Choisissez votre fonte :
 Arimo
 Merriweather
 Mukta Malar
 Open Sans Condensed
 Rokkitt
 Source Sans Pro
 Se connecter


 Français 
 English 
 Português 

[Valid RSS] RSS
bar

Base de données - Alliance francophone pour l'accouchement respecté (AFAR)

Présentation de cette base de données documentaires (site de l’AFAR)
Actuellement 3046 fiches
Chaîne YouTube (tutoriel)

https://afar.info/id=2753

Créée le : 26 Nov 2017
Modifiée le : 26 Nov 2017

 Modifier cette fiche
Ne suivez ce lien que si vous possédez un mot de passe d’éditeur !


Partager : Facebook logo   Tweeter logo   Spécialisé

Notice bibliographique (sans auteurs) :

Oral misoprostol for induction of labour - The Cochrane database of systematic reviews - Vol. 6 - p.CD001338

Auteur·e(s) :

Alfirevic, Z.; Aflaifel, N.; Weeks, A.

Année de publication :

2014

URL(s) :

https://www.scopus.com/inward/record.uri?eid=2-s2.…
https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.CD001338.pub3

Résumé (français)  :

Abstract (English)  :

BACKGROUND: Misoprostol is an orally active prostaglandin. In most countries misoprostol is not licensed for labour induction, but its use is common because it is cheap and heat stable.
OBJECTIVES: To assess the use of oral misoprostol for labour induction in women with a viable fetus.
SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Pregnancy and Childbirth Group’s Trials Register (17 January 2014).
SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised trials comparing oral misoprostol versus placebo or other methods, given to women with a viable fetus for labour induction.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently assessed trial data, using centrally-designed data sheets.
MAIN RESULTS: Overall there were 76 trials (14,412) women) which were of mixed quality.In nine trials comparing oral misoprostol with placebo (1109 women), women using oral misoprostol were more likely to give birth vaginally within 24 hours (risk ratio (RR) 0.16, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.05 to 0.49; one trial; 96 women), need less oxytocin (RR 0.42, 95% CI 0.37 to 0.49; seven trials; 933 women) and have a lower caesarean section rate (RR 0.72, 95% CI 0.54 to 0.95; eight trials; 1029 women).In 12 trials comparing oral misoprostol with vaginal dinoprostone (3859 women), women given oral misoprostol were less likely to need a caesarean section (RR 0.88, 95% CI 0.78 to 0.99; 11 trials; 3592 women). There was some evidence that they had slower inductions, but there were no other statistically significant differences.Nine trials (1282 women) compared oral misoprostol with intravenous oxytocin. The caesarean section rate was significantly lower in women who received oral misoprostol (RR 0.77, 95% CI 0.60 to 0.98; nine trials; 1282 women), but they had increased rates of meconium-stained liquor (RR 1.65, 95% CI 1.04 to 2.60; seven trials; 1172 women).Thirty-seven trials (6417 women) compared oral and vaginal misoprostol and found no statistically significant difference in the primary outcomes of serious neonatal morbidity/death or serious maternal morbidity or death. The results for vaginal birth not achieved in 24 hours, uterine hyperstimulation with fetal heart rate (FHR) changes, and caesarean section were highly heterogenous - for uterine hyperstimulation with FHR changes this was related to dosage with lower rates in those with lower doses of oral misoprostol. However, there were fewer babies born with a low Apgar score in the oral group (RR 0.60, 95% CI 0.44 to 0.82; 19 trials; 4009 babies) and a decrease in postpartum haemorrhage (RR 0.57, 95% CI 0.34 to 0.95; 10 trials; 1478 women). However, the oral misoprostol group had an increase in meconium-stained liquor (RR 1.22, 95% CI 1.03 to 1.44; 24 trials; 3634 women).
AUTHORS’ CONCLUSIONS: Oral misoprostol as an induction agent is effective at achieving vaginal birth. It is more effective than placebo, as effective as vaginal misoprostol and results in fewer caesarean sections than vaginal dinoprostone or oxytocin.Where misoprostol remains unlicensed for the induction of labour, many practitioners will prefer to use a licensed product like dinoprostone. If using oral misoprostol, the evidence suggests that the dose should be 20 to 25 mcg in solution. Given that safety is the primary concern, the evidence supports the use of oral regimens over vaginal regimens. This is especially important in situations where the risk of ascending infection is high and the lack of staff means that women cannot be intensely monitored.

Sumário (português)  :

Remarques :

Argument (français) :

Argument (English):

Argumento (português):

Mots-clés :

➡ déclenchement ; misoprostol (Cytotec)

Auteur·e de cette fiche :

Import 26/11/2017 — 26 Nov 2017

Discussion (afficher uniquement le français)
 
➡ Réservé aux utilisateurs identifiés



 J'ai lu la charte des discussions et j'en accepte les conditions (voir la charte)

barre

Autre requête experte --- Autre requête simple

Création d'une fiche --- Importation de fiches

Gestion des utilisateurs --- Sauvegarder la base de données --- Contact

bar

Cette base de données est gérée par l'Alliance francophone pour l'accouchement respecté (AFAR, https://afar.info)
affiliée au Collectif interassociatif autour de la naissance (CIANE, https://ciane.net).
Elle est alimentée par les contributions de bénévoles intéressés par le partage des informations scientifiques.
Si vous approuvez ce projet, vous pouvez nous aider de plusieurs manières :
(1) devenir contributeur sur cette base, si vous avez un peu d'expérience en documentation
(2) ou soutenir financièrement l'AFAR (voir ci-dessous)
(3) ou devenir membre de l'AFAR (ou d'une autre association affiliée au CIANE).
Connectez-vous ou créez un compte pour suivre les modifications ou devenir éditrice.
Contactez afar.association(arobase)gmail.com pour plus d'informations.

Valid CSS! Valid HTML!
Nos ressources servent principalement à couvrir les frais d’hébergement des sites
et bases de données, l’impression de flyers et occasionnellement des frais de transport.
Les donateurs particuliers peuvent demander un reçu fiscal de l’AFAR donnant droit, en France, à une
réduction d’impôt égale à 66 % du montant dans la limite de 20% du revenu imposable (voir texte)