Cargando…
Induction of Labor versus Expectant Management in Women with Preterm Prelabor Rupture of Membranes between 34 and 37 Weeks: A Randomized Controlled Trial
BACKGROUND: At present, there is insufficient evidence to guide appropriate management of women with preterm prelabor rupture of membranes (PPROM) near term. METHODS AND FINDINGS: We conducted an open-label randomized controlled trial in 60 hospitals in The Netherlands, which included non-laboring w...
Autores principales: | , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
Public Library of Science
2012
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3335867/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22545024 http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pmed.1001208 |
_version_ | 1782230870042607616 |
---|---|
author | van der Ham, David P. Vijgen, Sylvia M. C. Nijhuis, Jan G. van Beek, Johannes J. Opmeer, Brent C. Mulder, Antonius L. M. Moonen, Rob Groenewout, Mariët van Pampus, Mariëlle G. Mantel, Gerald D. Bloemenkamp, Kitty W. M. van Wijngaarden, Wim J. Sikkema, Marko Haak, Monique C. Pernet, Paula J. M. Porath, Martina Molkenboer, Jan F. M. Kuppens, Simone Kwee, Anneke Kars, Michael E. Woiski, Mallory Weinans, Martin J. N. Wildschut, Hajo I. J. Akerboom, Bettina M. C. Mol, Ben W. J. Willekes, Christine |
author_facet | van der Ham, David P. Vijgen, Sylvia M. C. Nijhuis, Jan G. van Beek, Johannes J. Opmeer, Brent C. Mulder, Antonius L. M. Moonen, Rob Groenewout, Mariët van Pampus, Mariëlle G. Mantel, Gerald D. Bloemenkamp, Kitty W. M. van Wijngaarden, Wim J. Sikkema, Marko Haak, Monique C. Pernet, Paula J. M. Porath, Martina Molkenboer, Jan F. M. Kuppens, Simone Kwee, Anneke Kars, Michael E. Woiski, Mallory Weinans, Martin J. N. Wildschut, Hajo I. J. Akerboom, Bettina M. C. Mol, Ben W. J. Willekes, Christine |
author_sort | van der Ham, David P. |
collection | PubMed |
description | BACKGROUND: At present, there is insufficient evidence to guide appropriate management of women with preterm prelabor rupture of membranes (PPROM) near term. METHODS AND FINDINGS: We conducted an open-label randomized controlled trial in 60 hospitals in The Netherlands, which included non-laboring women with >24 h of PPROM between 34(+0) and 37(+0) wk of gestation. Participants were randomly allocated in a 1∶1 ratio to induction of labor (IoL) or expectant management (EM) using block randomization. The main outcome was neonatal sepsis. Secondary outcomes included mode of delivery, respiratory distress syndrome (RDS), and chorioamnionitis. Patients and caregivers were not blinded to randomization status. We updated a prior meta-analysis on the effect of both interventions on neonatal sepsis, RDS, and cesarean section rate. From 1 January 2007 to 9 September 2009, 776 patients in 60 hospitals were eligible for the study, of which 536 patients were randomized. Four patients were excluded after randomization. We allocated 266 women (268 neonates) to IoL and 266 women (270 neonates) to EM. Neonatal sepsis occurred in seven (2.6%) newborns of women in the IoL group and in 11 (4.1%) neonates in the EM group (relative risk [RR] 0.64; 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.25 to 1.6). RDS was seen in 21 (7.8%, IoL) versus 17 neonates (6.3%, EM) (RR 1.3; 95% CI 0.67 to 2.3), and a cesarean section was performed in 36 (13%, IoL) versus 37 (14%, EM) women (RR 0.98; 95% CI 0.64 to 1.50). The risk for chorioamnionitis was reduced in the IoL group. No serious adverse events were reported. Updating an existing meta-analysis with our trial results (the only eligible trial for the update) indicated RRs of 1.06 (95% CI 0.64 to 1.76) for neonatal sepsis (eight trials, 1,230 neonates) and 1.27 (95% CI 0.98 to 1.65) for cesarean section (eight trials, 1,222 women) for IoL compared with EM. CONCLUSIONS: In women whose pregnancy is complicated by late PPROM, neither our trial nor the updated meta-analysis indicates that IoL substantially improves pregnancy outcomes compared with EM. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN29313500 Please see later in the article for the Editors' Summary |
format | Online Article Text |
id | pubmed-3335867 |
institution | National Center for Biotechnology Information |
language | English |
publishDate | 2012 |
publisher | Public Library of Science |
record_format | MEDLINE/PubMed |
spelling | pubmed-33358672012-04-27 Induction of Labor versus Expectant Management in Women with Preterm Prelabor Rupture of Membranes between 34 and 37 Weeks: A Randomized Controlled Trial van der Ham, David P. Vijgen, Sylvia M. C. Nijhuis, Jan G. van Beek, Johannes J. Opmeer, Brent C. Mulder, Antonius L. M. Moonen, Rob Groenewout, Mariët van Pampus, Mariëlle G. Mantel, Gerald D. Bloemenkamp, Kitty W. M. van Wijngaarden, Wim J. Sikkema, Marko Haak, Monique C. Pernet, Paula J. M. Porath, Martina Molkenboer, Jan F. M. Kuppens, Simone Kwee, Anneke Kars, Michael E. Woiski, Mallory Weinans, Martin J. N. Wildschut, Hajo I. J. Akerboom, Bettina M. C. Mol, Ben W. J. Willekes, Christine PLoS Med Research Article BACKGROUND: At present, there is insufficient evidence to guide appropriate management of women with preterm prelabor rupture of membranes (PPROM) near term. METHODS AND FINDINGS: We conducted an open-label randomized controlled trial in 60 hospitals in The Netherlands, which included non-laboring women with >24 h of PPROM between 34(+0) and 37(+0) wk of gestation. Participants were randomly allocated in a 1∶1 ratio to induction of labor (IoL) or expectant management (EM) using block randomization. The main outcome was neonatal sepsis. Secondary outcomes included mode of delivery, respiratory distress syndrome (RDS), and chorioamnionitis. Patients and caregivers were not blinded to randomization status. We updated a prior meta-analysis on the effect of both interventions on neonatal sepsis, RDS, and cesarean section rate. From 1 January 2007 to 9 September 2009, 776 patients in 60 hospitals were eligible for the study, of which 536 patients were randomized. Four patients were excluded after randomization. We allocated 266 women (268 neonates) to IoL and 266 women (270 neonates) to EM. Neonatal sepsis occurred in seven (2.6%) newborns of women in the IoL group and in 11 (4.1%) neonates in the EM group (relative risk [RR] 0.64; 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.25 to 1.6). RDS was seen in 21 (7.8%, IoL) versus 17 neonates (6.3%, EM) (RR 1.3; 95% CI 0.67 to 2.3), and a cesarean section was performed in 36 (13%, IoL) versus 37 (14%, EM) women (RR 0.98; 95% CI 0.64 to 1.50). The risk for chorioamnionitis was reduced in the IoL group. No serious adverse events were reported. Updating an existing meta-analysis with our trial results (the only eligible trial for the update) indicated RRs of 1.06 (95% CI 0.64 to 1.76) for neonatal sepsis (eight trials, 1,230 neonates) and 1.27 (95% CI 0.98 to 1.65) for cesarean section (eight trials, 1,222 women) for IoL compared with EM. CONCLUSIONS: In women whose pregnancy is complicated by late PPROM, neither our trial nor the updated meta-analysis indicates that IoL substantially improves pregnancy outcomes compared with EM. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN29313500 Please see later in the article for the Editors' Summary Public Library of Science 2012-04-24 /pmc/articles/PMC3335867/ /pubmed/22545024 http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pmed.1001208 Text en van der Ham et al. http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are properly credited. |
spellingShingle | Research Article van der Ham, David P. Vijgen, Sylvia M. C. Nijhuis, Jan G. van Beek, Johannes J. Opmeer, Brent C. Mulder, Antonius L. M. Moonen, Rob Groenewout, Mariët van Pampus, Mariëlle G. Mantel, Gerald D. Bloemenkamp, Kitty W. M. van Wijngaarden, Wim J. Sikkema, Marko Haak, Monique C. Pernet, Paula J. M. Porath, Martina Molkenboer, Jan F. M. Kuppens, Simone Kwee, Anneke Kars, Michael E. Woiski, Mallory Weinans, Martin J. N. Wildschut, Hajo I. J. Akerboom, Bettina M. C. Mol, Ben W. J. Willekes, Christine Induction of Labor versus Expectant Management in Women with Preterm Prelabor Rupture of Membranes between 34 and 37 Weeks: A Randomized Controlled Trial |
title | Induction of Labor versus Expectant Management in Women with Preterm Prelabor Rupture of Membranes between 34 and 37 Weeks: A Randomized Controlled Trial |
title_full | Induction of Labor versus Expectant Management in Women with Preterm Prelabor Rupture of Membranes between 34 and 37 Weeks: A Randomized Controlled Trial |
title_fullStr | Induction of Labor versus Expectant Management in Women with Preterm Prelabor Rupture of Membranes between 34 and 37 Weeks: A Randomized Controlled Trial |
title_full_unstemmed | Induction of Labor versus Expectant Management in Women with Preterm Prelabor Rupture of Membranes between 34 and 37 Weeks: A Randomized Controlled Trial |
title_short | Induction of Labor versus Expectant Management in Women with Preterm Prelabor Rupture of Membranes between 34 and 37 Weeks: A Randomized Controlled Trial |
title_sort | induction of labor versus expectant management in women with preterm prelabor rupture of membranes between 34 and 37 weeks: a randomized controlled trial |
topic | Research Article |
url | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3335867/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22545024 http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pmed.1001208 |
work_keys_str_mv | AT vanderhamdavidp inductionoflaborversusexpectantmanagementinwomenwithpretermprelaborruptureofmembranesbetween34and37weeksarandomizedcontrolledtrial AT vijgensylviamc inductionoflaborversusexpectantmanagementinwomenwithpretermprelaborruptureofmembranesbetween34and37weeksarandomizedcontrolledtrial AT nijhuisjang inductionoflaborversusexpectantmanagementinwomenwithpretermprelaborruptureofmembranesbetween34and37weeksarandomizedcontrolledtrial AT vanbeekjohannesj inductionoflaborversusexpectantmanagementinwomenwithpretermprelaborruptureofmembranesbetween34and37weeksarandomizedcontrolledtrial AT opmeerbrentc inductionoflaborversusexpectantmanagementinwomenwithpretermprelaborruptureofmembranesbetween34and37weeksarandomizedcontrolledtrial AT mulderantoniuslm inductionoflaborversusexpectantmanagementinwomenwithpretermprelaborruptureofmembranesbetween34and37weeksarandomizedcontrolledtrial AT moonenrob inductionoflaborversusexpectantmanagementinwomenwithpretermprelaborruptureofmembranesbetween34and37weeksarandomizedcontrolledtrial AT groenewoutmariet inductionoflaborversusexpectantmanagementinwomenwithpretermprelaborruptureofmembranesbetween34and37weeksarandomizedcontrolledtrial AT vanpampusmarielleg inductionoflaborversusexpectantmanagementinwomenwithpretermprelaborruptureofmembranesbetween34and37weeksarandomizedcontrolledtrial AT mantelgeraldd inductionoflaborversusexpectantmanagementinwomenwithpretermprelaborruptureofmembranesbetween34and37weeksarandomizedcontrolledtrial AT bloemenkampkittywm inductionoflaborversusexpectantmanagementinwomenwithpretermprelaborruptureofmembranesbetween34and37weeksarandomizedcontrolledtrial AT vanwijngaardenwimj inductionoflaborversusexpectantmanagementinwomenwithpretermprelaborruptureofmembranesbetween34and37weeksarandomizedcontrolledtrial AT sikkemamarko inductionoflaborversusexpectantmanagementinwomenwithpretermprelaborruptureofmembranesbetween34and37weeksarandomizedcontrolledtrial AT haakmoniquec inductionoflaborversusexpectantmanagementinwomenwithpretermprelaborruptureofmembranesbetween34and37weeksarandomizedcontrolledtrial AT pernetpaulajm inductionoflaborversusexpectantmanagementinwomenwithpretermprelaborruptureofmembranesbetween34and37weeksarandomizedcontrolledtrial AT porathmartina inductionoflaborversusexpectantmanagementinwomenwithpretermprelaborruptureofmembranesbetween34and37weeksarandomizedcontrolledtrial AT molkenboerjanfm inductionoflaborversusexpectantmanagementinwomenwithpretermprelaborruptureofmembranesbetween34and37weeksarandomizedcontrolledtrial AT kuppenssimone inductionoflaborversusexpectantmanagementinwomenwithpretermprelaborruptureofmembranesbetween34and37weeksarandomizedcontrolledtrial AT kweeanneke inductionoflaborversusexpectantmanagementinwomenwithpretermprelaborruptureofmembranesbetween34and37weeksarandomizedcontrolledtrial AT karsmichaele inductionoflaborversusexpectantmanagementinwomenwithpretermprelaborruptureofmembranesbetween34and37weeksarandomizedcontrolledtrial AT woiskimallory inductionoflaborversusexpectantmanagementinwomenwithpretermprelaborruptureofmembranesbetween34and37weeksarandomizedcontrolledtrial AT weinansmartinjn inductionoflaborversusexpectantmanagementinwomenwithpretermprelaborruptureofmembranesbetween34and37weeksarandomizedcontrolledtrial AT wildschuthajoij inductionoflaborversusexpectantmanagementinwomenwithpretermprelaborruptureofmembranesbetween34and37weeksarandomizedcontrolledtrial AT akerboombettinamc inductionoflaborversusexpectantmanagementinwomenwithpretermprelaborruptureofmembranesbetween34and37weeksarandomizedcontrolledtrial AT molbenwj inductionoflaborversusexpectantmanagementinwomenwithpretermprelaborruptureofmembranesbetween34and37weeksarandomizedcontrolledtrial AT willekeschristine inductionoflaborversusexpectantmanagementinwomenwithpretermprelaborruptureofmembranesbetween34and37weeksarandomizedcontrolledtrial AT inductionoflaborversusexpectantmanagementinwomenwithpretermprelaborruptureofmembranesbetween34and37weeksarandomizedcontrolledtrial |