Marieke D.T. de Vaan
The influence of various induction methods on adverse outcomes in small for gestational age neonates: A secondary analysis of the PROBAAT 1 and 2 trials
de Vaan, Marieke D.T.; Croll, Dorothée M.R.; Verhoeven, Corine J.M.; de Boer, Marjon A.; Jozwiak, Marta; ten Eikelder, Mieke L.G.; Mol, Ben Willem; Bloemenkamp, Kitty W.M.; de Heus, Roel
Authors
Dorothée M.R. Croll
CORINE VERHOEVEN C.Verhoeven@nottingham.ac.uk
Professor of Midwifery
Marjon A. de Boer
Marta Jozwiak
Mieke L.G. ten Eikelder
Ben Willem Mol
Kitty W.M. Bloemenkamp
Roel de Heus
Abstract
Objective: To evaluate the safety aspects of different induction methods in pregnancies with small-for-gestational-age neonates. Study design: This was a secondary analysis of two previously reported multicenter, randomized controlled trials conducted in the Netherlands. In the original trials, women were randomized to either a 30 cc Foley catheter, vaginal prostaglandin E2 (PROBAAT-1) or oral misoprostol (PROBAAT-2). A total of 425 patients with a term, singleton pregnancy in cephalic presentation with an indication for labor induction and a small-for-gestational-age neonate were included in this secondary analysis. Our primary outcome was a composed adverse neonatal outcome of Apgar score < 7 after 5 min and/or a pH in the umbilical artery < 7.05 and/or NICU admission. Secondary outcomes were mode of birth, operative birth for fetal distress and pH < 7.10 in the umbilical artery. For these outcome measures, multivariate as well as bivariate analyses were performed. Results: An adverse neonatal outcome occurred in 4.7 % (10/214) induction with a Foley catheter, versus 12.8 % (19/149) after misoprostol (RR 0.36; 95 % CI 0.17–0.76) and 4.7 % (3/64) after Prostaglandin E2 (RR 0.98; 95 %CI 0.28–3.51). For individual components of the composed outcome of adverse events, a difference was found between a Foley catheter and misoprostol for Apgar score < 7 at 5 min (0.5 % versus 3.4; RR 0.14; 95 %CI 0.02–1.16) and NICU admission (1.9 % versus 6.1 %; RR 0.31; 0.10–0.97). No differences were found for mode of birth. Conclusions: For women who gave birth to a small-for-gestational-age neonate, a Foley catheter is probably a safer induction method compared to oral misoprostol.
Journal Article Type | Article |
---|---|
Acceptance Date | Jan 3, 2023 |
Online Publication Date | Jan 5, 2023 |
Publication Date | 2023-03 |
Deposit Date | Jun 8, 2023 |
Publicly Available Date | Jun 8, 2023 |
Journal | European Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology and Reproductive Biology |
Print ISSN | 0301-2115 |
Electronic ISSN | 1872-7654 |
Publisher | Elsevier BV |
Peer Reviewed | Peer Reviewed |
Volume | 282 |
Pages | 89-93 |
DOI | https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejogrb.2023.01.003 |
Keywords | Prostaglandin, Foley catheter, Balloon, Cervical ripening, Induction of labor, SGA, PGE1, Misoprostol, FGR, PGE2 |
Public URL | https://nottingham-repository.worktribe.com/output/17372818 |
Publisher URL | https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0301211523000039?via%3Dihub |
Additional Information | This article is maintained by: Elsevier; Article Title: The influence of various induction methods on adverse outcomes in small for gestational age neonates: A secondary analysis of the PROBAAT 1 and 2 trials; Journal Title: European Journal of Obstetrics & Gynecology and Reproductive Biology; CrossRef DOI link to publisher maintained version: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejogrb.2023.01.003; Content Type: article; Copyright: © 2023 The Authors. Published by Elsevier B.V. |
Files
The influence of various induction methods on adverse outcomes in small for gestational age neonates: A secondary analysis of the PROBAAT 1 and 2 trials
(457 Kb)
PDF
Publisher Licence URL
https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
You might also like
The need for appropriate language in the debate on medicalisation of pregnancy
(2023)
Journal Article
Downloadable Citations
About Repository@Nottingham
Administrator e-mail: discovery-access-systems@nottingham.ac.uk
This application uses the following open-source libraries:
SheetJS Community Edition
Apache License Version 2.0 (http://www.apache.org/licenses/)
PDF.js
Apache License Version 2.0 (http://www.apache.org/licenses/)
Font Awesome
SIL OFL 1.1 (http://scripts.sil.org/OFL)
MIT License (http://opensource.org/licenses/mit-license.html)
CC BY 3.0 ( http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/)
Powered by Worktribe © 2024
Advanced Search