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...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: 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
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