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

The Effect of External Cephalic Version on Fetal Circulation: A Prospective Cohort Study

External cephalic version (ECV) is a cost-effective and safe treatment option for breech presentation at term. Following ECV, fetal well-being is assessed via a non-stress test (NST). An alternative option to identify signs of fetal compromise is via the Doppler indices of the umbilical artery (UA), middle cerebral artery (MCA) and ductus venosus (DV). Inclusion criteria were an uncomplicated pregnancy with breech presentation at term. Doppler velocimetry of the UA, MCA and DV were performed up to 1 h before and up to 2 h after ECV. The study included 56 patients who underwent elective ECV with a success rate of 75%. After ECV, the UA S/D ratio, UA pulsatility index (PI) and UA resistance index (RI) were increased compared to before the ECV (p = 0.021, p = 0.042, and p = 0.022, respectively). There were no differences in the Doppler MCA and DV before or after ECV. All patients were discharged after the procedure. ECV is associated with changes in the UA Doppler indices that might reflect interference in placental perfusion. These changes are probably short-term and have no detrimental effects on the outcomes of uncomplicated pregnancies. ECV is safe; yet it is a stimulus or stress that can affect placental circulation. Therefore, careful case selection for ECV is important

Vacuum-Assisted Delivery Complication Rates Based on Ultrasound-Estimated Fetal Weight

This retrospective cohort study investigated the association between ultrasonographic estimated fetal weight (EFW) and adverse maternal and neonatal outcomes after vacuum-assisted delivery (VAD). It included women with singleton pregnancies at 34–41 weeks gestation, who underwent ultrasonographic pre-labor EFW and VAD in an academic institution, over 6 years. Adverse neonatal and maternal outcomes included shoulder dystocia, clavicular fracture, or third- and fourth-degree perineal tears. A receiver–operator characteristic curve was used to identify the optimal weight cut-off value to predict adverse outcomes. Fetuses above and below this point were compared. Multivariate analysis was used to control for factors that could lead to adverse outcomes. Eight-hundred and fifty women met the inclusion criteria and had sonographic EFW within two-weeks before delivery. Receiver–operator characteristic curve analysis found that ultrasonographic EFW 3666 g is the optimal threshold for adverse outcomes. Based on these results, outcomes were compared using EFW 3700 g. The average EFW in the ≥3700 g group (n = 220, 25.9%) was 3898 ± 154 g (average birthweight 3710 ± 324 g). In the group n = 630, 74.1%), average EFW was 3064 ± 411 g (birthweight 3120 ± 464 g). Shoulder dystocia and clavicular fractures were more frequent in the higher EFW group (6.4% and 2.3% vs. 1.6% and 0.5%, respectively; p p = 0.02). Multivariate logistic regression analysis found maternal age, diabetes and sonographic EFW ≥ 3700 g as independent risk-factors for adverse outcomes. Sonographic EFW ≥ 3700 g is an independent risk-factor for adverse outcomes in VAD. This should be considered when choosing the optimal mode of delivery

Can 17 hydroxyprogesterone caproate (17P) decrease preterm deliveries in patients with a history of PMC or pPROM?

BackgroundA history of spontaneous preterm birth (sPTB) is a significant risk factor for recurrence. Intra-muscular-7α-hydroxyprogesterone caproate (17P) has been the preventive treatment of choice until the recent "Prolong study" that reported no benefit.ObjectiveTo determine the benefit of (17P) treatment in preventing reoccurrence of sPTB, by evaluating two presenting symptoms of the first sPTB: premature contractions (PMC) and preterm premature rupture of membranes (pPROM).Study designThis retrospective study included 342 women with a previous singleton sPTB followed by a subsequent pregnancy. sPTB were either due to PMC (n = 145) or pPROM (n = 197). During the subsequent pregnancy, 90 (26.3%) patients received 250 mg 17P IM. Each presenting symptom-PMC or pPROM-was evaluated within itself comparing treated vs. untreated groups. Data were analyzed using t-test, Chi-square and Fisher's exact test. Logistic regression analysis was also performed.ResultsPatients treated with 17P in the subsequent pregnancy had delivered earlier in the previous pregnancy (33.4w vs. 35.3w in the PMC group, and 34.1w vs. 35.7w in the pPROM group, pConclusions17P might delay preterm delivery in patients with a previous sPTB on an individual level (prolongation of the pregnancy for each patient compared to her previous delivery). Therefore, our results imply that 17P can decrease potential premature delivery complications for patients with a previous sPTB due to PMC or pPROM