Literature DB >> 12548322

A randomized controlled trial of outpatient versus inpatient labour induction with vaginal controlled-release prostaglandin-E2: effectiveness and satisfaction.

Sandra R D Biem1, Roger W Turnell, Olufemi Olatunbosun, Mangit Tauh, H Jay Biem.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Outpatient management in obstetrics is expanding, but evidence to support outpatient labour induction is needed.
OBJECTIVE: To compare the effectiveness, acceptability, duration of hospitalization, and safety of outpatient and inpatient induction of labour with intravaginal controlled-release prosta-glandin-E2 (CR-PGE2).
METHODS: A prospective, randomized, controlled trial enrolled 300 women at term with parity < or = 5 and singleton pregnancies in cephalic presentation. Each had an unscarred uterus, a normal non-stress test (NST), and a Bishop score of < or = 6. After insertion of the CR-PGE2, and 1 hour of monitoring, those in the outpatient group were discharged home, to return with onset of labour or 12 hours later for an NST. If not already in labour 24 hours later, the women returned for inpatient induction. Vaginal examination was not repeated before 24 hours unless the patient was contracting and required analgesia. Inpatients remained on the antepartum ward but were otherwise treated similarly. The women in both groups reported ratings of satisfaction, pain, and anxiety over the telephone until they were in labour.
RESULTS: There were 150 women randomized to outpatient and 150 women to inpatient induction of labour. The number of women who were in labour or who delivered by 24 hours in the outpatient group was 115 (0.77, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.70-0.84) and in the inpatient group was 107 (0.72, 95% CI 0.64-0.79). The median times to labour were 9.8 hours (95% CI, 8.1-11.4) and 11.4 hours (95% CI, 10.1-12.7), and to delivery were 21.4 hours (95% CI, 19.2-23.5) and 20.7 hours (95% CI, 18.4-23.0), for the outpatient and inpatient groups, respectively. In the outpatient group, 56% of women reported high satisfaction during the initial 12 hours of induction compared to 39% in the inpatient group (p < 0.008). Ratings of pain and anxiety during the first 12 hours of induction were similar. In the outpatient group, women were at home for a median of 8 hours (95% CI, 6.7-9.4) before labour and delivery. There were no significant differences in adverse outcomes.
CONCLUSIONS: This study suggests that outpatient induction of labour with intravaginal CR-PGE2 may be a reasonable option for selected low-risk women; however, further study is needed to confirm the safety of this approach.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2003        PMID: 12548322     DOI: 10.1016/s1701-2163(16)31079-9

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Obstet Gynaecol Can        ISSN: 1701-2163


  10 in total

1.  A Tribute to Nancy C. Chescheir, MD.

Authors:  Dwight J Rouse; Thomas W Riggs; John O Schorge
Journal:  Obstet Gynecol       Date:  2021-01-01       Impact factor: 7.661

Review 2.  Outpatient versus inpatient induction of labour for improving birth outcomes.

Authors:  Anthony J Kelly; Zarko Alfirevic; Therese Dowswell
Journal:  Cochrane Database Syst Rev       Date:  2009-04-15

3.  Foley catheter induction of labor as an outpatient procedure.

Authors:  H Kruit; O Heikinheimo; V-M Ulander; A Aitokallio-Tallberg; I Nupponen; J Paavonen; L Rahkonen
Journal:  J Perinatol       Date:  2016-04-14       Impact factor: 2.521

4.  Home labour induction with retrievable prostaglandin pessary and continuous telemetric trans-abdominal fetal ECG monitoring.

Authors:  Zubair Rauf; Ediri O'Brien; Tamara Stampalija; Florin P Ilioniu; Tina Lavender; Zarko Alfirevic
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2011-11-28       Impact factor: 3.240

5.  IMOP: randomised placebo controlled trial of outpatient cervical ripening with isosorbide mononitrate (IMN) prior to induction of labour - clinical trial with analyses of efficacy, cost effectiveness and acceptability.

Authors:  Shrikant Bollapragada; Fiona Mackenzie; John Norrie; Stavros Petrou; Margaret Reid; Ian Greer; Inass Osman; Jane E Norman
Journal:  BMC Pregnancy Childbirth       Date:  2006-07-25       Impact factor: 3.007

6.  Woman-Centred Induction of Labour (the WOCIL project).

Authors:  Sabrina O'Dwyer; Anna Clark; Hayley Taggart; Muna Noori
Journal:  BMJ Open Qual       Date:  2019-04-08

7.  Home versus inpatient induction of labour for improving birth outcomes.

Authors:  Zarko Alfirevic; Gillian Ml Gyte; Vicky Nogueira Pileggi; Rachel Plachcinski; Alfred O Osoti; Elaine M Finucane
Journal:  Cochrane Database Syst Rev       Date:  2020-08-27

8.  Improving induction of labour - a quality improvement project addressing Caesarean section rates and length of process in women undergoing induction of labour.

Authors:  Sabrina O'Dwyer; Caterina Raniolo; Janice Roper; Manish Gupta
Journal:  BMJ Qual Improv Rep       Date:  2015-09-09

9.  Women's preferences for inpatient and outpatient priming for labour induction: a discrete choice experiment.

Authors:  Kirsten Howard; Karen Gerard; Pamela Adelson; Robert Bryce; Chris Wilkinson; Deborah Turnbull
Journal:  BMC Health Serv Res       Date:  2014-07-30       Impact factor: 2.655

10.  Outpatient balloon catheter vs inpatient prostaglandin for induction of labour (OBLIGE): a randomised controlled trial.

Authors:  Michelle R Wise; Joy Marriott; Malcolm Battin; John M D Thompson; Michael Stitely; Lynn Sadler
Journal:  Trials       Date:  2020-02-17       Impact factor: 2.279

  10 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.