Vaginal assessment and expedited amniotomy in oral misoprostol labor induction in nulliparas: a randomized trial
Labor is induced in 20−30% of maternities, with an increasing trend of use. Labor induction with oral misoprostol is associated with reduced risk of cesarean deliveries and has a safety and effectiveness profile comparable to those of mechanical methods such as Foley catheter use. Labor induction in...
Gespeichert in:
Veröffentlicht in: | American journal of obstetrics and gynecology 2019-04, Vol.220 (4), p.387.e1-387.e12 |
---|---|
Hauptverfasser: | , , , , , |
Format: | Artikel |
Sprache: | eng |
Schlagworte: | |
Online-Zugang: | Volltext |
Tags: |
Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
|
container_end_page | 387.e12 |
---|---|
container_issue | 4 |
container_start_page | 387.e1 |
container_title | American journal of obstetrics and gynecology |
container_volume | 220 |
creator | Win, Sandar Tin Tan, Peng Chiong Balchin, Imelda Khong, Su Yen Si Lay, Khaing Omar, Siti Zawiah |
description | Labor is induced in 20−30% of maternities, with an increasing trend of use. Labor induction with oral misoprostol is associated with reduced risk of cesarean deliveries and has a safety and effectiveness profile comparable to those of mechanical methods such as Foley catheter use. Labor induction in nulliparous women continues to be challenging, with the process often quite protracted. The eventual cesarean delivery rate is high, particularly when the cervix is unfavorable and ripening is required. Vaginal examination can cause discomfort and emotional distress particularly to nulliparous women, and plausibly can affect patient satisfaction with the induction and birth process.
The aim of this study was to evaluate regular (4-hourly prior to each oral misoprostol dose with amniotomy when feasible) compared with restricted (only if indicated) vaginal assessments during labor induction with oral misoprostol in term nulliparous women
We performed a randomized trial between November 2016 and September 2017 in a university hospital in Malaysia. Our oral misoprostol labor induction regimen comprised 50 μg of misoprostol administered 4 hourly for up to 3 doses in the first 24 hours. Participants assigned to regular assessment had vaginal examinations before each 4-hourly misoprostol dose with a view to amniotomy as soon as it was feasible. Participants in the restricted arm had vaginal examinations only if indicated. Primary outcomes were patient satisfaction with the birth process (using an 11-point visual numerical rating scale), induction to vaginal delivery interval, and vaginal delivery rate at 24 hours.
Data from 204 participants (101 regular, 103 restricted) were analyzed. The patient satisfaction score with the birth process was as follows (median [interquartile range]): 7 [6−9] vs 8 [6−10], P = .15. The interval of induction to vaginal delivery (mean ± standard deviation) was 24.3 ± 12.8 vs 31.1 ± 15.0 hours (P = .013). The vaginal delivery rate at 24 hours was 27.7% vs 20.4%; (relative risk [RR], 1.4; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.8−2.3; P = .14) for the regular vs restricted arms, respectively. The cesarean delivery rate was 50% vs 43% (RR, 1.1; 95% CI, 0.9−1.5; P = .36). When assessed after delivery, participants’ fidelity to their assigned vaginal examination schedule in a future labor induction was 45% vs 88% (RR, 0.5; 95% CI, 0.4−0.7; P < .001), and they would recommend their assigned schedule to a friend (47% vs 87%; RR, 0.6; 95% CI, 0.5−0.7; P |
doi_str_mv | 10.1016/j.ajog.2019.01.004 |
format | Article |
fullrecord | <record><control><sourceid>proquest_cross</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_2179357843</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><els_id>S0002937819300067</els_id><sourcerecordid>2179357843</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c356t-1b344ced8e789568ac5f9133811004b3d50bc8a22fd64a7b7d02318dc34a9bbf3</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNp9kE1OHDEQha0oURggF8gi6mU23finf2zEJkIkICGxCWytatuNPHLbE9sdAaeZs8zJ8GhIlqzKJb_69N5D6CvBDcGkP1s3sA6PDcVENJg0GLcf0IpgMdQ97_lHtMIY01qwgR-h45TW-5UK-hkdMdwzJsiwQukBHq0HV0FKJqXZ-FyB15V52hhts9EVzN6GHObnyvrdNkRwu-1sU9jEkHJwlYMxxPKnF5Vt8OVV-cU5u4EI6byC3TYWYJjtS4HlaMGdok8TuGS-vM0TdP_z6vfldX179-vm8sdtrVjX55qMrG2V0dwMXHQ9B9VNgjDGCSlRR6Y7PCoOlE66b2EYB40pI1wr1oIYx4mdoO8HbrH6ZzEpy-JbGefAm7AkSckgWDfwlhUpPUhVSZWimeQm2hnisyRY7suWa7kvW-7LlpjI4qAcfXvjL-Ns9P-Tf-0WwcVBYErKv9ZEmZQ1vmSy0agsdbDv8V8Bc06VMA</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Aggregation Database</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>2179357843</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>Vaginal assessment and expedited amniotomy in oral misoprostol labor induction in nulliparas: a randomized trial</title><source>MEDLINE</source><source>Access via ScienceDirect (Elsevier)</source><creator>Win, Sandar Tin ; Tan, Peng Chiong ; Balchin, Imelda ; Khong, Su Yen ; Si Lay, Khaing ; Omar, Siti Zawiah</creator><creatorcontrib>Win, Sandar Tin ; Tan, Peng Chiong ; Balchin, Imelda ; Khong, Su Yen ; Si Lay, Khaing ; Omar, Siti Zawiah</creatorcontrib><description>Labor is induced in 20−30% of maternities, with an increasing trend of use. Labor induction with oral misoprostol is associated with reduced risk of cesarean deliveries and has a safety and effectiveness profile comparable to those of mechanical methods such as Foley catheter use. Labor induction in nulliparous women continues to be challenging, with the process often quite protracted. The eventual cesarean delivery rate is high, particularly when the cervix is unfavorable and ripening is required. Vaginal examination can cause discomfort and emotional distress particularly to nulliparous women, and plausibly can affect patient satisfaction with the induction and birth process.
The aim of this study was to evaluate regular (4-hourly prior to each oral misoprostol dose with amniotomy when feasible) compared with restricted (only if indicated) vaginal assessments during labor induction with oral misoprostol in term nulliparous women
We performed a randomized trial between November 2016 and September 2017 in a university hospital in Malaysia. Our oral misoprostol labor induction regimen comprised 50 μg of misoprostol administered 4 hourly for up to 3 doses in the first 24 hours. Participants assigned to regular assessment had vaginal examinations before each 4-hourly misoprostol dose with a view to amniotomy as soon as it was feasible. Participants in the restricted arm had vaginal examinations only if indicated. Primary outcomes were patient satisfaction with the birth process (using an 11-point visual numerical rating scale), induction to vaginal delivery interval, and vaginal delivery rate at 24 hours.
Data from 204 participants (101 regular, 103 restricted) were analyzed. The patient satisfaction score with the birth process was as follows (median [interquartile range]): 7 [6−9] vs 8 [6−10], P = .15. The interval of induction to vaginal delivery (mean ± standard deviation) was 24.3 ± 12.8 vs 31.1 ± 15.0 hours (P = .013). The vaginal delivery rate at 24 hours was 27.7% vs 20.4%; (relative risk [RR], 1.4; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.8−2.3; P = .14) for the regular vs restricted arms, respectively. The cesarean delivery rate was 50% vs 43% (RR, 1.1; 95% CI, 0.9−1.5; P = .36). When assessed after delivery, participants’ fidelity to their assigned vaginal examination schedule in a future labor induction was 45% vs 88% (RR, 0.5; 95% CI, 0.4−0.7; P < .001), and they would recommend their assigned schedule to a friend (47% vs 87%; RR, 0.6; 95% CI, 0.5−0.7; P < .001) in the regular compared with the restricted arms, respectively.
Despite a shorter induction to vaginal delivery interval with regular vaginal examination and a similar vaginal delivery rate at 24 hours and birth process satisfaction score, women expressed a higher preference for the restricted examination schedule and were more likely to recommend such a schedule to a friend.</description><identifier>ISSN: 0002-9378</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1097-6868</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1016/j.ajog.2019.01.004</identifier><identifier>PMID: 30633917</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>United States: Elsevier Inc</publisher><subject>Administration, Oral ; Adult ; Amniotomy - methods ; cesarean delivery ; early amniotomy ; Female ; Gynecological Examination - methods ; Humans ; induction to delivery interval ; labor induction ; Labor, Induced - methods ; Misoprostol ; nulliparas ; oral misoprostol ; Oxytocics ; Parity ; Patient Satisfaction ; Time Factors ; vaginal examination</subject><ispartof>American journal of obstetrics and gynecology, 2019-04, Vol.220 (4), p.387.e1-387.e12</ispartof><rights>2019 Elsevier Inc.</rights><rights>Copyright © 2019 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-c356t-1b344ced8e789568ac5f9133811004b3d50bc8a22fd64a7b7d02318dc34a9bbf3</citedby><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-c356t-1b344ced8e789568ac5f9133811004b3d50bc8a22fd64a7b7d02318dc34a9bbf3</cites></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><linktohtml>$$Uhttps://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ajog.2019.01.004$$EHTML$$P50$$Gelsevier$$H</linktohtml><link.rule.ids>314,780,784,3550,27924,27925,45995</link.rule.ids><backlink>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/30633917$$D View this record in MEDLINE/PubMed$$Hfree_for_read</backlink></links><search><creatorcontrib>Win, Sandar Tin</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Tan, Peng Chiong</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Balchin, Imelda</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Khong, Su Yen</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Si Lay, Khaing</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Omar, Siti Zawiah</creatorcontrib><title>Vaginal assessment and expedited amniotomy in oral misoprostol labor induction in nulliparas: a randomized trial</title><title>American journal of obstetrics and gynecology</title><addtitle>Am J Obstet Gynecol</addtitle><description>Labor is induced in 20−30% of maternities, with an increasing trend of use. Labor induction with oral misoprostol is associated with reduced risk of cesarean deliveries and has a safety and effectiveness profile comparable to those of mechanical methods such as Foley catheter use. Labor induction in nulliparous women continues to be challenging, with the process often quite protracted. The eventual cesarean delivery rate is high, particularly when the cervix is unfavorable and ripening is required. Vaginal examination can cause discomfort and emotional distress particularly to nulliparous women, and plausibly can affect patient satisfaction with the induction and birth process.
The aim of this study was to evaluate regular (4-hourly prior to each oral misoprostol dose with amniotomy when feasible) compared with restricted (only if indicated) vaginal assessments during labor induction with oral misoprostol in term nulliparous women
We performed a randomized trial between November 2016 and September 2017 in a university hospital in Malaysia. Our oral misoprostol labor induction regimen comprised 50 μg of misoprostol administered 4 hourly for up to 3 doses in the first 24 hours. Participants assigned to regular assessment had vaginal examinations before each 4-hourly misoprostol dose with a view to amniotomy as soon as it was feasible. Participants in the restricted arm had vaginal examinations only if indicated. Primary outcomes were patient satisfaction with the birth process (using an 11-point visual numerical rating scale), induction to vaginal delivery interval, and vaginal delivery rate at 24 hours.
Data from 204 participants (101 regular, 103 restricted) were analyzed. The patient satisfaction score with the birth process was as follows (median [interquartile range]): 7 [6−9] vs 8 [6−10], P = .15. The interval of induction to vaginal delivery (mean ± standard deviation) was 24.3 ± 12.8 vs 31.1 ± 15.0 hours (P = .013). The vaginal delivery rate at 24 hours was 27.7% vs 20.4%; (relative risk [RR], 1.4; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.8−2.3; P = .14) for the regular vs restricted arms, respectively. The cesarean delivery rate was 50% vs 43% (RR, 1.1; 95% CI, 0.9−1.5; P = .36). When assessed after delivery, participants’ fidelity to their assigned vaginal examination schedule in a future labor induction was 45% vs 88% (RR, 0.5; 95% CI, 0.4−0.7; P < .001), and they would recommend their assigned schedule to a friend (47% vs 87%; RR, 0.6; 95% CI, 0.5−0.7; P < .001) in the regular compared with the restricted arms, respectively.
Despite a shorter induction to vaginal delivery interval with regular vaginal examination and a similar vaginal delivery rate at 24 hours and birth process satisfaction score, women expressed a higher preference for the restricted examination schedule and were more likely to recommend such a schedule to a friend.</description><subject>Administration, Oral</subject><subject>Adult</subject><subject>Amniotomy - methods</subject><subject>cesarean delivery</subject><subject>early amniotomy</subject><subject>Female</subject><subject>Gynecological Examination - methods</subject><subject>Humans</subject><subject>induction to delivery interval</subject><subject>labor induction</subject><subject>Labor, Induced - methods</subject><subject>Misoprostol</subject><subject>nulliparas</subject><subject>oral misoprostol</subject><subject>Oxytocics</subject><subject>Parity</subject><subject>Patient Satisfaction</subject><subject>Time Factors</subject><subject>vaginal examination</subject><issn>0002-9378</issn><issn>1097-6868</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2019</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><sourceid>EIF</sourceid><recordid>eNp9kE1OHDEQha0oURggF8gi6mU23finf2zEJkIkICGxCWytatuNPHLbE9sdAaeZs8zJ8GhIlqzKJb_69N5D6CvBDcGkP1s3sA6PDcVENJg0GLcf0IpgMdQ97_lHtMIY01qwgR-h45TW-5UK-hkdMdwzJsiwQukBHq0HV0FKJqXZ-FyB15V52hhts9EVzN6GHObnyvrdNkRwu-1sU9jEkHJwlYMxxPKnF5Vt8OVV-cU5u4EI6byC3TYWYJjtS4HlaMGdok8TuGS-vM0TdP_z6vfldX179-vm8sdtrVjX55qMrG2V0dwMXHQ9B9VNgjDGCSlRR6Y7PCoOlE66b2EYB40pI1wr1oIYx4mdoO8HbrH6ZzEpy-JbGefAm7AkSckgWDfwlhUpPUhVSZWimeQm2hnisyRY7suWa7kvW-7LlpjI4qAcfXvjL-Ns9P-Tf-0WwcVBYErKv9ZEmZQ1vmSy0agsdbDv8V8Bc06VMA</recordid><startdate>201904</startdate><enddate>201904</enddate><creator>Win, Sandar Tin</creator><creator>Tan, Peng Chiong</creator><creator>Balchin, Imelda</creator><creator>Khong, Su Yen</creator><creator>Si Lay, Khaing</creator><creator>Omar, Siti Zawiah</creator><general>Elsevier Inc</general><scope>CGR</scope><scope>CUY</scope><scope>CVF</scope><scope>ECM</scope><scope>EIF</scope><scope>NPM</scope><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>7X8</scope></search><sort><creationdate>201904</creationdate><title>Vaginal assessment and expedited amniotomy in oral misoprostol labor induction in nulliparas: a randomized trial</title><author>Win, Sandar Tin ; Tan, Peng Chiong ; Balchin, Imelda ; Khong, Su Yen ; Si Lay, Khaing ; Omar, Siti Zawiah</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c356t-1b344ced8e789568ac5f9133811004b3d50bc8a22fd64a7b7d02318dc34a9bbf3</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2019</creationdate><topic>Administration, Oral</topic><topic>Adult</topic><topic>Amniotomy - methods</topic><topic>cesarean delivery</topic><topic>early amniotomy</topic><topic>Female</topic><topic>Gynecological Examination - methods</topic><topic>Humans</topic><topic>induction to delivery interval</topic><topic>labor induction</topic><topic>Labor, Induced - methods</topic><topic>Misoprostol</topic><topic>nulliparas</topic><topic>oral misoprostol</topic><topic>Oxytocics</topic><topic>Parity</topic><topic>Patient Satisfaction</topic><topic>Time Factors</topic><topic>vaginal examination</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Win, Sandar Tin</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Tan, Peng Chiong</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Balchin, Imelda</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Khong, Su Yen</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Si Lay, Khaing</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Omar, Siti Zawiah</creatorcontrib><collection>Medline</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE (Ovid)</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>PubMed</collection><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>MEDLINE - Academic</collection><jtitle>American journal of obstetrics and gynecology</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Win, Sandar Tin</au><au>Tan, Peng Chiong</au><au>Balchin, Imelda</au><au>Khong, Su Yen</au><au>Si Lay, Khaing</au><au>Omar, Siti Zawiah</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>Vaginal assessment and expedited amniotomy in oral misoprostol labor induction in nulliparas: a randomized trial</atitle><jtitle>American journal of obstetrics and gynecology</jtitle><addtitle>Am J Obstet Gynecol</addtitle><date>2019-04</date><risdate>2019</risdate><volume>220</volume><issue>4</issue><spage>387.e1</spage><epage>387.e12</epage><pages>387.e1-387.e12</pages><issn>0002-9378</issn><eissn>1097-6868</eissn><abstract>Labor is induced in 20−30% of maternities, with an increasing trend of use. Labor induction with oral misoprostol is associated with reduced risk of cesarean deliveries and has a safety and effectiveness profile comparable to those of mechanical methods such as Foley catheter use. Labor induction in nulliparous women continues to be challenging, with the process often quite protracted. The eventual cesarean delivery rate is high, particularly when the cervix is unfavorable and ripening is required. Vaginal examination can cause discomfort and emotional distress particularly to nulliparous women, and plausibly can affect patient satisfaction with the induction and birth process.
The aim of this study was to evaluate regular (4-hourly prior to each oral misoprostol dose with amniotomy when feasible) compared with restricted (only if indicated) vaginal assessments during labor induction with oral misoprostol in term nulliparous women
We performed a randomized trial between November 2016 and September 2017 in a university hospital in Malaysia. Our oral misoprostol labor induction regimen comprised 50 μg of misoprostol administered 4 hourly for up to 3 doses in the first 24 hours. Participants assigned to regular assessment had vaginal examinations before each 4-hourly misoprostol dose with a view to amniotomy as soon as it was feasible. Participants in the restricted arm had vaginal examinations only if indicated. Primary outcomes were patient satisfaction with the birth process (using an 11-point visual numerical rating scale), induction to vaginal delivery interval, and vaginal delivery rate at 24 hours.
Data from 204 participants (101 regular, 103 restricted) were analyzed. The patient satisfaction score with the birth process was as follows (median [interquartile range]): 7 [6−9] vs 8 [6−10], P = .15. The interval of induction to vaginal delivery (mean ± standard deviation) was 24.3 ± 12.8 vs 31.1 ± 15.0 hours (P = .013). The vaginal delivery rate at 24 hours was 27.7% vs 20.4%; (relative risk [RR], 1.4; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.8−2.3; P = .14) for the regular vs restricted arms, respectively. The cesarean delivery rate was 50% vs 43% (RR, 1.1; 95% CI, 0.9−1.5; P = .36). When assessed after delivery, participants’ fidelity to their assigned vaginal examination schedule in a future labor induction was 45% vs 88% (RR, 0.5; 95% CI, 0.4−0.7; P < .001), and they would recommend their assigned schedule to a friend (47% vs 87%; RR, 0.6; 95% CI, 0.5−0.7; P < .001) in the regular compared with the restricted arms, respectively.
Despite a shorter induction to vaginal delivery interval with regular vaginal examination and a similar vaginal delivery rate at 24 hours and birth process satisfaction score, women expressed a higher preference for the restricted examination schedule and were more likely to recommend such a schedule to a friend.</abstract><cop>United States</cop><pub>Elsevier Inc</pub><pmid>30633917</pmid><doi>10.1016/j.ajog.2019.01.004</doi></addata></record> |
fulltext | fulltext |
identifier | ISSN: 0002-9378 |
ispartof | American journal of obstetrics and gynecology, 2019-04, Vol.220 (4), p.387.e1-387.e12 |
issn | 0002-9378 1097-6868 |
language | eng |
recordid | cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_2179357843 |
source | MEDLINE; Access via ScienceDirect (Elsevier) |
subjects | Administration, Oral Adult Amniotomy - methods cesarean delivery early amniotomy Female Gynecological Examination - methods Humans induction to delivery interval labor induction Labor, Induced - methods Misoprostol nulliparas oral misoprostol Oxytocics Parity Patient Satisfaction Time Factors vaginal examination |
title | Vaginal assessment and expedited amniotomy in oral misoprostol labor induction in nulliparas: a randomized trial |
url | https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2024-12-21T11%3A19%3A21IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-proquest_cross&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Vaginal%20assessment%20and%20expedited%20amniotomy%20in%C2%A0oral%C2%A0misoprostol%20labor%20induction%20in%20nulliparas:%20a%C2%A0randomized%20trial&rft.jtitle=American%20journal%20of%20obstetrics%20and%20gynecology&rft.au=Win,%20Sandar%20Tin&rft.date=2019-04&rft.volume=220&rft.issue=4&rft.spage=387.e1&rft.epage=387.e12&rft.pages=387.e1-387.e12&rft.issn=0002-9378&rft.eissn=1097-6868&rft_id=info:doi/10.1016/j.ajog.2019.01.004&rft_dat=%3Cproquest_cross%3E2179357843%3C/proquest_cross%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=2179357843&rft_id=info:pmid/30633917&rft_els_id=S0002937819300067&rfr_iscdi=true |