OBJECTIVE: To compare 12-hour and 72-hour expectant management of premature rupture of membranes (PROM) in singleton term pregnancies. METHODS: In a prospective, nonrandomized study, 566 low-risk women with singleton term pregnancies presenting with PROM were assigned to either 12-hour or 72-hour expectant management. Patients who had not entered labor at the end of the assigned period were induced with oxytocin. The pregnancy outcome of both methods was compared with regard to infectious complications and method of delivery. RESULTS: There was no statistical difference in the rate of chorioamnionitis between the 12-hour and 72-hour expectant management groups (11.7 versus 12.7%; relative risk [RR] 0.9, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.6-1.5; P = .83). Cesareans were performed to a similar degree in both groups (4.7 versus 6.7%; RR 0.7, 95% CI 0.3-1.4; P = .39). Fifty-five percent of the 12-hour group underwent oxytocin induction, compared with 17.5% of those in the 72-hour group (RR 5.8, 95% CI 3.9-8.5; P < .001). Women undergoing induction after 72-hour expectant management had an increased risk of cesarean delivery compared with those after a 12-hour wait (RR 5.9, 95% CI 2.3-15.1; P < .001). Overall, women in the 12-hour group had shorter admission-to-discharge times than the 72-hour group (5 versus 6 days, 95% CI of the difference 0.6-1.3; P < .01). CONCLUSION: Regimens of 12-hour and 72-hour expectant management of PROM are comparable regarding infectious complications and pregnancy outcome. However, the longer wait prolongs the interval to delivery and increases hospitalization costs.
OBJECTIVE: To compare 12-hour and 72-hour expectant management of premature rupture of membranes (PROM) in singleton term pregnancies. METHODS: In a prospective, nonrandomized study, 566 low-risk women with singleton term pregnancies presenting with PROM were assigned to either 12-hour or 72-hour expectant management. Patients who had not entered labor at the end of the assigned period were induced with oxytocin. The pregnancy outcome of both methods was compared with regard to infectious complications and method of delivery. RESULTS: There was no statistical difference in the rate of chorioamnionitis between the 12-hour and 72-hour expectant management groups (11.7 versus 12.7%; relative risk [RR] 0.9, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.6-1.5; P = .83). Cesareans were performed to a similar degree in both groups (4.7 versus 6.7%; RR 0.7, 95% CI 0.3-1.4; P = .39). Fifty-five percent of the 12-hour group underwent oxytocin induction, compared with 17.5% of those in the 72-hour group (RR 5.8, 95% CI 3.9-8.5; P < .001). Women undergoing induction after 72-hour expectant management had an increased risk of cesarean delivery compared with those after a 12-hour wait (RR 5.9, 95% CI 2.3-15.1; P < .001). Overall, women in the 12-hour group had shorter admission-to-discharge times than the 72-hour group (5 versus 6 days, 95% CI of the difference 0.6-1.3; P < .01). CONCLUSION: Regimens of 12-hour and 72-hour expectant management of PROM are comparable regarding infectious complications and pregnancy outcome. However, the longer wait prolongs the interval to delivery and increases hospitalization costs.