Foley 导尿管联合前列腺素与 Foley 导尿管联合催产素用于宫颈成熟:网状荟萃分析。
Combination of Foley and prostaglandins versus Foley and oxytocin for cervical ripening: a network meta-analysis.
机构信息
Division of Maternal-Fetal Medicine, Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, University of Massachusetts-Worcester, Worcester, MA.
Division of Maternal-Fetal Medicine, Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, University of Massachusetts-Baystate, Springfield, MA.
出版信息
Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2020 Nov;223(5):743.e1-743.e17. doi: 10.1016/j.ajog.2020.05.007. Epub 2020 May 7.
BACKGROUND
Trial and meta-analysis data revealed a reduction in time to delivery for Foley and prostaglandins or Foley and oxytocin vs Foley alone. However, there are limited data for the comparison of the 2 combination methods against each other.
OBJECTIVE
This study aimed to determine whether Foley and prostaglandins or Foley and oxytocin decrease the time to vaginal delivery using a network meta-analysis.
STUDY DESIGN
A network meta-analysis (PROSPERO CRD42018081948) was performed comparing Foley and prostaglandins (prostaglandin E1 or prostaglandin E2) vs Foley and oxytocin for cervical ripening. Foley alone and prostaglandins alone were used as nodes for indirect comparison. Database searches were performed from inception to March 2020 with data abstracted from published manuscripts. Eligibility criteria included randomized trials comparing Foley and oxytocin with Foley and prostaglandins (misoprostol or dinoprostone). Trials that compared Foley catheter or prostaglandins with a combination of Foley and prostaglandins or Foley and concurrent oxytocin were also included. Nulliparous and multiparous women were analyzed together. Foley catheters of any catheter material or size and >24 weeks' gestational age with a live fetus were included. Quasi-randomized, cohorts, and other combination methods for cervical ripening were not included. Prostaglandin E1 and prostaglandin E2 combined methods were analyzed separately in a planned subanalysis. The primary outcome was the mean time from induction to vaginal delivery in hours. Secondary outcomes included time from induction to delivery, delivery within 24 hours, cesarean delivery, chorioamnionitis, endometritis, epidural use, tachysystole, postpartum hemorrhage, meconium, neonatal intensive care unit admission, and 5-minute appearance, pulse, grimace, activity, and respiration score of <7. Data were analyzed as a network meta-analysis using multivariate meta-regression.
RESULTS
A total of 30 randomized controlled trials with a total of 6465 women were considered eligible for inclusion in this network meta-analysis. When compared with Foley alone, the use of Foley-oxytocin reduced the time to vaginal delivery by 4.2 hours (mean duration, -4.2 hours; 95% confidence interval, -6.5 to -1.9). Foley-prostaglandins reduced the time to vaginal delivery compared with Foley but did not meet statistical significance (mean duration, -2.9 hours; 95% confidence interval, -5.7 to 0.0; P=.05). When compared head-to-head, there was no difference in the time to vaginal delivery between Foley-prostaglandins and Foley-oxytocin (mean duration, 1.3 hours; 95% confidence interval, -2.0 to 4.7). There was no difference in the rate of cesarean delivery, chorioamnionitis, epidural, tachysystole, postpartum hemorrhage, meconium, neonatal intensive care unit admissions, or 5-minute appearance, pulse, grimace, activity, and respiration score of <7 for Foley-prostaglandins vs Foley-oxytocin, although the rate of endometritis was high for Foley-prostaglandins. In the subanalysis by prostaglandin type, there was no difference in the time to vaginal delivery for Foley-misoprostol vs Foley-dinoprostone vs Foley-oxytocin. However, Foley-dinoprostone had a definite trend toward longer time to all deliveries compared with that of both Foley-misoprostol and Foley-oxytocin (P=.05).
CONCLUSION
Time to vaginal delivery was similar when comparing Foley with combined misoprostol, combined dinoprostone, and combined oxytocin. Dinoprostone comparisons are limited by small sample size but suggest longer time to delivery compared with Foley and misoprostol or oxytocin. No significant differences were observed in maternal or neonatal adverse events except for endometritis, but this was limited by the sample size, varied reporting of studies used in the indirect comparisons, and definitions of infectious morbidity use in the studies.
背景
试验和荟萃分析数据显示,与单纯 Foley 导管相比,Foley 导管联合前列腺素或 Foley 导管联合催产素可缩短分娩时间。然而,关于这两种联合方法相互比较的数据有限。
目的
本研究旨在通过网络荟萃分析确定 Foley 导管联合前列腺素或 Foley 导管联合催产素是否能缩短阴道分娩时间。
研究设计
对比较 Foley 导管联合前列腺素(前列腺素 E1 或前列腺素 E2)与 Foley 导管联合催产素用于宫颈成熟的网络荟萃分析(PROSPERO CRD42018081948)进行了回顾。单纯 Foley 导管和单纯前列腺素被用作间接比较的节点。从研究开始到 2020 年 3 月进行数据库检索,从已发表的文献中提取数据。纳入标准包括比较 Foley 导管联合催产素与 Foley 导管联合前列腺素(米索前列醇或地诺前列酮)的随机试验。还包括比较 Foley 导管或前列腺素与 Foley 导管联合前列腺素或 Foley 导管联合同期催产素的组合方法的试验。纳入了单胎和多胎妇女。纳入的 Foley 导管为任何导管材料或尺寸,妊娠 24 周以上,有活胎。非随机、队列和其他宫颈成熟的联合方法不包括在内。前列腺素 E1 和前列腺素 E2 联合方法在计划的亚分析中分别进行分析。主要结局是从诱导到阴道分娩的平均时间(小时)。次要结局包括从诱导到分娩的时间、24 小时内分娩、剖宫产、绒毛膜羊膜炎、子宫内膜炎、硬膜外使用、心动过速、产后出血、胎粪、新生儿重症监护病房入院和 5 分钟时的外观、脉搏、面部表情、活动和呼吸评分<7。使用多元荟萃回归对数据进行网络荟萃分析。
结果
共有 30 项随机对照试验,共 6465 名妇女被认为符合纳入本网络荟萃分析的标准。与单纯 Foley 导管相比,Foley 导管联合催产素可使阴道分娩时间缩短 4.2 小时(平均持续时间,-4.2 小时;95%置信区间,-6.5 至-1.9)。Foley 导管联合前列腺素与单纯 Foley 导管相比,可缩短阴道分娩时间,但无统计学意义(平均持续时间,-2.9 小时;95%置信区间,-5.7 至 0.0;P=.05)。直接比较时,Foley 导管联合前列腺素与 Foley 导管联合催产素的阴道分娩时间无差异(平均持续时间,1.3 小时;95%置信区间,-2.0 至 4.7)。Foley 导管联合前列腺素与 Foley 导管联合催产素在剖宫产率、绒毛膜羊膜炎、硬膜外、心动过速、产后出血、胎粪、新生儿重症监护病房入院率或 5 分钟时的外观、脉搏、面部表情、活动和呼吸评分<7 方面无差异,尽管 Foley 导管联合前列腺素的子宫内膜炎发生率较高。在前列腺素类型的亚分析中,Foley 导管联合米索前列醇与 Foley 导管联合地诺前列酮与 Foley 导管联合催产素的阴道分娩时间无差异。然而,与 Foley 导管联合米索前列醇和 Foley 导管联合催产素相比,Foley 导管联合地诺前列酮的所有分娩时间都有明显的延长趋势(P=.05)。
结论
比较 Foley 导管与联合应用米索前列醇、联合应用地诺前列酮和联合应用催产素,分娩时间相似。由于样本量小,地诺前列酮的比较受到限制,但提示与 Foley 导管联合米索前列醇或催产素相比,分娩时间更长。除子宫内膜炎外,母亲和新生儿不良事件无显著差异,但受间接比较中使用的研究样本量、研究中使用的感染发病率报告的差异以及研究中使用的定义限制。