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...
Autores principales: | , , , , , , , , , , , |
---|---|
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 |