Base de datos - (CIANE)

Presentación de esta base de datos documental (Sitio web de CIANE)
Actualmente 3109 registros
➡ Canal de YouTube (tutorial)

https://ciane.net/id=3097

Creado el : 13 Oct 2019
Alterado em : 23 Oct 2019

➡ Editar este registro
¡Sólo siga este enlace si tiene una contraseña de editor!

Ficha bibliográfica (sin autores) :

Comparison of effectiveness and safety of cervical ripening methods for induction of labour: A population‐based study using coarsened exact matching

Autores :

Pauline Blanc‐Petitjean, Bruno Carbonne, Catherine Deneux‐Tharaux, Marina Salomé, François Goffinet, Camille Le Ray

Año de publicación :

2019

URL(s) :

https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1111/pp…
https://doi.org/10.1111/ppe.12569

Résumé (français)  :

Abstract (English)  :

Background
There is no consensus about the ideal cervical ripening method to use for induction of labour.

Objective
To compare in current practice the effectiveness and safety of four cervical ripening methods.

Methods
We performed a matched comparative study using data from the MEDIP prospective population‐based cohort conducted during one month in 2015 in all maternity units of seven French perinatal networks (3042 consecutive women with a live fetus and induction of labour). We analysed 1671 women with singleton cephalic fetus, unscarred uterus, and bishop score <7. Dinoprostone vaginal pessary (reference) was compared to dinoprostone vaginal gel, misoprostol vaginal tablet, and balloon catheter. Effectiveness outcomes were the need for more than one induction agent, oxytocin use, failure to achieve vaginal delivery within 24 hours (VD < 24 hours), and caesarean delivery. Safety outcomes were meconium‐stained amniotic fluid, uterine hyperstimulation, NICU admission, and post‐partum haemorrhage. Coarsened exact matching was used to balance confounders among the groups. Outcomes were compared using multivariable logistic regression models.

Results
Compared to the dinoprostone pessary (N = 1142, 68.3%), dinoprostone gel (N = 335, 20.1%) was associated with less failure to achieve VD < 24 hours (adjusted OR 0.66, 95% CI 0.47, 0.91). Misoprostol (N = 103, 6.2%) was associated with less need of more than one induction agent (aOR 0.56, 95% CI 0.34, 0.92) and less oxytocin use (aOR 0.60, 95% CI 0.37, 0.99). The balloon catheter (N = 91, 5.4%) was associated with more failure to achieve VD < 24 hours (aOR 2.62, 95% CI 1.37, 5.01), more caesarean delivery (aOR 1.84, 95% CI 1.09, 3.08), and less meconium‐stained amniotic fluid (aOR 0.12, 95% CI 0.02, 0.70). Uterine hyperstimulation rates seemed lower with the balloon catheter (1.2% vs 4.2% for the pessary).

Conclusions
In current practice, no cervical ripening method appears clearly superior to the others considering all effectiveness and safety outcomes.

Sumário (português)  :

Resumen (español)  :

Texto completo (private) :

Comentarios :

Argument (français) :

Dans la pratique actuelle, aucune méthode de maturation cervicale ne semble nettement supérieure aux autres, compte tenu de tous les résultats d’efficacité et de sécurité.

Argument (English):

In current practice, no cervical ripening method appears clearly superior to the others considering all effectiveness and safety outcomes.

Argumento (português):

Na prática atual, nenhum método de amadurecimento cervical parece claramente superior aos outros, considerando todos os resultados de eficácia e segurança.

Argumento (español):

Palabras claves :

➡ inducción del parto ; maduración cervical

Autor de este registro :

Bernard Bel — 13 Oct 2019
➡ última modificación : Bernard Bel — 23 Oct 2019