A double-blind randomized controlled clinical trial of oral misoprostol versus ergometrine in the prevention of primary postpartum hemorrhage

V. Otoide
{"title":"A double-blind randomized controlled clinical trial of oral misoprostol versus ergometrine in the prevention of primary postpartum hemorrhage","authors":"V. Otoide","doi":"10.4103/tjog.tjog_52_19","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Objective: The study was designed to investigate the effectiveness of orally administered misoprostol versus intravenous ergometrine (stored at tropical temperatures) in the prevention of primary postpartum hemorrhage (PPH) among parturients undergoing vaginal delivery in a teaching hospital. Study Design: A double-blind randomized controlled clinical trial was conducted at the University of Benin Teaching Hospital. One hundred and fifty parturients were offered 400 ug misoprostol and an intravenous placebo for the management of the third stage of labor while another 150 parturients received oral placebo and 0.5 mg intravenous ergometrine. Results: There was no significant difference in the incidence of PPH (blood loss > 500 ml) between the two groups: 8 (5.3%) for the misoprostol group compared with 7 (4.7%) for the ergometrine group (P = 0.79, relative risk (RR) = 1.07, confidence interval (CI): 0.66–1.74). The incidence of severe PPH (blood loss > 1000 ml) was similar between the two groups: 2 (1.3%) in the misoprostol group compared with 1 (0.7%) in the ergometrine group. Similarly, the indices of postpartum blood loss (hematocrit change, need for blood transfusion, and surgical intervention) were comparable between the two groups. A subgroup analysis of high-risk parturients revealed comparable indices. The misoprostol group, however, had a significantly higher risk of shivering in the early postpartum period (P = 0.00, RR = 2.01, CI: 1.69–2.38). Conclusions: The results suggest that oral misoprostol has comparable efficacy to intravenous ergometrine at tropical conditions in the prevention of PPH. However, in view of its easier mode of administration, oral misoprostol may be preferable in rural situations in Africa.","PeriodicalId":23302,"journal":{"name":"Tropical Journal of Obstetrics and Gynaecology","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2020-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Tropical Journal of Obstetrics and Gynaecology","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.4103/tjog.tjog_52_19","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Objective: The study was designed to investigate the effectiveness of orally administered misoprostol versus intravenous ergometrine (stored at tropical temperatures) in the prevention of primary postpartum hemorrhage (PPH) among parturients undergoing vaginal delivery in a teaching hospital. Study Design: A double-blind randomized controlled clinical trial was conducted at the University of Benin Teaching Hospital. One hundred and fifty parturients were offered 400 ug misoprostol and an intravenous placebo for the management of the third stage of labor while another 150 parturients received oral placebo and 0.5 mg intravenous ergometrine. Results: There was no significant difference in the incidence of PPH (blood loss > 500 ml) between the two groups: 8 (5.3%) for the misoprostol group compared with 7 (4.7%) for the ergometrine group (P = 0.79, relative risk (RR) = 1.07, confidence interval (CI): 0.66–1.74). The incidence of severe PPH (blood loss > 1000 ml) was similar between the two groups: 2 (1.3%) in the misoprostol group compared with 1 (0.7%) in the ergometrine group. Similarly, the indices of postpartum blood loss (hematocrit change, need for blood transfusion, and surgical intervention) were comparable between the two groups. A subgroup analysis of high-risk parturients revealed comparable indices. The misoprostol group, however, had a significantly higher risk of shivering in the early postpartum period (P = 0.00, RR = 2.01, CI: 1.69–2.38). Conclusions: The results suggest that oral misoprostol has comparable efficacy to intravenous ergometrine at tropical conditions in the prevention of PPH. However, in view of its easier mode of administration, oral misoprostol may be preferable in rural situations in Africa.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
口服米索前列醇与麦角新碱预防原发性产后出血的双盲随机对照临床试验
目的:本研究旨在研究米索前列醇与麦角新碱(在热带温度下储存)在教学医院阴道分娩产妇中预防原发性产后出血(PPH)的有效性。研究设计:在贝宁大学教学医院进行了一项双盲随机对照临床试验。150名产妇接受了400 ug米索前列醇和静脉注射安慰剂用于第三产程的管理,另有150名产妇则接受了口服安慰剂和0.5 mg静脉注射麦角新碱。结果:两组PPH(失血量>500ml)的发生率无显著差异:米索前列醇组8例(5.3%)与麦角新碱组7例(4.7%)(P=0.79、相对危险度(RR)=1.07,置信区间(CI):0.66-1.74)。两组之间严重PPH(失血>1000 ml)的发生率相似:米索前列醇组为2例(1.3%),而麦角新碱组为1例(0.7%)。同样,两组产后失血指标(红细胞压积变化、输血需求和手术干预)具有可比性。高危产妇的亚组分析显示了可比较的指标。然而,米索前列醇组在产后早期发生颤抖的风险明显更高(P=0.00,RR=2.01,CI:1.69-2.38)。然而,鉴于口服米索前列醇的给药方式更容易,在非洲的农村地区可能更可取。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
审稿时长
23 weeks
期刊最新文献
Trends in vaginal hysterectomy in a Nigerian teaching hospital: A 14-year review Risk factors for hypertensive disorders of pregnancy in Abuja, Nigeria: A prospective case-control study A randomized controlled trial of rectal diclofenac sodium and intramuscular pentazocine versus intramuscular pentazocine, diclofenac, and paracetamol analgesics for pain relief in the first 48 h after cesarean section Incidence and determinants of pregnancy among women receiving HAART in Simiyu region: 14-year retrospective follow-up A case of Couvelaire uterus with coagulation dysfunction saved successfully with SR PPH suction cannula
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1