Cargando…

Differences between evidence-based recommendations and actual clinical practice regarding tocolysis: a prospective multicenter registry study

BACKGROUND: International guidelines recommend that tocolytic therapy be restricted to a single 48-h application. However, multiple cycles of tocolytic therapy and maintenance therapy that exceeds 48 h appear to play a role in daily clinical practice. We aimed to evaluate current trends in clinical...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Nazifovic, Emina, Husslein, Heinrich, Lakovschek, Ioana, Heinzl, Florian, Wenzel-Schwarz, Elisabeth, Klaritsch, Philipp, Kilic, Ekrem, Hoesel, Sarah, Bind, Rudolf, Pabinger, Magdalena, Zeisler, Harald, Kuessel, Lorenz
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: BioMed Central 2018
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6240217/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/30445929
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12884-018-2078-5
_version_ 1783371598049312768
author Nazifovic, Emina
Husslein, Heinrich
Lakovschek, Ioana
Heinzl, Florian
Wenzel-Schwarz, Elisabeth
Klaritsch, Philipp
Kilic, Ekrem
Hoesel, Sarah
Bind, Rudolf
Pabinger, Magdalena
Zeisler, Harald
Kuessel, Lorenz
author_facet Nazifovic, Emina
Husslein, Heinrich
Lakovschek, Ioana
Heinzl, Florian
Wenzel-Schwarz, Elisabeth
Klaritsch, Philipp
Kilic, Ekrem
Hoesel, Sarah
Bind, Rudolf
Pabinger, Magdalena
Zeisler, Harald
Kuessel, Lorenz
author_sort Nazifovic, Emina
collection PubMed
description BACKGROUND: International guidelines recommend that tocolytic therapy be restricted to a single 48-h application. However, multiple cycles of tocolytic therapy and maintenance therapy that exceeds 48 h appear to play a role in daily clinical practice. We aimed to evaluate current trends in clinical practice with respect to treatment with tocolytic agents and to identify differences between evidence-based recommendations and daily clinical practice in Austria. METHODS: A prospective multicenter registry study was conducted from October 2013 through April 2015 in ten obstetrical departments in Austria. Women ≥18 years of age who received tocolytic therapy following a diagnosis of threatened preterm birth were included, and details were obtained regarding clinical characteristics, tocolytic therapy, and pregnancy outcome. RESULTS: A total of 309 women were included. We observed a median of 2 cycles of tocolytic therapy per patient (IQR 1–3) with a median duration of 2 days per cycle (IQR 2–5). Repeat tocolysis was administered in 41.7% of women, resulting in up to six tocolysis cycles; moreover, 40.8% of the first tocolysis cycles were maintenance tocolysis (i.e., longer than 48 h). Only 25.6% of women received one single 48-h tocolysis cycle in which they received antenatal corticosteroids for fetal lung maturation in accordance evidence-based recommendations. CONCLUSIONS: Here, we report a clear disparity between evidence-based recommendations and daily practice with respect to tocolysis. We believe that the general practice of prescribing tocolytic therapy must be revisited. Furthermore, our findings highlight the need for contemporary studies designed to investigate the effectiveness of performing maintenance and/or repetitive tocolysis treatment. ELECTRONIC SUPPLEMENTARY MATERIAL: The online version of this article (10.1186/s12884-018-2078-5) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-6240217
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2018
publisher BioMed Central
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-62402172018-11-26 Differences between evidence-based recommendations and actual clinical practice regarding tocolysis: a prospective multicenter registry study Nazifovic, Emina Husslein, Heinrich Lakovschek, Ioana Heinzl, Florian Wenzel-Schwarz, Elisabeth Klaritsch, Philipp Kilic, Ekrem Hoesel, Sarah Bind, Rudolf Pabinger, Magdalena Zeisler, Harald Kuessel, Lorenz BMC Pregnancy Childbirth Research Article BACKGROUND: International guidelines recommend that tocolytic therapy be restricted to a single 48-h application. However, multiple cycles of tocolytic therapy and maintenance therapy that exceeds 48 h appear to play a role in daily clinical practice. We aimed to evaluate current trends in clinical practice with respect to treatment with tocolytic agents and to identify differences between evidence-based recommendations and daily clinical practice in Austria. METHODS: A prospective multicenter registry study was conducted from October 2013 through April 2015 in ten obstetrical departments in Austria. Women ≥18 years of age who received tocolytic therapy following a diagnosis of threatened preterm birth were included, and details were obtained regarding clinical characteristics, tocolytic therapy, and pregnancy outcome. RESULTS: A total of 309 women were included. We observed a median of 2 cycles of tocolytic therapy per patient (IQR 1–3) with a median duration of 2 days per cycle (IQR 2–5). Repeat tocolysis was administered in 41.7% of women, resulting in up to six tocolysis cycles; moreover, 40.8% of the first tocolysis cycles were maintenance tocolysis (i.e., longer than 48 h). Only 25.6% of women received one single 48-h tocolysis cycle in which they received antenatal corticosteroids for fetal lung maturation in accordance evidence-based recommendations. CONCLUSIONS: Here, we report a clear disparity between evidence-based recommendations and daily practice with respect to tocolysis. We believe that the general practice of prescribing tocolytic therapy must be revisited. Furthermore, our findings highlight the need for contemporary studies designed to investigate the effectiveness of performing maintenance and/or repetitive tocolysis treatment. ELECTRONIC SUPPLEMENTARY MATERIAL: The online version of this article (10.1186/s12884-018-2078-5) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users. BioMed Central 2018-11-16 /pmc/articles/PMC6240217/ /pubmed/30445929 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12884-018-2078-5 Text en © The Author(s). 2018 Open AccessThis article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated.
spellingShingle Research Article
Nazifovic, Emina
Husslein, Heinrich
Lakovschek, Ioana
Heinzl, Florian
Wenzel-Schwarz, Elisabeth
Klaritsch, Philipp
Kilic, Ekrem
Hoesel, Sarah
Bind, Rudolf
Pabinger, Magdalena
Zeisler, Harald
Kuessel, Lorenz
Differences between evidence-based recommendations and actual clinical practice regarding tocolysis: a prospective multicenter registry study
title Differences between evidence-based recommendations and actual clinical practice regarding tocolysis: a prospective multicenter registry study
title_full Differences between evidence-based recommendations and actual clinical practice regarding tocolysis: a prospective multicenter registry study
title_fullStr Differences between evidence-based recommendations and actual clinical practice regarding tocolysis: a prospective multicenter registry study
title_full_unstemmed Differences between evidence-based recommendations and actual clinical practice regarding tocolysis: a prospective multicenter registry study
title_short Differences between evidence-based recommendations and actual clinical practice regarding tocolysis: a prospective multicenter registry study
title_sort differences between evidence-based recommendations and actual clinical practice regarding tocolysis: a prospective multicenter registry study
topic Research Article
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6240217/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/30445929
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12884-018-2078-5
work_keys_str_mv AT nazifovicemina differencesbetweenevidencebasedrecommendationsandactualclinicalpracticeregardingtocolysisaprospectivemulticenterregistrystudy
AT hussleinheinrich differencesbetweenevidencebasedrecommendationsandactualclinicalpracticeregardingtocolysisaprospectivemulticenterregistrystudy
AT lakovschekioana differencesbetweenevidencebasedrecommendationsandactualclinicalpracticeregardingtocolysisaprospectivemulticenterregistrystudy
AT heinzlflorian differencesbetweenevidencebasedrecommendationsandactualclinicalpracticeregardingtocolysisaprospectivemulticenterregistrystudy
AT wenzelschwarzelisabeth differencesbetweenevidencebasedrecommendationsandactualclinicalpracticeregardingtocolysisaprospectivemulticenterregistrystudy
AT klaritschphilipp differencesbetweenevidencebasedrecommendationsandactualclinicalpracticeregardingtocolysisaprospectivemulticenterregistrystudy
AT kilicekrem differencesbetweenevidencebasedrecommendationsandactualclinicalpracticeregardingtocolysisaprospectivemulticenterregistrystudy
AT hoeselsarah differencesbetweenevidencebasedrecommendationsandactualclinicalpracticeregardingtocolysisaprospectivemulticenterregistrystudy
AT bindrudolf differencesbetweenevidencebasedrecommendationsandactualclinicalpracticeregardingtocolysisaprospectivemulticenterregistrystudy
AT pabingermagdalena differencesbetweenevidencebasedrecommendationsandactualclinicalpracticeregardingtocolysisaprospectivemulticenterregistrystudy
AT zeislerharald differencesbetweenevidencebasedrecommendationsandactualclinicalpracticeregardingtocolysisaprospectivemulticenterregistrystudy
AT kuessellorenz differencesbetweenevidencebasedrecommendationsandactualclinicalpracticeregardingtocolysisaprospectivemulticenterregistrystudy