Remifentanil patient controlled analgesia versus epidural analgesia in labour. A multicentre randomized controlled trial

Contains fulltext : 109349.pdf (publisher's version ) (Open Access)ABSTRACT: BACKGROUND: Pain relief during labour is a topic of major interest in the Netherlands. Epidural analgesia is considered to be the most effective method of pain relief and recommended as first choice. However its uptake by pregnant women is limited compared to other western countries, partly as a result of non-availability due to logistic problems. Remifentanil, a synthetic opioid, is very suitable for patient controlled analgesia. Recent studies show that epidural analgesia is superior to remifentanil patient controlled analgesia in terms of pain intensity score; however there was no difference in satisfaction with pain relief between both treatments. METHODS/DESIGN: The proposed study is a multicentre randomized controlled study that assesses the cost-effectiveness of remifentanil patient controlled analgesia compared to epidural analgesia. We hypothesize that remifentanil patient controlled analgesia is as effective in improving pain appreciation scores as epidural analgesia, with lower costs and easier achievement of 24 hours availability of pain relief for women in labour and efficient pain relief for those with a contraindication for epidural analgesia.Eligible women will be informed about the study and randomized before active labour has started. Women will be randomly allocated to a strategy based on epidural analgesia or on remifentanil patient controlled analgesia when they request pain relief during labour. Primary outcome is the pain appreciation score, i.e. satisfaction with pain relief.Secondary outcome parameters are costs, patient satisfaction, pain scores (pain-intensity), mode of delivery and maternal and neonatal side effects.The economic analysis will be performed from a short-term healthcare perspective. For both strategies the cost of perinatal care for mother and child, starting at the onset of labour and ending ten days after delivery, will be registered and compared. DISCUSSION: This study, considering cost effectiveness of remifentanil as first choice analgesia versus epidural analgesia, could strongly improve the care for 180.000 women, giving birth in the Netherlands yearly by giving them access to pain relief during labour, 24 hours a day. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: Dutch Trial Register NTR2551, http://www.trialregister.nl

Nifedipine versus atosiban in the treatment of threatened preterm labour (Assessment of Perinatal Outcome after Specific Tocolysis in Early Labour : APOSTEL III-Trial)

BACKGROUND: Preterm birth is the most common cause of neonatal morbidity and mortality. Postponing delivery for 48 hours with tocolytics to allow for maternal steroid administration and antenatal transportation to a centre with neonatal intensive care unit facilities is the standard treatment for women with threatening preterm delivery in most centres. However, there is controversy as to which tocolytic agent is the drug of first choice. Previous trials have focused on tocolytic efficacy and side effects, and are probably underpowered to detect clinically meaningfull differences in neonatal outcome. Thus, the current evidence is inconclusive to support a balanced recommendation for clinical practice. This multicenter randomised clinical trial aims to compare nifedipine and atosiban in terms of neonatal outcome, duration of pregnancy and maternal side effects. METHODS/DESIGN: The Apostel III trial is a nationwide multicenter randomised controlled study. Women with threatened preterm labour (gestational age 25 - 34 weeks) defined as at least 3 contractions per 30 minutes, and 1) a cervical length of ≤ 10 mm or 2) a cervical length of 11-30 mm and a positive Fibronectin test or 3) ruptured membranes will be randomly allocated to treatment with nifedipine or atosiban. Primary outcome is a composite measure of severe neonatal morbidity and mortality. Secondary outcomes will be time to delivery, gestational age at delivery, days on ventilation support, neonatal intensive care (NICU) admittance, length admission in neonatal intensive care, total days in hospital until 3 months corrected age, convulsions, apnoea, asphyxia, proven meningitis, pneumothorax, maternal side effects and costs. Furthermore, an economic evaluation of the treatment will be performed. Analysis will be by intention to treat principle. The power calculation is based on an expected 10% difference in the prevalence of adverse neonatal outcome. This implies that 500 women have to be randomised (two sided test, β 0.2 at alpha 0.05). DISCUSSION: This trial will provide evidence on the optimal drug of choice in acute tocolysis in threatening preterm labour. TRIAL REGISTRATION: CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: NTR2947, date of registration: June 20th 2011

Quantitative fetal fibronectin testing in combination with cervical length measurement in the prediction of spontaneous preterm delivery in symptomatic women

\u3cp\u3eObjective: To evaluate whether in symptomatic women, the combination of quantitative fetal fibronectin (fFN) testing and cervical length (CL) improves the prediction of preterm delivery (PTD) within 7 days compared with qualitative fFN and CL. Design: Post hoc analysis of frozen fFN samples of a nationwide cohort study. Setting: Ten perinatal centres in the Netherlands. Population: Symptomatic women between 24 and 34 weeks of gestation. Methods: The risk of PTD <7 days was estimated in predefined CL and fFN strata. We used logistic regression to develop a model including quantitative fFN and CL, and one including qualitative fFN (threshold 50 ng/ml) and CL. We compared the models’ capacity to identify women at low risk (<5%) for delivery within 7 days using a reclassification table. Main outcome measures: Spontaneous delivery within 7 days after study entry. Results: We studied 350 women, of whom 69 (20%) delivered within 7 days. The risk of PTD in <7 days ranged from 2% in the lowest fFN group (<10 ng/ml) to 71% in the highest group (>500 ng/ml). Multivariable logistic regression showed an increasing risk of PTD in <7 days with rising fFN concentration [10–49 ng/ml: odds ratio (OR) 1.3, 95% confidence interval (95% CI) 0.23–7.0; 50–199 ng/ml: OR 3.2, 95% CI 0.79–13; 200–499 ng/ml: OR 9.0, 95% CI 2.3–35; >500 ng/ml: OR 39, 95% CI 9.4–164] and shortening of the CL (OR 0.86 per mm, 95% CI 0.82–0.90). Use of quantitative fFN instead of qualitative fFN resulted in reclassification of 18 (5%) women from high to low risk, of whom one (6%) woman delivered within 7 days. Conclusion: In symptomatic women, quantitative fFN testing does not improve the prediction of PTD within 7 days compared with qualitative fFN testing in combination with CL measurement in terms of reclassification from high to low (<5%) risk, but it adds value across the risk range. Tweetable abstract: Quantitative fFN testing adds value to qualitative fFN testing with CL measurement in the prediction of PTD.\u3c/p\u3

Which factors contribute to false-positive, false-negative, and invalid results in fetal fibronectin testing in women with symptoms of preterm labor?

\u3cp\u3eObjective We assessed the influence of external factors on false-positive, false-negative, and invalid fibronectin results in the prediction of spontaneous delivery within 7 days. Methods We studied symptomatic women between 24 and 34 weeks' gestational age. We performed uni- and multivariable logistic regression to estimate the effect of external factors (vaginal soap, digital examination, transvaginal sonography, sexual intercourse, vaginal bleeding) on the risk of false-positive, false-negative, and invalid results, using spontaneous delivery within 7 days as the outcome. Results Out of 708 women, 237 (33%) had a false-positive result; none of the factors showed a significant association. Vaginal bleeding increased the proportion of positive fetal fibronectin (fFN) results, but was significantly associated with a lower risk of false-positive test results (odds ratio [OR], 0.22; 95% confidence intervals [CI], 0.12-0.39). Ten women (1%) had a false-negative result. None of the investigated factors was significantly associated with a significantly higher risk of false-negative results. Twenty-one tests (3%) were invalid; only vaginal bleeding showed a significant association (OR, 4.5; 95% CI, 1.7-12). Conclusion The effect of external factors on the performance of qualitative fFN testing is limited, with vaginal bleeding as the only factor that reduces its validity.\u3c/p\u3

Intermediate-dose versus low-dose low-molecular-weight heparin in pregnant and post-partum women with a history of venous thromboembolism (Highlow study): an open-label, multicentre, randomised, controlled trial

Background: Pregnancy-related venous thromboembolism is a leading cause of maternal morbidity and mortality, and thromboprophylaxis is indicated in pregnant and post-partum women with a history of venous thromboembolism. The optimal dose of low-molecular-weight heparin to prevent recurrent venous thromboembolism in pregnancy and the post-partum period is uncertain. Methods: In this open-label, randomised, controlled trial (Highlow), pregnant women with a history of venous thromboembolism were recruited from 70 hospitals in nine countries (the Netherlands, France, Ireland, Belgium, Norway, Denmark, Canada, the USA, and Russia). Women were eligible if they were aged 18 years or older with a history of objectively confirmed venous thromboembolism, and with a gestational age of 14 weeks or less. Eligible women were randomly assigned (1:1), before 14 weeks of gestational age, using a web-based system and permuted block randomisation (block size of six), stratified by centre, to either weight-adjusted intermediate-dose or fixed low-dose low-molecular-weight heparin subcutaneously once daily until 6 weeks post partum. The primary efficacy outcome was objectively confirmed venous thromboembolism (ie, deep-vein thrombosis, pulmonary embolism, or unusual site venous thrombosis), as determined by an independent central adjudication committee, in the intention-to-treat (ITT) population (ie, all women randomly assigned to treatment). The primary safety outcome was major bleeding which included antepartum, early post-partum (within 24 h after delivery), and late post-partum major bleeding (24 h or longer after delivery until 6 weeks post partum), assessed in all women who received at least one dose of assigned treatment and had a known end of treatment date. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT01828697, and is now complete. Findings: Between April 24, 2013, and Oct 31, 2020, 1339 pregnant women were screened for eligibility, of whom 1110 were randomly assigned to weight-adjusted intermediate-dose (n=555) or fixed low-dose (n=555) low-molecular-weight heparin (ITT population). Venous thromboembolism occurred in 11 (2%) of 555 women in the weight-adjusted intermediate-dose group and in 16 (3%) of 555 in the fixed low-dose group (relative risk [RR] 0·69 [95% CI 0·32–1·47]; p=0·33). Venous thromboembolism occurred antepartum in five (1%) women in the intermediate-dose group and in five (1%) women in the low-dose group, and post partum in six (1%) women and 11 (2%) women. On-treatment major bleeding in the safety population (N=1045) occurred in 23 (4%) of 520 women in the intermediate-dose group and in 20 (4%) of 525 in the low-dose group (RR 1·16 [95% CI 0·65–2·09]). Interpretation: In women with a history of venous thromboembolism, weight-adjusted intermediate-dose low-molecular-weight heparin during the combined antepartum and post-partum periods was not associated with a lower risk of recurrence than fixed low-dose low-molecular-weight heparin. These results indicate that low-dose low-molecular-weight heparin for thromboprophylaxis during pregnancy is the appropriate dose for the prevention of pregnancy-related recurrent venous thromboembolism. Funding: French Ministry of Health, Health Research Board Ireland, GSK/Aspen, and Pfizer