Methods of term labour induction for women with a previous caesarean section

Background: Women with a prior caesarean delivery have an increased risk of uterine rupture and for women subsequently requiring induction of labour it is unclear which method is preferable to avoid adverse outcomes. This is an update of a review that was published in 2013. Objectives: To assess the benefits and harms associated with different methods used to induce labour in women who have had a previous caesarean birth. Search methods: We searched Cochrane Pregnancy and Childbirth's Trials Register (31 August 2016) and reference lists of retrieved studies. Selection criteria: Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing any method of third trimester cervical ripening or labour induction, with placebo/no treatment or other methods in women with prior caesarean section requiring labour induction in a subsequent pregnancy. Data collection and analysis: Two review authors independently assessed studies for inclusion and trial quality, extracted data, and checked them for accuracy. Main results: Eight studies (data from 707 women and babies) are included in this updated review. Meta-analysis was not possible because studies compared different methods of labour induction. All included studies had at least one design limitation (i.e. lack of blinding, sample attrition, other bias, or reporting bias). One study stopped prematurely due to safety concerns. Vaginal PGE2 versus intravenous oxytocin: (one trial, 42 women): no clear differences for caesarean section (risk ratio (RR) 0.67, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.22 to 2.03, evidence graded low), serious neonatal morbidity or perinatal death (RR 3.00, 95% CI 0.13 to 69.70, evidence graded low), serious maternal morbidity or death (RR 3.00, 95% CI 0.13 to 69.70, evidence graded low). Also no clear differences between groups for the reported secondary outcomes. The GRADE outcomes vaginal delivery not achieved within 24 hours, and uterine hyperstimulation with fetal heart rate changes were not reported. Vaginal misoprostol versus intravenous oxytocin (one trial, 38 women): this trial stopped early because one woman who received misoprostol had a uterine rupture (RR 3.67, 95% CI 0.16 to 84.66) and one had uterine dehiscence. No other outcomes (including GRADE outcomes) were reported. Foley catheter versus intravenous oxytocin (one trial, subgroup of 53 women): no clear difference between groups for vaginal delivery not achieved within 24 hours (RR 1.47, 95% CI 0.89 to 2.44, evidence graded low), uterine hyperstimulation with fetal heart rate changes (RR 3.11, 95% CI 0.13 to 73.09, evidence graded low), and caesarean section (RR 0.93, 95% CI 0.45 to 1.92, evidence graded low). There were also no clear differences between groups for the reported secondary outcomes. The following GRADE outcomes were not reported: serious neonatal morbidity or perinatal death, and serious maternal morbidity or death. Double-balloon catheter versus vaginal PGE2 (one trial, subgroup of 26 women): no clear difference in caesarean section (RR 0.97, 95% CI 0.41 to 2.32, evidence graded very low). Vaginal delivery not achieved within 24 hours, uterine hyperstimulation with fetal heart rate changes, serious neonatal morbidity or perinatal death, and serious maternal morbidity or death were not reported. Oral mifepristone versus Foley catheter (one trial, 107 women): no primary/GRADE outcomes were reported. Fewer women induced with mifepristone required oxytocin augmentation (RR 0.54, 95% CI 0.38 to 0.76). There were slightly fewer cases of uterine rupture among women who received mifepristone, however this was not a clear difference between groups (RR 0.29, 95% CI 0.08 to 1.02). No other secondary outcomes were reported. Vaginal isosorbide mononitrate (IMN) versus Foley catheter (one trial, 80 women): fewer women induced with IMN achieved a vaginal delivery within 24 hours (RR 2.62, 95% CI 1.32 to 5.21, evidence graded low). There was no difference between groups in the number of women who had a caesarean section (RR 1.00, 95% CI 0.39 to 2.59, evidence graded very low). More women induced with IMN required oxytocin augmentation (RR 1.65, 95% CI 1.17 to 2.32). There were no clear differences in the other reported secondary outcomes. The following GRADE outcomes were not reported: uterine hyperstimulation with fetal heart rate changes, serious neonatal morbidity or perinatal death, and serious maternal morbidity or death. 80 mL versus 30 mL Foley catheter (one trial, 154 women): no clear difference between groups for the primary outcomes: vaginal delivery not achieved within 24 hours (RR 1.05, 95% CI 0.91 to 1.20, evidence graded moderate) and caesarean section (RR 1.05, 95% CI 0.89 to 1.24, evidence graded moderate). However, more women induced using a 30 mL Foley catheter required oxytocin augmentation (RR 0.81, 95% CI 0.66 to 0.98). There were no clear differences between groups for other secondary outcomes reported. Several GRADE outcomes were not reported: uterine hyperstimulation with fetal heart rate changes, serious neonatal morbidity or perinatal death, and serious maternal morbidity or death. Vaginal PGE2 pessary versus vaginal PGE2 tablet (one trial, 200 women): no difference between groups for caesarean section (RR 1.09, 95% CI 0.74 to 1.60, evidence graded very low), or any of the reported secondary outcomes. Several GRADE outcomes were not reported: vaginal delivery not achieved within 24 hours, uterine hyperstimulation with fetal heart rate changes, serious neonatal morbidity or perinatal death, and serious maternal morbidity or death.RCT evidence on methods of induction of labour for women with a prior caesarean section is inadequate, and studies are underpowered to detect clinically relevant differences for many outcomes. Several studies reported few of our prespecified outcomes and reporting of infant outcomes was especially scarce. The GRADE level for quality of evidence was moderate to very low, due to imprecision and study design limitations.High-quality, adequately-powered RCTs would be the best approach to determine the optimal method for induction of labour in women with a prior caesarean birth. However, such trials are unlikely to be undertaken due to the very large numbers needed to investigate the risk of infrequent but serious adverse outcomes (e.g. uterine rupture). Observational studies (cohort studies), including different methods of cervical ripening, may be the best alternative. Studies could compare methods believed to provide effective induction of labour with low risk of serious harm, and report the outcomes listed in this review.Helen M West, Marta Jozwiak, Jodie M Dod

Metformin and dietary advice to improve insulin sensitivity and promote gestational restriction of weight among pregnant women who are overweight or obese: the GRoW Randomised Trial

This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated.Background Obesity is a significant global health problem, with approximately 50% of women entering pregnancy having a body mass index greater than or equal to 25 kg/m2. Obesity during pregnancy is associated with a well-recognised increased risk of adverse health outcomes both for the woman and her infant. Currently available data from large scale randomised trials and systematic reviews highlight only modest effects of antenatal dietary and lifestyle interventions in limiting gestational weight gain, with little impact on clinically relevant pregnancy outcomes. Further information evaluating alternative strategies is required. The aims of this randomised controlled trial are to assess whether the use of metformin as an adjunct therapy to dietary and lifestyle advice for overweight and obese women during pregnancy is effective in improving maternal, fetal and infant health outcomes. Methods Design: Multicentre randomised, controlled trial. Inclusion Criteria: Women with a singleton, live gestation between 10+0-20+0 weeks who are obese or overweight (defined as body mass index greater than or equal to 25 kg/m2), at the first antenatal visit. Trial Entry & Randomisation: Eligible, consenting women will be randomised between 10+0 and 20+0 weeks gestation using an online computer randomisation system, and randomisation schedule prepared by non-clinical research staff with balanced variable blocks. Stratification will be according to maternal BMI at trial entry, parity, and centre where planned to give birth. Treatment Schedules: Women randomised to the Metformin Group will receive a supply of 500 mg oral metformin tablets. Women randomised to the Placebo Group will receive a supply of identical appearing and tasting placebo tablets. Women will be instructed to commence taking one tablet daily for a period of one week, increasing to a maximum of two tablets twice daily over four weeks and then continuing until birth. Women, clinicians, researchers and outcome assessors will be blinded to the allocated treatment group. All women will receive three face-to-face sessions (two with a research dietitian and one with a trained research assistant), and three telephone calls over the course of their pregnancy, in which they will be provided with dietary and lifestyle advice, and encouraged to make change utilising a SMART goals approach. Primary Study Outcome: infant birth weight >4000 grams. Sample Size: 524 women to detect a difference from 15.5% to 7.35% reduction in infants with birth weight >4000 grams (p = 0.05, 80% power, two-tailed). Discussion This is a protocol for a randomised trial. The findings will contribute to the development of evidence based clinical practice guidelines

Timing of birth for women with a twin pregnancy at term: a randomised controlled trial

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>There is a well recognized risk of complications for both women and infants of a twin pregnancy, increasing beyond 37 weeks gestation. Preterm birth prior to 37 weeks gestation is a recognized complication of a twin pregnancy, however, up to 50% of twins will be born after this time.</p> <p>The aims of this randomised trial are to assess whether elective birth at 37 weeks gestation compared with standard care in women with a twin pregnancy affects the risk of perinatal death, and serious infant complications.</p> <p>Methods/Design</p> <p>Design: Multicentred randomised trial.</p> <p>Inclusion Criteria: women with a twin pregnancy at 36⁶weeks or more without contraindication to continuation of pregnancy.</p> <p>Trial Entry & Randomisation: Following written informed consent, eligible women will be randomised from 36⁺⁶weeks gestation. The randomisation schedule uses balanced variable blocks, with stratification for centre of birth and planned mode of birth. Women will be randomised to either elective birth or standard care.</p> <p>Treatment Schedules: Women allocated to the elective birth group will be planned for elective birth from 37 weeks gestation. Where the plan is for vaginal birth, this will involve induction of labour. Where the plan is for caesarean birth, this will involve elective caesarean section. For women allocated to standard care, birth will be planned for 38 weeks gestation or later. Where the plan is for vaginal birth, this will involve either awaiting the spontaneous onset of labour, or induction of labour if required. Where the plan is for caesarean birth, this will involve elective caesarean section (after 38 and as close to 39 weeks as possible).</p> <p>Primary Study Outcome: A composite of perinatal mortality or serious neonatal morbidity.</p> <p>Sample Size: 460 women with a twin pregnancy to show a reduction in the composite outcome from 16.3% to 6.7% with adjustment for the clustering of twin infants within mothers (p = 0.05, 80% power).</p> <p>Discussion</p> <p>This is a protocol for a randomised trial, the findings of which will contribute information about the optimal time of birth for women with an uncomplicated multiple pregnancy at and beyond 37 weeks gestation.</p> <p>Clinical Trial Registration</p> <p>Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN15761056</p

Antenatal lifestyle advice for women who are overweight or obese: LIMIT randomised trial

for the LIMIT Randomised Trial GroupOBJECTIVE To determine the effect of antenatal dietary and lifestyle interventions on health outcomes in overweight and obese pregnant women. DESIGN Multicentre randomised trial. We utilised a central telephone randomisation server, with computer generated schedule, balanced variable blocks, and stratification for parity, body mass index (BMI) category, and hospital. SETTING Three public maternity hospitals across South Australia. PARTICIPANTS 2212 women with a singleton pregnancy, between 10+0 and 20+0 weeks’ gestation, and BMI ≥25. INTERVENTIONS 1108 women were randomised to a comprehensive dietary and lifestyle intervention delivered by research staff; 1104 were randomised to standard care and received pregnancy care according to local guidelines, which did not include such information. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES Incidence of infants born large for gestational age (birth weight ≥90th centile for gestation and sex). Prespecified secondary outcomes included birth weight >4000 g, hypertension, pre-eclampsia, and gestational diabetes. Analyses used intention to treat principles. RESULTS 2152 women and 2142 liveborn infants were included in the analyses. The risk of the infant being large for gestational age was not significantly different in the two groups (lifestyle advice 203/1075 (19%) v standard care 224/1067 (21%); adjusted relative risk 0.90, 95% confidence interval 0.77 to 1.07; P=0.24). Infants born to women after lifestyle advice were significantly less likely to have birth weight above 4000 g (lifestyle advice 164/1075 (15%) v standard care 201/1067 (19%); 0.82, 0.68 to 0.99; number needed to treat (NNT) 28, 15 to 263; P=0.04). There were no differences in maternal pregnancy and birth outcomes between the two treatment groups. CONCLUSIONS For women who were overweight or obese, the antenatal lifestyle advice used in this study did not reduce the risk delivering a baby weighing above the 90th centile for gestational age and sex or improve maternal pregnancy and birth outcomes. TRIAL REGISTRATION Australian and New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry (ACTRN12607000161426).Jodie M Dodd, Deborah Turnbull, Andrew J McPhee, Andrea R Deussen, Rosalie M Grivell, Lisa N Yelland, Caroline A Crowther, Gary Wittert, Julie A Owens, and Jeffrey S Robinso

Hospitalisation for bed rest for women with a triplet pregnancy: an abandoned randomised controlled trial and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND: This abandoned randomised controlled trial assessed the effects of hospitalisation from 24 to 30 weeks gestation for women with a triplet pregnancy on the risk of preterm birth. METHODS: Women with a triplet pregnancy and no other condition necessitating hospital admission were approached for participation in the study, and randomised to either antenatal hospitalisation (hospitalised group), or to routine antenatal care (control group). The randomisation schedule used variable blocks with stratification by parity, and a researcher not involved with clinical care contacted by telephone to determine treatment allocation by opening the next in a series of consecutively numbered, opaque, sealed envelopes. Primary study outcomes were preterm birth (defined as birth less than 37 weeks gestation) and very preterm birth (defined as birth less than 34 weeks gestation), and the development of maternal pregnancy induced hypertension. The trial was ceased prior to achieving the calculated sample size due to difficulties in recruitment. The results of this randomised controlled trial were then combined with the results of another comparing bed rest in women with a triplet pregnancy. RESULTS: Seven women with a triplet pregnancy were recruited to the trial, with three randomised to the hospitalisation group, and four to the control group. There were no statistically significant differences between the two groups for the primary outcomes birth before 37 weeks (3/3 hospitalisation group versus 4/4 control group; relative risk (RR) not estimable), birth before 34 weeks (3/3 hospitalisation group versus 2/4 control group; RR 2.00 95% Confidence Intervals (CI) 0.75–5.33) and pregnancy induced hypertension (1/3 hospitalisation group versus 1/4 control group; RR 1.33 95%CI 0.13–13.74). When the results of this trial were incorporated into a meta-analysis with the previous randomised controlled trial assessing hospitalisation and bed rest for women with a triplet pregnancy, (total sample size 26 women and 78 infants), there were no statistically significant differences identified between the two groups. CONCLUSION: The results of this trial and meta-analysis suggest no benefit of routine hospitalisation and bed rest for women with a triplet pregnancy to reduce the risk of preterm birth. The adoption or continuation of a policy of routine hospitalisation and bed rest for women with an uncomplicated triplet pregnancy cannot be recommended

Limiting weight gain in overweight and obese women during pregnancy to improve health outcomes: the LIMIT randomised controlled trial

Extent: 5p.Background: Obesity is a significant global health problem, with the proportion of women entering pregnancy with a body mass index greater than or equal to 25 kg/m2 approaching 50%. Obesity during pregnancy is associated with a well-recognised increased risk of adverse health outcomes both for the woman and her infant, however there is more limited information available regarding effective interventions to improve health outcomes. The aims of this randomised controlled trial are to assess whether the implementation of a package of dietary and lifestyle advice to overweight and obese women during pregnancy to limit gestational weight gain is effective in improving maternal, fetal and infant health outcomes. Methods/Design: Design: Multicentred randomised, controlled trial. Inclusion Criteria: Women with a singleton, live gestation between 10+0-20+0 weeks who are obese or overweight (defined as body mass index greater than or equal to 25 kg/m2), at the first antenatal visit. Trial Entry & Randomisation: Eligible, consenting women will be randomised between 10+0 and 20+0 weeks gestation using a central telephone randomisation service, and randomisation schedule prepared by non-clinical research staff with balanced variable blocks. Stratification will be according to maternal BMI at trial entry, parity, and centre where planned to give birth. Treatment Schedules: Women randomised to the Dietary and Lifestyle Advice Group will receive a series of inputs from research assistants and research dietician to limit gestational weight gain, and will include a combination of dietary, exercise and behavioural strategies. Women randomised to the Standard Care Group will continue to receive their pregnancy care according to local hospital guidelines, which does not currently include routine provision of dietary, lifestyle and behavioural advice. Outcome assessors will be blinded to the allocated treatment group. Primary Study Outcome: infant large for gestational age (defined as infant birth weight ≥ 90th centile for gestational age). Sample Size: 2,180 women to detect a 30% reduction in large for gestational age infants from 14.40% (p = 0.05, 80% power, two-tailed). Discussion This is a protocol for a randomised trial. The findings will contribute to the development of evidence based clinical practice guidelines.Jodie M Dodd, Deborah A Turnbull, Andrew J McPhee, Gary Wittert, Caroline A Crowther and Jeffrey S Robinso

Study protocol: differential effects of diet and physical activity based interventions in pregnancy on maternal and fetal outcomes--individual patient data (IPD) meta-analysis and health economic evaluation.

© 2014 Ruifrok et al.; licensee BioMed Central Ltd. This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly credited. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated.BACKGROUND: Pregnant women who gain excess weight are at risk of complications during pregnancy and in the long term. Interventions based on diet and physical activity minimise gestational weight gain with varied effect on clinical outcomes. The effect of interventions on varied groups of women based on body mass index, age, ethnicity, socioeconomic status, parity, and underlying medical conditions is not clear. Our individual patient data (IPD) meta-analysis of randomised trials will assess the differential effect of diet- and physical activity-based interventions on maternal weight gain and pregnancy outcomes in clinically relevant subgroups of women. METHODS/DESIGN: Randomised trials on diet and physical activity in pregnancy will be identified by searching the following databases: MEDLINE, EMBASE, BIOSIS, LILACS, Pascal, Science Citation Index, Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, Database of Abstracts of Reviews of Effects, and Health Technology Assessment Database. Primary researchers of the identified trials are invited to join the International Weight Management in Pregnancy Collaborative Network and share their individual patient data. We will reanalyse each study separately and confirm the findings with the original authors. Then, for each intervention type and outcome, we will perform as appropriate either a one-step or a two-step IPD meta-analysis to obtain summary estimates of effects and 95% confidence intervals, for all women combined and for each subgroup of interest. The primary outcomes are gestational weight gain and composite adverse maternal and fetal outcomes. The difference in effects between subgroups will be estimated and between-study heterogeneity suitably quantified and explored. The potential for publication bias and availability bias in the IPD obtained will be investigated. We will conduct a model-based economic evaluation to assess the cost effectiveness of the interventions to manage weight gain in pregnancy and undertake a value of information analysis to inform future research. SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION: PROSPERO 2013: CRD42013003804.This study was funded by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) HTA (Health Technology Assessment) UK programme 12/01

The effects of antenatal dietary and lifestyle advice for women who are overweight or obese on neonatal health outcomes: the LIMIT randomised trial

BACKGROUND: Overweight and obesity during pregnancy represents a considerable health burden. While research has focused on interventions to limit gestational weight gain, there is little information describing their impact on neonatal health. Our aim was to investigate the effect on a range of pre-specified secondary neonatal outcomes of providing antenatal dietary and lifestyle advice to women who are overweight or obese. METHODS: We report a range of pre-specified secondary neonatal outcomes from a large randomised trial in which antenatal dietary and lifestyle advice was provided to women who were overweight or obese. Pregnant women were eligible for participation with a body mass index of 25 kg/m(2) or over, and singleton gestation between 10(+0) and 20(+0) weeks. Outcome measures included gestational age at birth; Apgar score below 7 at 5 minutes of age; need for resuscitation at birth; birth weight above 4.5 kg or below 2.5 kg; birth weight, length and head circumference (and Z-scores); admission to the nursery; respiratory distress syndrome; and postnatal length of stay. Data relating to the primary outcome (large for gestational age infants defined as birth weight above the 90th centile) and birth weight above 4 kg have been reported previously. Analyses used intention-to-treat principles. RESULTS: In total, 2,142 infants were included in the analyses. Infants born to women following lifestyle advice were significantly less likely to have birth weight above 4.5 kg (2.15% versus 3.69%; adjusted risk ratio (aRR)=0.59; 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.36 to 0.98; P=0.04), or respiratory distress syndrome (1.22% versus 2.57%; aRR=0.47; 95% CI 0.24 to 0.90; P=0.02), particularly moderate or severe disease, and had a shorter length of postnatal hospital stay (3.94&plusmn;7.26 days versus 4.41&plusmn;9.87 days; adjusted ratio of means 0.89; 95% CI 0.82 to 0.97; P=0.006) compared with infants born to women who received Standard Care. CONCLUSIONS: For women who are overweight or obese, antenatal dietary and lifestyle advice has health benefits for infants, without an increase in the risk of harm. Continued follow-up into childhood will be important to assess the longer-term effects of a reduction in high infant birth weight on risk of child obesity. Please see related articles: http://www.biomedcentral.com/1741-7015/12/161 and http://www.biomedcentral.com/1741-7015/12/201 . CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: Australian and New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry ( ACTRN12607000161426 )