induction agent. The Childbirth Experience Questionnaire (CEQ) and the Experience with Induction Tool (EXIT) were used to assess childbirth satisfaction.</p>\\n </section>\\n \\n <section>\\n \\n <h3> Main Outcome Measures</h3>\\n \\n <p>CEQ-score.</p>\\n </section>\\n \\n <section>\\n \\n <h3> Secondary Outcome Measures</h3>\\n \\n <p>EXIT questionnaire and obstetrical outcomes.</p>\\n </section>\\n \\n <section>\\n \\n <h3> Results</h3>\\n \\n <p>Of 283 women randomised, 152 women were allocated to outpatient and 131 to inpatient settings. Outpatient IOL resulted in a more positive childbirth experience (mean CEQ-score 3.1 [0.44] vs. 3.0 [0.45]), mean difference 0.14, 95% CI (0.02–0.25), <i>p</i> = 0.02. In the outpatient group, women were admitted to the hospital 21 h shorter before delivery (15 vs. 36 h, mean difference −21, 95% CI −25 to −17, <i>p</i> < 0.01). Obstetrical outcomes were similar, and there were no cases of hyperstimulation before labour or serious adverse events.</p>\\n </section>\\n \\n <section>\\n \\n <h3> Conclusion</h3>\\n \\n <p>Outpatient IOL using oral misoprostol was associated with high maternal satisfaction, with 89% of women expressing a preference for this method in future pregnancies. Labour outcomes appear comparable to those of inpatient induction, while outpatient management also provides potential cost benefits due to shorter hospital admission. We advocate for this method as a feasible option for appropriately selected women; however, the occurrence of rare adverse events necessitates further investigation through larger studies.</p>\\n </section>\\n \\n <section>\\n \\n <h3> Trial Registration</h3>\\n \\n <p>ID NCT05144048. https://clinicaltrials.gov/study/NCT05144048?locStr=Norway&country=Norway&cond=Induction%20of%20Labor&rank=1</p>\\n </section>\\n </div>\",\"PeriodicalId\":50729,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Bjog-An International Journal of Obstetrics and Gynaecology\",\"volume\":\"132 11\",\"pages\":\"1562-1573\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":4.3000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-07-24\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Bjog-An International Journal of Obstetrics and Gynaecology\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://obgyn.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/1471-0528.18296\",\"RegionNum\":1,\"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":"Bjog-An International Journal of Obstetrics and Gynaecology","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://obgyn.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/1471-0528.18296","RegionNum":1,"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
目的比较门诊和住院人工智能(IOL)分娩满意度和产科结局。设计:多中心、随机对照试验。挪威有八家医院。人群:计划实施人工晶状体的女性,单头位,≥37周,既往无子宫瘢痕,符合预定义标准的并发症风险低。方法纳入研究的妇女口服米索前列醇(25 μg)作为主要诱导剂,治疗48 h。采用分娩体验问卷(CEQ)和引产工具体验量表(EXIT)评估分娩满意度。主要结果测量指标:得分。次要结果测量:调查问卷和产科结果。结果283名妇女随机分组,152名妇女被分配到门诊,131名妇女被分配到住院。门诊人工晶状体术后分娩体验更积极(平均ceq评分3.1 [0.44]vs. 3.0[0.45]),平均差异0.14,95% CI (0.02 ~ 0.25), p = 0.02。在门诊组,妇女在分娩前入院时间缩短了21小时(15比36小时,平均差异为-21,95% CI为-25 ~ -17,p < 0.01)。产科结果相似,没有分娩前过度刺激或严重不良事件的病例。结论门诊使用口服米索前列醇人工晶状体的产妇满意度较高,89%的妇女表示在以后的妊娠中更倾向于使用这种方法。分娩结果似乎与住院引产相当,而门诊管理由于住院时间较短,也提供了潜在的成本效益。我们提倡将这种方法作为适当选择的妇女的可行选择;然而,罕见不良事件的发生需要通过更大规模的研究进一步调查。试验注册号nct05144048。https://clinicaltrials.gov/study/NCT05144048?locStr=Norway&country=Norway&cond=Induction%20of%20Labor&rank=1。
Outpatient Versus Inpatient Induction of Labour With Oral Misoprostol: A Multicentre Randomised-Controlled Trial
Objective
To compare childbirth satisfaction and obstetrical outcomes with outpatient versus inpatient induction of labour (IOL).
Design
Multicentre, randomised-controlled trial.
Setting
Eight hospitals in Norway.
Population
Women scheduled for IOL, single cephalic presentation, ≥ 37 weeks, no previous uterine scar, and low risk of complications by predefined criteria.
Methods
Included women received oral misoprostol (25 μg) for up to 48 h as the primary induction agent. The Childbirth Experience Questionnaire (CEQ) and the Experience with Induction Tool (EXIT) were used to assess childbirth satisfaction.
Main Outcome Measures
CEQ-score.
Secondary Outcome Measures
EXIT questionnaire and obstetrical outcomes.
Results
Of 283 women randomised, 152 women were allocated to outpatient and 131 to inpatient settings. Outpatient IOL resulted in a more positive childbirth experience (mean CEQ-score 3.1 [0.44] vs. 3.0 [0.45]), mean difference 0.14, 95% CI (0.02–0.25), p = 0.02. In the outpatient group, women were admitted to the hospital 21 h shorter before delivery (15 vs. 36 h, mean difference −21, 95% CI −25 to −17, p < 0.01). Obstetrical outcomes were similar, and there were no cases of hyperstimulation before labour or serious adverse events.
Conclusion
Outpatient IOL using oral misoprostol was associated with high maternal satisfaction, with 89% of women expressing a preference for this method in future pregnancies. Labour outcomes appear comparable to those of inpatient induction, while outpatient management also provides potential cost benefits due to shorter hospital admission. We advocate for this method as a feasible option for appropriately selected women; however, the occurrence of rare adverse events necessitates further investigation through larger studies.
Trial Registration
ID NCT05144048. https://clinicaltrials.gov/study/NCT05144048?locStr=Norway&country=Norway&cond=Induction%20of%20Labor&rank=1
期刊介绍:
BJOG is an editorially independent publication owned by the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists (RCOG). The Journal publishes original, peer-reviewed work in all areas of obstetrics and gynaecology, including contraception, urogynaecology, fertility, oncology and clinical practice. Its aim is to publish the highest quality medical research in women''s health, worldwide.