Department of Obstetrics, Leiden University Medical Centre, Leiden, Netherlands.
Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, Academic Medical Centre, Amsterdam, Netherlands.
Lancet. 2016 Apr 16;387(10028):1619-28. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(16)00084-2. Epub 2016 Feb 3.
Labour is induced in 20-30% of all pregnancies. In women with an unfavourable cervix, both oral misoprostol and Foley catheter are equally effective compared with dinoprostone in establishing vaginal birth, but each has a better safety profile. We did a trial to directly compare oral misoprostol with Foley catheter alone.
We did an open-label randomised non-inferiority trial in 29 hospitals in the Netherlands. Women with a term singleton pregnancy in cephalic presentation, an unfavourable cervix, intact membranes, and without a previous caesarean section who were scheduled for induction of labour were randomly allocated to cervical ripening with 50 μg oral misoprostol once every 4 h or to a 30 mL transcervical Foley catheter. The primary outcome was a composite of asphyxia (pH ≤7·05 or 5-min Apgar score <7) or post-partum haemorrhage (≥1000 mL). The non-inferiority margin was 5%. The trial is registered with the Netherlands Trial Register, NTR3466.
Between July, 2012, and October, 2013, we randomly assigned 932 women to oral misoprostol and 927 women to Foley catheter. The composite primary outcome occurred in 113 (12·2%) of 924 participants in the misoprostol group versus 106 (11·5%) of 921 in the Foley catheter group (adjusted relative risk 1·06, 90% CI 0·86-1·31). Caesarean section occurred in 155 (16·8%) women versus 185 (20·1%; relative risk 0·84, 95% CI 0·69-1·02, p=0·067). 27 adverse events were reported in the misoprostol group versus 25 in the Foley catheter group. None were directly related to the study procedure.
In women with an unfavourable cervix at term, induction of labour with oral misoprostol and Foley catheter has similar safety and effectiveness.
FondsNutsOhra.
在所有妊娠中,约有 20-30%需要引产。对于宫颈条件不佳的孕妇,与地诺前列酮相比,口服米索前列醇和 Foley 导管在建立阴道分娩方面同样有效,但每种方法的安全性更好。我们进行了一项试验,直接比较口服米索前列醇与单独使用 Foley 导管。
我们在荷兰的 29 家医院进行了一项开放标签、随机非劣效性试验。入选标准为:足月单胎头位、宫颈条件不佳、胎膜完整、无剖宫产史的孕妇,计划行引产,随机分配至口服米索前列醇(50μg,每 4 小时 1 次)或经宫颈 Foley 导管(30mL)进行宫颈成熟。主要结局为窒息(pH 值≤7.05 或 5 分钟 Apgar 评分<7)或产后出血(≥1000mL)的复合结局。非劣效性边界为 5%。该试验在荷兰临床试验注册中心(NTR3466)注册。
2012 年 7 月至 2013 年 10 月,我们将 932 名孕妇随机分配至口服米索前列醇组,927 名孕妇分配至 Foley 导管组。米索前列醇组 924 名参与者中,复合主要结局发生在 113 例(12.2%),Foley 导管组 921 名参与者中发生在 106 例(11.5%)(调整后的相对风险 1.06,90%CI 0.86-1.31)。剖宫产发生在 155 名(16.8%)妇女中,而 Foley 导管组为 185 名(20.1%)(相对风险 0.84,95%CI 0.69-1.02,p=0.067)。米索前列醇组报告了 27 例不良事件,而 Foley 导管组报告了 25 例。没有一个事件与研究程序直接相关。
对于足月宫颈条件不佳的孕妇,口服米索前列醇和 Foley 导管引产具有相似的安全性和有效性。
FondsNutsOhra。