OBJECTIVE: To test the hypothesis that in pregnancies with a clinically suspected growth restricted foetus at term, induction of labour is as safe as expectant management, and does not lead to increased obstetrical interventions or perinatal morbidity. STUDY DESIGN: In one obstetric centre, 33 women with a clinically suspected growth restricted foetus at term were randomly allocated after stratification for parity to either induction or to expectant management. Obstetric and neonatal outcome variables were compared. RESULTS: There was a lower gestational age at labour (median 38(0) weeks versus 40(1) weeks) with a corresponding tendency to lower birth weight (mean 2428 g versus 2651 g), and a reduced need for ante partum medical surveillance, in the induction group. No significant differences in obstetrical interventions (25% versus 24%) and neonatal morbidity rates (50% versus 35%) were found. CONCLUSION: A larger multicenter study with a sufficient power and long-term follow-up to decide the best policy for the term growth restricted foetus is feasible.
RCT Entities:
OBJECTIVE: To test the hypothesis that in pregnancies with a clinically suspected growth restricted foetus at term, induction of labour is as safe as expectant management, and does not lead to increased obstetrical interventions or perinatal morbidity. STUDY DESIGN: In one obstetric centre, 33 women with a clinically suspected growth restricted foetus at term were randomly allocated after stratification for parity to either induction or to expectant management. Obstetric and neonatal outcome variables were compared. RESULTS: There was a lower gestational age at labour (median 38(0) weeks versus 40(1) weeks) with a corresponding tendency to lower birth weight (mean 2428 g versus 2651 g), and a reduced need for ante partum medical surveillance, in the induction group. No significant differences in obstetrical interventions (25% versus 24%) and neonatal morbidity rates (50% versus 35%) were found. CONCLUSION: A larger multicenter study with a sufficient power and long-term follow-up to decide the best policy for the term growth restricted foetus is feasible.
Authors: K E Boers; S M C Vijgen; D Bijlenga; J A M van der Post; D J Bekedam; A Kwee; P C M van der Salm; M G van Pampus; M E A Spaanderman; K de Boer; J J Duvekot; H A Bremer; T H M Hasaart; F M C Delemarre; K W M Bloemenkamp; C A van Meir; C Willekes; E J Wijnen; M Rijken; S le Cessie; F J M E Roumen; J G Thornton; J M M van Lith; B W J Mol; S A Scherjon Journal: BMJ Date: 2010-12-21
Authors: Diana M Bond; Adrienne Gordon; Jon Hyett; Bradley de Vries; Angela E Carberry; Jonathan Morris Journal: Cochrane Database Syst Rev Date: 2015-11-24
Authors: Kim E Boers; Denise Bijlenga; Ben W J Mol; Saskia LeCessie; Erwin Birnie; Marielle G van Pampus; Rob H Stigter; Kitty W M Bloemenkamp; Claudia A van Meir; Joris A M van der Post; Dick J Bekedam; Lucy S M Ribbert; Addie P Drogtrop; Paulien C M van der Salm; Anjoke J M Huisjes; Christine Willekes; Frans J M E Roumen; Hubertina C J Scheepers; Karin de Boer; Johannes J Duvekot; Jim G Thornton; Sicco A Scherjon Journal: BMC Pregnancy Childbirth Date: 2007-07-10 Impact factor: 3.007