有过剖宫产史妇女40周阴道引产率与待产率的比较:一项随机对照试验

IF 3.2 Q1 OBSTETRICS & GYNECOLOGY Journal of Pregnancy Pub Date : 2023-01-01 DOI:10.1155/2023/9189792
K Rajalakshmi, Gowri Dorairajan, Swetha S Kumar, C Palnivel
{"title":"有过剖宫产史妇女40周阴道引产率与待产率的比较:一项随机对照试验","authors":"K Rajalakshmi,&nbsp;Gowri Dorairajan,&nbsp;Swetha S Kumar,&nbsp;C Palnivel","doi":"10.1155/2023/9189792","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>The optimum time of labour induction among women with a previous caesarean without any pregnancy complication and eligible and willing for vaginal delivery is not specified. This study compares the vaginal birth rates between induction at 40 weeks and expectant management till 41 weeks.</p><p><strong>Method: </strong>We conducted this parallel design nonblinded, randomized controlled trial in a tertiary care teaching institution in South India on women with a previous lower segment caesarean section eligible for a trial of labour with singleton foetus without any pregnancy complication at recruitment. We screened 1886 women. Sixty women underwent block (of 6 each) randomization into two groups of thirty each at 40 weeks. We induced the women in the intervention group at 40 weeks with oxytocin or a single 24-hour application of a Foley catheter followed by oxytocin infusion and amniotomy. The expectant group underwent maternal and foetal surveillance and induction at 41 weeks with the same protocol if not delivered by then. We compared the primary outcome of the proportion of vaginal birth rate with a chi-square test.</p><p><strong>Result: </strong>Data from all sixty women were analyzed. Twenty (66.67%) in the induction compared to ten (33.33%) in the expectant group delivered vaginally. This difference was significant (RR 2.0, 95% CI: 1.13-3.52; <i>P</i> = 0.016). One woman in the expectant group had scar dehiscence.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Among women with a previous caesarean scar, labour induction at 40 weeks has a significantly higher vaginal birth rate than those managed expectantly till 41 weeks. More extensive trials are feasible and recommended. <i>Trial Registry</i>. The trial was prospectively registered with the clinical trial registry of India. This trial is registered with CTRI/2018/09/015719 (date of registration 14th September 2018).</p>","PeriodicalId":47062,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Pregnancy","volume":"2023 ","pages":"9189792"},"PeriodicalIF":3.2000,"publicationDate":"2023-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10462444/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Comparison of Vaginal Birth Rate between Induction of Labour and Expectant Management at 40 Weeks in Women with a Previous Caesarean Section: A Pilot Randomized Controlled Trial.\",\"authors\":\"K Rajalakshmi,&nbsp;Gowri Dorairajan,&nbsp;Swetha S Kumar,&nbsp;C Palnivel\",\"doi\":\"10.1155/2023/9189792\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Background: </strong>The optimum time of labour induction among women with a previous caesarean without any pregnancy complication and eligible and willing for vaginal delivery is not specified. This study compares the vaginal birth rates between induction at 40 weeks and expectant management till 41 weeks.</p><p><strong>Method: </strong>We conducted this parallel design nonblinded, randomized controlled trial in a tertiary care teaching institution in South India on women with a previous lower segment caesarean section eligible for a trial of labour with singleton foetus without any pregnancy complication at recruitment. We screened 1886 women. Sixty women underwent block (of 6 each) randomization into two groups of thirty each at 40 weeks. We induced the women in the intervention group at 40 weeks with oxytocin or a single 24-hour application of a Foley catheter followed by oxytocin infusion and amniotomy. The expectant group underwent maternal and foetal surveillance and induction at 41 weeks with the same protocol if not delivered by then. We compared the primary outcome of the proportion of vaginal birth rate with a chi-square test.</p><p><strong>Result: </strong>Data from all sixty women were analyzed. Twenty (66.67%) in the induction compared to ten (33.33%) in the expectant group delivered vaginally. This difference was significant (RR 2.0, 95% CI: 1.13-3.52; <i>P</i> = 0.016). One woman in the expectant group had scar dehiscence.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Among women with a previous caesarean scar, labour induction at 40 weeks has a significantly higher vaginal birth rate than those managed expectantly till 41 weeks. More extensive trials are feasible and recommended. <i>Trial Registry</i>. The trial was prospectively registered with the clinical trial registry of India. This trial is registered with CTRI/2018/09/015719 (date of registration 14th September 2018).</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":47062,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of Pregnancy\",\"volume\":\"2023 \",\"pages\":\"9189792\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":3.2000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-01-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10462444/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of Pregnancy\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1155/2023/9189792\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"OBSTETRICS & GYNECOLOGY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Pregnancy","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1155/2023/9189792","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"OBSTETRICS & GYNECOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

背景:对有过剖宫产史且无妊娠并发症且符合条件且愿意阴道分娩的妇女进行引产的最佳时间尚不明确。本研究比较了引产40周和待产41周的阴道出生率。方法:我们在印度南部的一家三级保健教学机构进行了这项平行设计、非盲、随机对照试验,研究对象是在招募时曾进行过下段剖宫产的妇女,她们有资格参加无妊娠并发症的单胎分娩试验。我们筛选了1886名女性。60名妇女在40周时被随机分为两组,每组30人。我们在40周时对干预组的妇女进行了催产素诱导或单次24小时的Foley导管应用,随后进行了催产素输注和羊膜切开。孕妇组在41周时接受母胎监测和引产,如果在41周之前没有分娩,则采用相同的方案。我们用卡方检验比较阴道出生率比例的主要结局。结果:对所有60名妇女的数据进行了分析。引产组20例(66.67%),待产组10例(33.33%)。这一差异具有显著性(RR 2.0, 95% CI: 1.13-3.52;P = 0.016)。孕妇组中有一名妇女出现了疤痕裂开。结论:在既往有剖宫产疤痕的妇女中,40周引产的顺产率明显高于41周引产的顺产率。更广泛的试验是可行的,建议进行。试验注册表。该试验已在印度临床试验注册中心前瞻性注册。该试验注册于CTRI/2018/09/015719(注册日期为2018年9月14日)。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。

摘要图片

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
Comparison of Vaginal Birth Rate between Induction of Labour and Expectant Management at 40 Weeks in Women with a Previous Caesarean Section: A Pilot Randomized Controlled Trial.

Background: The optimum time of labour induction among women with a previous caesarean without any pregnancy complication and eligible and willing for vaginal delivery is not specified. This study compares the vaginal birth rates between induction at 40 weeks and expectant management till 41 weeks.

Method: We conducted this parallel design nonblinded, randomized controlled trial in a tertiary care teaching institution in South India on women with a previous lower segment caesarean section eligible for a trial of labour with singleton foetus without any pregnancy complication at recruitment. We screened 1886 women. Sixty women underwent block (of 6 each) randomization into two groups of thirty each at 40 weeks. We induced the women in the intervention group at 40 weeks with oxytocin or a single 24-hour application of a Foley catheter followed by oxytocin infusion and amniotomy. The expectant group underwent maternal and foetal surveillance and induction at 41 weeks with the same protocol if not delivered by then. We compared the primary outcome of the proportion of vaginal birth rate with a chi-square test.

Result: Data from all sixty women were analyzed. Twenty (66.67%) in the induction compared to ten (33.33%) in the expectant group delivered vaginally. This difference was significant (RR 2.0, 95% CI: 1.13-3.52; P = 0.016). One woman in the expectant group had scar dehiscence.

Conclusion: Among women with a previous caesarean scar, labour induction at 40 weeks has a significantly higher vaginal birth rate than those managed expectantly till 41 weeks. More extensive trials are feasible and recommended. Trial Registry. The trial was prospectively registered with the clinical trial registry of India. This trial is registered with CTRI/2018/09/015719 (date of registration 14th September 2018).

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Journal of Pregnancy
Journal of Pregnancy OBSTETRICS & GYNECOLOGY-
CiteScore
6.10
自引率
0.00%
发文量
15
审稿时长
14 weeks
期刊介绍: Journal of Pregnancy is a peer-reviewed, Open Access journal that publishes original research articles, review articles, and clinical studies related to all aspects of pregnancy and childbirth. The journal welcomes submissions on breastfeeding, labor, maternal health and the biomedical aspects of pregnancy.
期刊最新文献
Low-Dose Prophylactic Oral Iron Supplementation (Ferrous Fumarate, Ferrous Bisglycinate, and Ferrous Sulphate) in Pregnancy Is Not Associated With Clinically Significant Gastrointestinal Complaints: Results From Two Randomized Studies. Magnitude and Associated Factors of Herbal Medicine Use During Pregnancy Among Women Attending Antenatal Care in Public Health Institutions of Central Tigray, Northern Ethiopia (2020): Facility-Based Cross-Sectional Study. Prevalence and Factors Associated With Abnormal Cerebroplacental Ratio Among Women With Hypertensive Disorders of Pregnancy at a Tertiary Referral Hospital in Southwestern Uganda. Development, Validation, and Diagnostic Accuracy of the Fetal Lack of Responsiveness Scale for Diagnosis of Severe Perinatal Hypoxia. Navigating Pregnancy: Information Sources and Lifestyle Behavior Choices-A Narrative Review.
×
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