Alfirevic Zarko, Milan Stephen J, Livio Stefania
Department of Women’s and Children’s Health, The University of Liverpool, Liverpool, UK.
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2012 Jun 13;6(6):CD000078. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD000078.pub2.
Planned caesarean delivery for women thought be in preterm labour may be protective for baby, but could also be quite traumatic for both mother and baby. The optimal mode of delivery of preterm babies for both cephalic and breech presentation remains, therefore, controversial.
To assess the effects of a policy of planned immediate caesarean delivery versus planned vaginal birth for women in preterm labour.
We searched the Cochrane Pregnancy and Childbirth Group's Trials Register (24 April 2012).
Randomised trials comparing a policy of planned immediate caesarean delivery versus planned vaginal delivery for preterm birth.
Two review authors independently assessed trials for inclusion. Two review authors independently extracted data and assessed risk of bias. Data were checked for accuracy.
We included six studies (involving 122 women) but only four studies (involving only 116 women) contributed data to the analyses.Infant There were very little data of relevance to the three main (primary) outcomes considered in this review: There was no significant difference between planned immediate caesarean section and planned vaginal delivery with respect to birth injury to infant (risk ratio (RR) 0.56, 95%, confidence interval (CI) 0.05 to 5.62; one trial, 38 women) or birth asphyxia (RR 1.63, 95% CI 0.84 to 3.14; one trial, 12 women). The only cases of birth trauma were a laceration of the buttock in a baby who was delivered by caesarean section and mild bruising in another allocated to the group delivered vaginally.The difference between the two groups with regard to perinatal deaths was not significant (0.29, 95% CI 0.07 to 1.14; three trials, 89 women) and there were no data specifically relating to neonatal admission to special care and/or intensive care unit.There was also no difference between the caesarean or vaginal delivery groups in terms of markers of possible birth asphyxia (RR 1.63, 95% CI 0.84 to 3.14; one trial, 12 women) or Apgar score less than seven at five minutes (RR 0.83, 95% CI 0.43 to 1.60; four trials, 115 women) and no difference in attempts at breastfeeding (RR 1.40, 95% 0.11 to 17.45; one trial, 12 women). There was also no difference in neonatal fitting/seizures (RR 0.22, 95% CI 0.01 to 4.32; three trials, 77 women), hypoxic ischaemic encephalopathy (RR 4.00, 95% CI 0.20 to 82.01;one trial, 12 women) or respiratory distress syndrome (RR 0.55, 95% CI 0.27 to 1.10; three trials, 103 women). There were no data reported in the trials specifically relating to meconium aspiration. There was also no significant difference between the two groups for abnormal follow-up in childhood (RR 0.65, 95% CI 0.19 to 2.22; one trial, 38 women) or delivery less than seven days after entry (RR 0.95, 95% CI 0.73 to 1.24; two trials, 51 women). Mother: There were no data reported on maternal admissions to intensive care. However, there were seven cases of major maternal postpartum complications in the group allocated to planned immediate caesarean section and none in the group randomised to vaginal delivery (RR 7.21, 95% CI 1.37 to 38.08; four trials, 116 women).There were no data reported in the trials specifically relating to maternal satisfaction (postnatal). There was no significant difference between the two groups with regard to postpartum haemorrhage. A number of non-prespecified secondary outcomes were also considered in the analyses. There was a significant advantage for women in the vaginal delivery group with respect to maternal puerperal pyrexia (RR 2.98, 95% CI 1.18 to 7.53; three trials, 89 women) and other maternal infection (RR 2.63, 95% CI 1.02 to 6.78; three trials, 103 women), but no significant differences in wound infection (RR 1.16, 95% CI 0.18 to 7.70; three trials, 103 women), maternal stay more than 10 days (RR 1.27, 95% CI 0.35 to 4.65; three trials, 78 women) or the need for blood transfusion (results not estimable).
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: There is not enough evidence to evaluate the use of a policy of planned immediate caesarean delivery for preterm babies. Further studies are needed in this area, but recruitment is proving difficult.
对于被认为处于早产状态的女性,计划剖宫产可能对婴儿有保护作用,但对母亲和婴儿来说也可能极具创伤性。因此,对于头位和臀位早产婴儿的最佳分娩方式仍存在争议。
评估计划即刻剖宫产政策与计划阴道分娩政策对早产女性的影响。
我们检索了Cochrane妊娠与分娩组试验注册库(2012年4月24日)。
比较计划即刻剖宫产政策与早产计划阴道分娩政策的随机试验。
两位综述作者独立评估试验是否纳入。两位综述作者独立提取数据并评估偏倚风险。检查数据准确性。
我们纳入了6项研究(涉及122名女性),但只有4项研究(仅涉及116名女性)为分析提供了数据。
与本综述所考虑的三个主要(首要)结局相关的数据非常少:计划即刻剖宫产与计划阴道分娩在婴儿出生损伤方面无显著差异(风险比(RR)0.56,95%置信区间(CI)0.05至5.62;1项试验,38名女性)或出生窒息方面(RR 1.63,95%CI 0.84至3.14;1项试验,12名女性)。仅有的出生创伤病例是1例剖宫产婴儿的臀部撕裂伤和另1例分配至阴道分娩组的婴儿的轻度瘀伤。两组围产期死亡差异不显著(0.29,95%CI 0.07至1.14;3项试验,89名女性),且没有关于新生儿入住特殊护理和/或重症监护病房的具体数据。剖宫产组和阴道分娩组在可能的出生窒息标志物方面也无差异(RR 1.63,95%CI 0.84至3.14;1项试验,12名女性)或5分钟时阿氏评分低于7分方面(RR 0.83,95%CI 0.43至1.60;4项试验,115名女性),母乳喂养尝试方面也无差异(RR 1.40,95% 0.11至17.45;1项试验,12名女性)。新生儿抽搐/惊厥方面也无差异(RR 0.22,95%CI 0.01至4.32;3项试验,77名女性)、缺氧缺血性脑病方面(RR 4.00,95%CI 0.20至82.01;1项试验,12名女性)或呼吸窘迫综合征方面(RR 0.55,95%CI 0.27至1.10;3项试验,103名女性)。试验中未报告与胎粪吸入具体相关的数据。两组在儿童期异常随访方面(RR 0.65,95%CI 0.19至2.22;1项试验,38名女性)或入组后7天内分娩方面(RR 0.95,95%CI 0.73至1.24;2项试验,51名女性)也无显著差异。
未报告关于母亲入住重症监护的数据。然而,计划即刻剖宫产组有7例主要的母亲产后并发症,而随机分配至阴道分娩组的无并发症(RR 7.21,95%CI 1.37至38.08;4项试验,116名女性)。试验中未报告与母亲满意度(产后)具体相关的数据。两组在产后出血方面无显著差异。分析中还考虑了一些未预先指定的次要结局。阴道分娩组女性在产妇产褥期发热方面(RR 2.98,95%CI 1.18至7.53;3项试验,89名女性)和其他产妇感染方面(RR 2.63,95%CI 1.02至6.78;3项试验,103名女性)有显著优势,但在伤口感染方面(RR 1.16,95%CI 0.18至7.70;3项试验,103名女性)、产妇住院超过10天方面(RR 1.27,95%CI 0.35至4.65;3项试验,78名女性)或输血需求方面(结果无法估计)无显著差异。
没有足够的证据来评估对早产婴儿采用计划即刻剖宫产政策的效果。该领域需要进一步研究,但事实证明招募受试者很困难。