Methods of induction of labour: a systematic review

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>Rates of labour induction are increasing. We conducted this systematic review to assess the evidence supporting use of each method of labour induction.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>We listed methods of labour induction then reviewed the evidence supporting each. We searched MEDLINE and the Cochrane Library between 1980 and November 2010 using multiple terms and combinations, including labor, induced/or induction of labor, prostaglandin or prostaglandins, misoprostol, Cytotec, 16,16,-dimethylprostaglandin E2 or E2, dinoprostone; Prepidil, Cervidil, Dinoprost, Carboprost or hemabate; prostin, oxytocin, misoprostol, membrane sweeping or membrane stripping, amniotomy, balloon catheter or Foley catheter, hygroscopic dilators, laminaria, dilapan, saline injection, nipple stimulation, intercourse, acupuncture, castor oil, herbs. We performed a best evidence review of the literature supporting each method. We identified 2048 abstracts and reviewed 283 full text articles. We preferentially included high quality systematic reviews or large randomised trials. Where no such studies existed, we included the best evidence available from smaller randomised or quasi-randomised trials.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>We included 46 full text articles. We assigned a quality rating to each included article and a strength of evidence rating to each body of literature. Prostaglandin E2 (PGE2) and vaginal misoprostol were more effective than oxytocin in bringing about vaginal delivery within 24 hours but were associated with more uterine hyperstimulation. Mechanical methods reduced uterine hyperstimulation compared with PGE2 and misoprostol, but increased maternal and neonatal infectious morbidity compared with other methods. Membrane sweeping reduced post-term gestations. Most included studies were too small to evaluate risk for rare adverse outcomes.</p> <p>Conclusions</p> <p>Research is needed to determine benefits and harms of many induction methods.</p

Which method is best for the induction of labour?: A systematic review, network meta-analysis and cost-effectiveness analysis

Background: More than 150,000 pregnant women in England and Wales have their labour induced each year. Multiple pharmacological, mechanical and complementary methods are available to induce labour. Objective: To assess the relative effectiveness, safety and cost-effectiveness of labour induction methods and, data permitting, effects in different clinical subgroups. Methods: We carried out a systematic review using Cochrane methods. The Cochrane Pregnancy and Childbirth Group’s Trials Register was searched (March 2014). This contains over 22,000 reports of controlled trials (published from 1923 onwards) retrieved from weekly searches of OVID MEDLINE (1966 to current); Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (The Cochrane Library); EMBASE (1982 to current); Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (1984 to current); ClinicalTrials.gov; the World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Portal; and hand-searching of relevant conference proceedings and journals. We included randomised controlled trials examining interventions to induce labour compared with placebo, no treatment or other interventions in women eligible for third-trimester induction. We included outcomes relating to efficacy, safety and acceptability to women. In addition, for the economic analysis we searched the Database of Abstracts of Reviews of Effects, and Economic Evaluations Databases, NHS Economic Evaluation Database and the Health Technology Assessment database. We carried out a network meta-analysis (NMA) using all of the available evidence, both direct and indirect, to produce estimates of the relative effects of each treatment compared with others in a network. We developed a de novo decision tree model to estimate the cost-effectiveness of various methods. The costs included were the intervention and other hospital costs incurred (price year 2012–13). We reviewed the literature to identify preference-based utilities for the health-related outcomes in the model. We calculated incremental cost-effectiveness ratios, expected costs, utilities and net benefit. We represent uncertainty in the optimal intervention using cost-effectiveness acceptability curves. Results: We identified 1190 studies; 611 were eligible for inclusion. The interventions most likely to achieve vaginal delivery (VD) within 24 hours were intravenous oxytocin with amniotomy [posterior rank 2; 95% credible intervals (CrIs) 1 to 9] and higher-dose (≥ 50 μg) vaginal misoprostol (rank 3; 95% CrI 1 to 6). Compared with placebo, several treatments reduced the odds of caesarean section, but we observed considerable uncertainty in treatment rankings. For uterine hyperstimulation, double-balloon catheter had the highest probability of being among the best three treatments, whereas vaginal misoprostol (≥ 50 μg) was most likely to increase the odds of excessive uterine activity. For other safety outcomes there were insufficient data or there was too much uncertainty to identify which treatments performed ‘best’. Few studies collected information on women’s views. Owing to incomplete reporting of the VD within 24 hours outcome, the cost-effectiveness analysis could compare only 20 interventions. The analysis suggested that most interventions have similar utility and differ mainly in cost. With a caveat of considerable uncertainty, titrated (low-dose) misoprostol solution and buccal/sublingual misoprostol had the highest likelihood of being cost-effective. Limitations: There was considerable uncertainty in findings and there were insufficient data for some planned subgroup analyses. Conclusions: Overall, misoprostol and oxytocin with amniotomy (for women with favourable cervix) is more successful than other agents in achieving VD within 24 hours. The ranking according to safety of different methods was less clear. The cost-effectiveness analysis suggested that titrated (low-dose) oral misoprostol solution resulted in the highest utility, whereas buccal/sublingual misoprostol had the lowest cost. There was a high degree of uncertainty as to the most cost-effective intervention

Patient Expectations of Acupuncture in Pregnancy

BACKGROUND: Expectations for treatment have been associated with outcomes. Expectations in acupuncture treatment have rarely been addressed, and due to the unique concerns of pregnancy and childbirth, obstetric patients merit special attention. PRIMARY STUDY OBJECTIVE: Assess treatment expectations of acupuncture clinic patients treated for obstetric and related concerns. METHODS/DESIGN: Descriptive follow-up involving a patient-completed survey; chief treatment concern and number of treatment sessions were validated against patient records. PARTICIPANTS: Of 265 former clinic patients, 137 (51.7%) completed the internet survey. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Self-reported demographic variables; responses to open-ended questions on treatment expectations; general treatment variables. RESULTS: Using standard qualitative data analytic strategies, we identified five major treatment expectations, for example, affecting labor and delivery, benefiting the whole system, and treating specific symptoms. LIMITATIONS: Retrospective method and recall bias may have influenced reported expectations. CONCLUSION: Obstetric acupuncture patients' expectations overlap with other subgroups in terms of symptom treatment. They also indicate a distinct interest in taking an active role in childbirth and in replacing conventional interventions, warranting further inquiry into obstetric acupuncture effects and safety in childbearing women

Acupuncture for induction of labour

BACKGROUND This is one of a series of reviews of methods of cervical ripening and labour induction using standardised methodology. The use of complementary therapies is increasing and some women look to complementary therapies during pregnancy and childbirth to be used alongside conventional medical practice. Acupuncture involves the insertion of very fine needles into specific points of the body. The limited observational studies to date suggest acupuncture for induction of labour appears safe, has no known adverse effects to the fetus, and may be effective. However, the evidence regarding the clinical effectiveness of this technique is limited. OBJECTIVES To determine the effectiveness and safety of acupuncture for third trimester cervical ripening or induction of labour. SEARCH METHODS We searched the Cochrane Pregnancy and Childbirth Group's Trials Register (23 November 2012), PubMed (1966 to 23 November 2012), Embase (1980 to 23 November 2012), Dissertation Abstracts (1861 to 23 November 2012), CINAHL (1982 to 23 November 2012), the WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Portal (ICTRP) (23 November 2012) and bibliographies of relevant papers. SELECTION CRITERIA Clinical trials comparing acupuncture used for third trimester cervical ripening or labour induction with placebo/no treatment or other methods listed above it on a predefined list of labour induction methods. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS Two review authors independently assessed trials for inclusion, evaluated methodological quality and extracted data. MAIN RESULTS The original review included three trials and seven trials were excluded. This updated review includes 14 trials, and excludes eight trials. Three trials previously excluded due to no clinically relevant outcomes are now included. Eight new trials were included, and four new trials were excluded. We included 14 trials with data reporting on 2220 women. Trials reported on three primary outcomes only caesarean section, serious neonatal morbidity and maternal mortality. No trial reported on vaginal delivery not achieved within 24 hours; and uterine hyperstimulation with fetal heart rate (FHR) changes. There was no difference in caesarean deliveries between acupuncture and the sham control (average risk ratio (RR) 0.95, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.69 to 1.30, six trials, 654 women), and acupuncture versus usual care (average RR 0.69, 95% CI 0.40, 1.20, six trials, 361 women). There was no difference in neonatal seizures between acupuncture and the sham group (RR 1.01, 95% CI 0.06 to 16.04, one trial, 364 women). There was some evidence of a change in cervical maturation for women receiving acupuncture compared with the sham control, (mean difference (MD) 0.40. 95%CI 0.11 to 0.69, one trial, 125 women), and when compared with usual care (MD 1.30, 95% CI 0.11 to 2.49, one trial, 67 women). The length of labour was shorter in the usual care group compared with acupuncture (average standardised mean difference (SMD) 0.67, 95% CI 0.18 to 1.17, one trial 68 women). There were no other statistically significant differences between groups. Few studies reported on many clinically relevant outcomes. One trial was at a low risk of bias on all domains. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS Overall, there have been few studies assessing the role of acupuncture for induction of labour. Before implications for clinical practice can be made there is a need for well-designed randomised controlled trials to evaluate the role of acupuncture to induce labour and for trials to assess clinically meaningful outcomes.Smith CA, Crowther CA, Grant S