米非司酮和米索前列醇与单用米索前列醇对胎儿宫内死亡妇女进行引产:荟萃分析和系统综述。

IF 2.6 3区 医学 Q2 OBSTETRICS & GYNECOLOGY International Journal of Gynecology & Obstetrics Pub Date : 2024-10-24 DOI:10.1002/ijgo.15963
Paloma Soares Oliveira, Artur Menegaz de Almeida, Mauro André Azevedo Silva Kaiser Cabral, Gustavo Lima Guilherme, Antônio José Rocha Ribeiro, João Antônio Zanette Giusti, Rafael Morais Esteves de Lima, Jéssica Cristine da Silva Garcia, Ricardo de Oliveira
{"title":"米非司酮和米索前列醇与单用米索前列醇对胎儿宫内死亡妇女进行引产:荟萃分析和系统综述。","authors":"Paloma Soares Oliveira, Artur Menegaz de Almeida, Mauro André Azevedo Silva Kaiser Cabral, Gustavo Lima Guilherme, Antônio José Rocha Ribeiro, João Antônio Zanette Giusti, Rafael Morais Esteves de Lima, Jéssica Cristine da Silva Garcia, Ricardo de Oliveira","doi":"10.1002/ijgo.15963","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Misoprostol is largely used in labor induction in cases of intrauterine fetal death. However, recent randomized clinical trials (RCTs) showed that the combination of mifepristone and misoprostol might have better effects than the use of misoprostol alone.</p><p><strong>Objectives: </strong>To compare mifepristone and misoprostol lines of treatment.</p><p><strong>Search strategy: </strong>Pubmed, Embase, Cochrane and Web of Science databases were systematically searched until April 9, 2024.</p><p><strong>Selection criteria: </strong>The eligibility criteria were (1) RCT, (2) comparing misoprostol alone versus the combined treatment, (3) patients undergoing labor induction due to intrauterine fetal death and (4) reporting at least one relevant outcome.</p><p><strong>Data collection and analysis: </strong>Data were examined using the Mantel-Haenszel method and 95% CIs. Heterogeneity was assessed using I<sup>2</sup> statics. R, version 4.2.3 was used for statistical analysis. The analyzed outcomes were delivery time interval, adverse effects (fever, vomiting, diarrhea and nausea) and the preinduction Bishop score. Other important outcomes, such as uterus rupture, could not be included due to lack of data from the included studies.</p><p><strong>Main results: </strong>A total of seven RCTs comprising 599 patients with intrauterine fetal death were randomized to misoprostol or combined treatment to induce labor. Compared to the misoprostol only group, combined treatment presented lower delivery time interval (MD -6.86 h; 95% CI: -10.32 to -3.4; P = 0.0001; I<sup>2</sup> = 87%). However, in terms of adverse effects, the combined treatment group presented lower occurrence of fever (2.25% vs 12.12%; RR 0.26; 95% CI: 0.09-0.74; P = 0.01; I<sup>2</sup> = 0%) and vomiting (7.64% vs 14.45%; RR 0.54; 95% CI: 0.29-1.01; P = 0.05; I<sup>2</sup> = 0%). No statistically significant differences were observed when comparing the preinduction Bishop score of the two groups (MD -0.09; 95% CI: -0.28-0.10; P = 0.35; I<sup>2</sup> = 0%). Additionally, the mean of the preinduction Bishop score of the combined treatment was 2 versus 2.1 of the control group.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>In this updated meta-analysis, consistent results suggest that the combined treatment is associated with more beneficial outcomes than the misoprostol alone treatment in patients undergoing labor induction in intrauterine fetal death.</p>","PeriodicalId":14164,"journal":{"name":"International Journal of Gynecology & Obstetrics","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":2.6000,"publicationDate":"2024-10-24","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Mifepristone and misoprostol versus misoprostol alone for induction of labor in women with intrauterine fetal death: A meta-analysis and systematic review.\",\"authors\":\"Paloma Soares Oliveira, Artur Menegaz de Almeida, Mauro André Azevedo Silva Kaiser Cabral, Gustavo Lima Guilherme, Antônio José Rocha Ribeiro, João Antônio Zanette Giusti, Rafael Morais Esteves de Lima, Jéssica Cristine da Silva Garcia, Ricardo de Oliveira\",\"doi\":\"10.1002/ijgo.15963\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Misoprostol is largely used in labor induction in cases of intrauterine fetal death. However, recent randomized clinical trials (RCTs) showed that the combination of mifepristone and misoprostol might have better effects than the use of misoprostol alone.</p><p><strong>Objectives: </strong>To compare mifepristone and misoprostol lines of treatment.</p><p><strong>Search strategy: </strong>Pubmed, Embase, Cochrane and Web of Science databases were systematically searched until April 9, 2024.</p><p><strong>Selection criteria: </strong>The eligibility criteria were (1) RCT, (2) comparing misoprostol alone versus the combined treatment, (3) patients undergoing labor induction due to intrauterine fetal death and (4) reporting at least one relevant outcome.</p><p><strong>Data collection and analysis: </strong>Data were examined using the Mantel-Haenszel method and 95% CIs. Heterogeneity was assessed using I<sup>2</sup> statics. R, version 4.2.3 was used for statistical analysis. The analyzed outcomes were delivery time interval, adverse effects (fever, vomiting, diarrhea and nausea) and the preinduction Bishop score. Other important outcomes, such as uterus rupture, could not be included due to lack of data from the included studies.</p><p><strong>Main results: </strong>A total of seven RCTs comprising 599 patients with intrauterine fetal death were randomized to misoprostol or combined treatment to induce labor. Compared to the misoprostol only group, combined treatment presented lower delivery time interval (MD -6.86 h; 95% CI: -10.32 to -3.4; P = 0.0001; I<sup>2</sup> = 87%). However, in terms of adverse effects, the combined treatment group presented lower occurrence of fever (2.25% vs 12.12%; RR 0.26; 95% CI: 0.09-0.74; P = 0.01; I<sup>2</sup> = 0%) and vomiting (7.64% vs 14.45%; RR 0.54; 95% CI: 0.29-1.01; P = 0.05; I<sup>2</sup> = 0%). No statistically significant differences were observed when comparing the preinduction Bishop score of the two groups (MD -0.09; 95% CI: -0.28-0.10; P = 0.35; I<sup>2</sup> = 0%). Additionally, the mean of the preinduction Bishop score of the combined treatment was 2 versus 2.1 of the control group.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>In this updated meta-analysis, consistent results suggest that the combined treatment is associated with more beneficial outcomes than the misoprostol alone treatment in patients undergoing labor induction in intrauterine fetal death.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":14164,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"International Journal of Gynecology & Obstetrics\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.6000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-10-24\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"International Journal of Gynecology & Obstetrics\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1002/ijgo.15963\",\"RegionNum\":3,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"OBSTETRICS & GYNECOLOGY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"International Journal of Gynecology & Obstetrics","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1002/ijgo.15963","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"OBSTETRICS & GYNECOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

背景:米索前列醇主要用于胎死宫内的引产。然而,最近的随机临床试验(RCTs)显示,米非司酮和米索前列醇联合使用可能比单独使用米索前列醇有更好的效果:比较米非司酮和米索前列醇的治疗方案:检索策略:对Pubmed、Embase、Cochrane和Web of Science数据库进行了系统检索,直至2024年4月9日:入选标准:(1) RCT;(2) 比较单独使用米索前列醇与联合治疗;(3) 因宫内胎儿死亡而接受引产的患者;(4) 至少报告一项相关结果:数据采用曼特尔-海恩泽尔法和 95% CIs 进行检验。使用 I2 统计量评估异质性。使用 4.2.3 版 R 进行统计分析。分析的结果包括分娩时间间隔、不良反应(发烧、呕吐、腹泻和恶心)和诱导前的 Bishop 评分。其他重要结果,如子宫破裂,因缺乏纳入研究的数据而未能包括在内:主要结果:共有7项研究对599名宫内胎儿死亡患者进行了引产,并随机选择了米索前列醇或联合疗法。与仅使用米索前列醇组相比,联合治疗的分娩时间间隔较短(MD -6.86 h; 95% CI: -10.32 to -3.4; P = 0.0001; I2 = 87%)。然而,在不良反应方面,联合治疗组的发热(2.25% vs 12.12%;RR 0.26;95% CI:0.09-0.74;P = 0.01;I2 = 0%)和呕吐(7.64% vs 14.45%;RR 0.54;95% CI:0.29-1.01;P = 0.05;I2 = 0%)发生率较低。比较两组患者诱导前的 Bishop 评分,未观察到有统计学意义的差异(MD -0.09;95% CI:-0.28-0.10;P = 0.35;I2 = 0%)。此外,联合治疗组诱导前 Bishop 评分的平均值为 2,而对照组为 2.1:结论:在这项更新的荟萃分析中,一致的结果表明,对于胎死宫内的引产患者,联合治疗比单独使用米索前列醇治疗更有益。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
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
Mifepristone and misoprostol versus misoprostol alone for induction of labor in women with intrauterine fetal death: A meta-analysis and systematic review.

Background: Misoprostol is largely used in labor induction in cases of intrauterine fetal death. However, recent randomized clinical trials (RCTs) showed that the combination of mifepristone and misoprostol might have better effects than the use of misoprostol alone.

Objectives: To compare mifepristone and misoprostol lines of treatment.

Search strategy: Pubmed, Embase, Cochrane and Web of Science databases were systematically searched until April 9, 2024.

Selection criteria: The eligibility criteria were (1) RCT, (2) comparing misoprostol alone versus the combined treatment, (3) patients undergoing labor induction due to intrauterine fetal death and (4) reporting at least one relevant outcome.

Data collection and analysis: Data were examined using the Mantel-Haenszel method and 95% CIs. Heterogeneity was assessed using I2 statics. R, version 4.2.3 was used for statistical analysis. The analyzed outcomes were delivery time interval, adverse effects (fever, vomiting, diarrhea and nausea) and the preinduction Bishop score. Other important outcomes, such as uterus rupture, could not be included due to lack of data from the included studies.

Main results: A total of seven RCTs comprising 599 patients with intrauterine fetal death were randomized to misoprostol or combined treatment to induce labor. Compared to the misoprostol only group, combined treatment presented lower delivery time interval (MD -6.86 h; 95% CI: -10.32 to -3.4; P = 0.0001; I2 = 87%). However, in terms of adverse effects, the combined treatment group presented lower occurrence of fever (2.25% vs 12.12%; RR 0.26; 95% CI: 0.09-0.74; P = 0.01; I2 = 0%) and vomiting (7.64% vs 14.45%; RR 0.54; 95% CI: 0.29-1.01; P = 0.05; I2 = 0%). No statistically significant differences were observed when comparing the preinduction Bishop score of the two groups (MD -0.09; 95% CI: -0.28-0.10; P = 0.35; I2 = 0%). Additionally, the mean of the preinduction Bishop score of the combined treatment was 2 versus 2.1 of the control group.

Conclusion: In this updated meta-analysis, consistent results suggest that the combined treatment is associated with more beneficial outcomes than the misoprostol alone treatment in patients undergoing labor induction in intrauterine fetal death.

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
CiteScore
5.80
自引率
2.60%
发文量
493
审稿时长
3-6 weeks
期刊介绍: The International Journal of Gynecology & Obstetrics publishes articles on all aspects of basic and clinical research in the fields of obstetrics and gynecology and related subjects, with emphasis on matters of worldwide interest.
期刊最新文献
Letter to the editor: Clinician perspectives on hysterectomy versus uterine preservation in pelvic organ prolapse surgery: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Oncological safety of fertility preservation treatment in ovarian cancer: A Spanish multicenter study. Proposal for a new classification of intrauterine adhesions by sites. Retraction: Multicenter Randomized Controlled Trial Assessing the Impact of a Cervical Traction Maneuver (Amr's Maneuver) on the Incidence of Postpartum Hemorrhage. Retracted: Safety and efficacy of titrated oral misoprostol solution versus vaginal dinoprostone for induction of labor: A single-center randomized control trial.
×
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