American journal of obstetrics & gynecology MFM · 2021
Prostaglandins for induction in pregnancies with fetal growth restriction.
СтатьяНазвание и аннотация: Перевод в очереди
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Al-Hafez Leen, Bicocca Matthew J, Chauhan Suneet P, Berghella Vincenzo
Аннотация
BACKGROUND: The data on safety of prostaglandin agents for induction of pregnancies with fetal growth restriction is limited.
OBJECTIVE: To compare the rates of adverse outcomes among pregnancies with fetal growth restriction undergoing induction of labor with and without prostaglandins STUDY DESIGN: We performed a propensity-score-based secondary analysis of the Consortium on Safe Labor database. We included term, singleton, and nonanomalous pregnancies with fetal growth restriction (estimated fetal weight <10th percentile for gestational age). We excluded previous cesarean deliveries. The primary exposure was induction using prostaglandins (prostaglandin E1 or prostaglandin E2) compared with other methods. The primary outcome was a composite of adverse neonatal outcomes. The secondary outcomes included all cesarean deliveries and cesarean deliveries for nonreassuring fetal heart tracings. A subgroup analysis comparing the type of prostaglandin was planned a priori. The results are expressed as adjusted odds ratios with 95% confidence intervals.
RESULTS: Of 756 (0.3%) inductions, 212 (28%) used prostaglandins (108 prostaglandin E1, 94 prostaglandin E2), and 553 (72%) used nonprostaglandin methods, including oxytocin (348, 63%), amniotomy (211, 38%), and/or mechanical dilation (9, 1%). There were no differences in the composite of adverse neonatal outcomes between the prostaglandin (10.4%) and the nonprostaglandin group (6.7%), adjusted odds ratio, 1.39 (0.64-3.03). The rate of cesarean delivery was higher in the inductions that received prostaglandins than those that did not (25.5% vs 14.8%, adjusted odds ratio, 1.80; 1.07-3.02). The rate of cesarean delivery for nonreassuring fetal heart tracings was higher for those that received prostaglandins than those that did not (16.0% vs 8.7%, adjusted odds ratio, 2.37; 1.28-4.41). When prostaglandin E1 and prostaglandin E2 were examined independently, there were similar increases in the composite of adverse neonatal outcomes and cesarean delivery rates for both prostaglandin E1 and prostaglandin E2 compared with nonprostaglandin controls.
CONCLUSION: There were no differences in the composite of adverse neonatal outcomes when prostaglandins were used for induction in pregnancies with fetal growth restriction compared with other methods. However, there was a higher rate of cesarean delivery and cesarean delivery indicated for nonreassuring fetal heart tracings when prostaglandins (both prostaglandin E1 and prostaglandin E2) were used, compared with nonprostaglandin methods.
OBJECTIVE: To compare the rates of adverse outcomes among pregnancies with fetal growth restriction undergoing induction of labor with and without prostaglandins STUDY DESIGN: We performed a propensity-score-based secondary analysis of the Consortium on Safe Labor database. We included term, singleton, and nonanomalous pregnancies with fetal growth restriction (estimated fetal weight <10th percentile for gestational age). We excluded previous cesarean deliveries. The primary exposure was induction using prostaglandins (prostaglandin E1 or prostaglandin E2) compared with other methods. The primary outcome was a composite of adverse neonatal outcomes. The secondary outcomes included all cesarean deliveries and cesarean deliveries for nonreassuring fetal heart tracings. A subgroup analysis comparing the type of prostaglandin was planned a priori. The results are expressed as adjusted odds ratios with 95% confidence intervals.
RESULTS: Of 756 (0.3%) inductions, 212 (28%) used prostaglandins (108 prostaglandin E1, 94 prostaglandin E2), and 553 (72%) used nonprostaglandin methods, including oxytocin (348, 63%), amniotomy (211, 38%), and/or mechanical dilation (9, 1%). There were no differences in the composite of adverse neonatal outcomes between the prostaglandin (10.4%) and the nonprostaglandin group (6.7%), adjusted odds ratio, 1.39 (0.64-3.03). The rate of cesarean delivery was higher in the inductions that received prostaglandins than those that did not (25.5% vs 14.8%, adjusted odds ratio, 1.80; 1.07-3.02). The rate of cesarean delivery for nonreassuring fetal heart tracings was higher for those that received prostaglandins than those that did not (16.0% vs 8.7%, adjusted odds ratio, 2.37; 1.28-4.41). When prostaglandin E1 and prostaglandin E2 were examined independently, there were similar increases in the composite of adverse neonatal outcomes and cesarean delivery rates for both prostaglandin E1 and prostaglandin E2 compared with nonprostaglandin controls.
CONCLUSION: There were no differences in the composite of adverse neonatal outcomes when prostaglandins were used for induction in pregnancies with fetal growth restriction compared with other methods. However, there was a higher rate of cesarean delivery and cesarean delivery indicated for nonreassuring fetal heart tracings when prostaglandins (both prostaglandin E1 and prostaglandin E2) were used, compared with nonprostaglandin methods.