OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to compare birth outcomes that result from the active management of risk in pregnancy at term (AMOR-IPAT) to those outcomes that result from standard management. STUDY DESIGN: This was a randomized clinical trial with 270 women of mixed parity. AMOR-IPAT used preventive labor induction to ensure delivery before the end of an estimated optimal time of delivery. Rates of 4 adverse obstetric events and 2 composite measures were used to evaluate birth outcomes. RESULTS: The AMOR-IPAT-exposed group had a similar cesarean delivery rate (10.3% vs 14.9%; P = .25), but a lower neonatal intensive care unit admission rate (1.5% vs 6.7%; P = .03), a higher uncomplicated vaginal birth rate (73.5% vs 62.8%; P = .046), and a lower mean Adverse Outcome Index score (1.4 vs 8.6; P = .03). CONCLUSION: AMOR-IPAT exposure improved the pattern of birth outcomes. Larger randomized clinical trials are needed to explore further the impact of AMOR-IPAT on birth outcomes and to determine the best methods of preventive labor induction.
RCT Entities:
OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to compare birth outcomes that result from the active management of risk in pregnancy at term (AMOR-IPAT) to those outcomes that result from standard management. STUDY DESIGN: This was a randomized clinical trial with 270 women of mixed parity. AMOR-IPAT used preventive labor induction to ensure delivery before the end of an estimated optimal time of delivery. Rates of 4 adverse obstetric events and 2 composite measures were used to evaluate birth outcomes. RESULTS: The AMOR-IPAT-exposed group had a similar cesarean delivery rate (10.3% vs 14.9%; P = .25), but a lower neonatal intensive care unit admission rate (1.5% vs 6.7%; P = .03), a higher uncomplicated vaginal birth rate (73.5% vs 62.8%; P = .046), and a lower mean Adverse Outcome Index score (1.4 vs 8.6; P = .03). CONCLUSION: AMOR-IPAT exposure improved the pattern of birth outcomes. Larger randomized clinical trials are needed to explore further the impact of AMOR-IPAT on birth outcomes and to determine the best methods of preventive labor induction.
Authors: Joyce A Martin; Brady E Hamilton; Paul D Sutton; Stephanie J Ventura; Fay Menacker; Sharon Kirmeyer; Martha L Munson Journal: Natl Vital Stat Rep Date: 2007-12-05
Authors: Alan Thevenet N Tita; Yinglei Lai; Steven L Bloom; Catherine Y Spong; Michael W Varner; Susan M Ramin; Steve N Caritis; William A Grobman; Yoram Sorokin; Anthony Sciscione; Marshall W Carpenter; Brian M Mercer; John M Thorp; Fergal D Malone; Margaret Harper; Jay D Iams Journal: Am J Obstet Gynecol Date: 2011-12-16 Impact factor: 8.661
Authors: Jun Zhang; James Troendle; Uma M Reddy; S Katherine Laughon; D Ware Branch; Ronald Burkman; Helain J Landy; Judith U Hibbard; Shoshana Haberman; Mildred M Ramirez; Jennifer L Bailit; Matthew K Hoffman; Kimberly D Gregory; Victor H Gonzalez-Quintero; Michelle Kominiarek; Lee A Learman; Christos G Hatjis; Paul van Veldhuisen Journal: Am J Obstet Gynecol Date: 2010-08-12 Impact factor: 8.661
Authors: James M Nicholson; Peter Cronholm; Lisa C Kellar; Morghan H Stenson; George A Macones Journal: J Womens Health (Larchmt) Date: 2009-11 Impact factor: 2.681
Authors: James M Nicholson; Morghan H Stenson; Lisa C Kellar; Aaron B Caughey; George A Macones Journal: Am J Obstet Gynecol Date: 2009-01-24 Impact factor: 8.661
Authors: Kate F Walker; George Bugg; Marion Macpherson; Carol McCormick; Chris Wildsmith; Gordon Smith; Jim Thornton Journal: BMC Pregnancy Childbirth Date: 2012-12-11 Impact factor: 3.007
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