Cargando…
CONDISOX- continued versus discontinued oxytocin stimulation of induced labour in a double-blind randomised controlled trial
BACKGROUND: Oxytocin is an effective drug for induction of labour, but is associated with serious adverse effects of which uterine tachysystole, fetal distress and the need of immediate delivery are the most common. Discontinuation of oxytocin once the active phase of labour is established could red...
Autores principales: | , , , , , , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
BioMed Central
2019
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6720847/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/31477047 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12884-019-2461-x |
_version_ | 1783448218673086464 |
---|---|
author | Boie, Sidsel Glavind, Julie Uldbjerg, Niels Bakker, Jannet J. H. van der Post, Joris A. M. Steer, Philip J. Bor, Pinar |
author_facet | Boie, Sidsel Glavind, Julie Uldbjerg, Niels Bakker, Jannet J. H. van der Post, Joris A. M. Steer, Philip J. Bor, Pinar |
author_sort | Boie, Sidsel |
collection | PubMed |
description | BACKGROUND: Oxytocin is an effective drug for induction of labour, but is associated with serious adverse effects of which uterine tachysystole, fetal distress and the need of immediate delivery are the most common. Discontinuation of oxytocin once the active phase of labour is established could reduce the adverse effects. The objective is to investigate how the caesarean section rate is affected when oxytocin stimulation is discontinued in the active phase of labour compared to labours where oxytocin is continued. METHODS: CONDISOX is a double-blind multicentre randomised controlled trial conducted at Danish and Dutch Departments of Obstetrics and Gynaecology. The first participant was recruited on April 8 2016. Based on a clinically relevant relative reduction in caesarean section rate of 7%, an alpha of 0.05, a beta of 80%, we aim for 1200 participating women (600 in each arm). The CONDISOX trial includes women at a gestational age of 37–42 complete weeks of pregnancy, who have uterine activity stimulated with oxytocin infusion for the induction of labour. Women are randomised when the active phase of labour becomes established, to study medication containing either oxytocin (continuous group) or placebo (discontinued group) infusion. Women are stratified by birth site, indication for oxytocin stimulation (induction of labour, prelabour rupture of membranes) and parity (nulliparous, parous +/− previous caesarean section). We will compare the primary outcome, caesarean section rate, in the two groups using a chi-square test with a p-value of 0.05. If superiority is not demonstrated, we have a pre-defined post hoc non-inferiority boundary (margin, delta) at 1.09. Secondary outcomes include duration of the active phase of labour, incidence of uterine tachysystole, postpartum haemorrhage, admission to the neonatal intensive care unit, Apgar score, umbilical arterial blood pH, and birth experience. DISCUSSION: The high frequency of oxytocin use and the potential risks of both maternal and fetal adverse effects of oxytocin emphasise the need to determine the optimal oxytocin regime for induction of labour. TRIAL REGISTRATION: NCT02553226 (registered September 17, 2015). Eudra-CT number: 2015–002942-30. ELECTRONIC SUPPLEMENTARY MATERIAL: The online version of this article (10.1186/s12884-019-2461-x) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users. |
format | Online Article Text |
id | pubmed-6720847 |
institution | National Center for Biotechnology Information |
language | English |
publishDate | 2019 |
publisher | BioMed Central |
record_format | MEDLINE/PubMed |
spelling | pubmed-67208472019-09-06 CONDISOX- continued versus discontinued oxytocin stimulation of induced labour in a double-blind randomised controlled trial Boie, Sidsel Glavind, Julie Uldbjerg, Niels Bakker, Jannet J. H. van der Post, Joris A. M. Steer, Philip J. Bor, Pinar BMC Pregnancy Childbirth Study Protocol BACKGROUND: Oxytocin is an effective drug for induction of labour, but is associated with serious adverse effects of which uterine tachysystole, fetal distress and the need of immediate delivery are the most common. Discontinuation of oxytocin once the active phase of labour is established could reduce the adverse effects. The objective is to investigate how the caesarean section rate is affected when oxytocin stimulation is discontinued in the active phase of labour compared to labours where oxytocin is continued. METHODS: CONDISOX is a double-blind multicentre randomised controlled trial conducted at Danish and Dutch Departments of Obstetrics and Gynaecology. The first participant was recruited on April 8 2016. Based on a clinically relevant relative reduction in caesarean section rate of 7%, an alpha of 0.05, a beta of 80%, we aim for 1200 participating women (600 in each arm). The CONDISOX trial includes women at a gestational age of 37–42 complete weeks of pregnancy, who have uterine activity stimulated with oxytocin infusion for the induction of labour. Women are randomised when the active phase of labour becomes established, to study medication containing either oxytocin (continuous group) or placebo (discontinued group) infusion. Women are stratified by birth site, indication for oxytocin stimulation (induction of labour, prelabour rupture of membranes) and parity (nulliparous, parous +/− previous caesarean section). We will compare the primary outcome, caesarean section rate, in the two groups using a chi-square test with a p-value of 0.05. If superiority is not demonstrated, we have a pre-defined post hoc non-inferiority boundary (margin, delta) at 1.09. Secondary outcomes include duration of the active phase of labour, incidence of uterine tachysystole, postpartum haemorrhage, admission to the neonatal intensive care unit, Apgar score, umbilical arterial blood pH, and birth experience. DISCUSSION: The high frequency of oxytocin use and the potential risks of both maternal and fetal adverse effects of oxytocin emphasise the need to determine the optimal oxytocin regime for induction of labour. TRIAL REGISTRATION: NCT02553226 (registered September 17, 2015). Eudra-CT number: 2015–002942-30. ELECTRONIC SUPPLEMENTARY MATERIAL: The online version of this article (10.1186/s12884-019-2461-x) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users. BioMed Central 2019-09-02 /pmc/articles/PMC6720847/ /pubmed/31477047 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12884-019-2461-x Text en © The Author(s). 2019 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 | Study Protocol Boie, Sidsel Glavind, Julie Uldbjerg, Niels Bakker, Jannet J. H. van der Post, Joris A. M. Steer, Philip J. Bor, Pinar CONDISOX- continued versus discontinued oxytocin stimulation of induced labour in a double-blind randomised controlled trial |
title | CONDISOX- continued versus discontinued oxytocin stimulation of induced labour in a double-blind randomised controlled trial |
title_full | CONDISOX- continued versus discontinued oxytocin stimulation of induced labour in a double-blind randomised controlled trial |
title_fullStr | CONDISOX- continued versus discontinued oxytocin stimulation of induced labour in a double-blind randomised controlled trial |
title_full_unstemmed | CONDISOX- continued versus discontinued oxytocin stimulation of induced labour in a double-blind randomised controlled trial |
title_short | CONDISOX- continued versus discontinued oxytocin stimulation of induced labour in a double-blind randomised controlled trial |
title_sort | condisox- continued versus discontinued oxytocin stimulation of induced labour in a double-blind randomised controlled trial |
topic | Study Protocol |
url | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6720847/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/31477047 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12884-019-2461-x |
work_keys_str_mv | AT boiesidsel condisoxcontinuedversusdiscontinuedoxytocinstimulationofinducedlabourinadoubleblindrandomisedcontrolledtrial AT glavindjulie condisoxcontinuedversusdiscontinuedoxytocinstimulationofinducedlabourinadoubleblindrandomisedcontrolledtrial AT uldbjergniels condisoxcontinuedversusdiscontinuedoxytocinstimulationofinducedlabourinadoubleblindrandomisedcontrolledtrial AT bakkerjannetjh condisoxcontinuedversusdiscontinuedoxytocinstimulationofinducedlabourinadoubleblindrandomisedcontrolledtrial AT vanderpostjorisam condisoxcontinuedversusdiscontinuedoxytocinstimulationofinducedlabourinadoubleblindrandomisedcontrolledtrial AT steerphilipj condisoxcontinuedversusdiscontinuedoxytocinstimulationofinducedlabourinadoubleblindrandomisedcontrolledtrial AT borpinar condisoxcontinuedversusdiscontinuedoxytocinstimulationofinducedlabourinadoubleblindrandomisedcontrolledtrial |