METHODOLOGY: A retrospective study on IOL using the CRB in women with previous caesarean section or grandmultiparity between January 2014 and March 2015. All cases were identified from the Sarawak General Hospital CRB request registry. Individual admission notes were traced and data extracted using a standardised proforma.
RESULTS: The overall success rate of vaginal delivery after IOL was 50%, although this increases to about two-thirds when sub analysis was performed in women with previous tested scars and the unscarred, grandmultiparous woman. There was a significant change in Bishop score prior to insertion and after removal of the CRB. The Bishop score increased by a score of 3.2 (95% CI 2.8-3.6), which was statistically significant (p<0.01) and occurred across both subgroups, not limited to the grandmultipara. There were no cases of hyperstimulation but one case of intrapartum fever and scar dehiscence each (1.4%). Notably, there were two cases of change in lie/presentation after CRB insertion.
CONCLUSION: CRB adds to the obstetricians' armamentarium and appears to provide a reasonable alternative for the IOL in women at high risk of uterine rupture. Rates of hyperstimulation, maternal infection and scar dehiscence are low and hence appeals to the user.
AIMS: To evaluate IOL in full-term multiparas with ripe cervixes to achieve delivery at normal working hours and improve maternal satisfaction.
METHODS: A randomised trial was performed in a tertiary hospital in Malaysia. Low-risk multiparas with ripe cervixes (Bishop score ≥6) were recruited at 38+4 -40+0 weeks, then randomised to planned labour induction at 39+0 weeks or expectant care. Primary outcomes were delivery during 'normal working hours' 09:00-17:00 hours, Monday-Friday and patient satisfaction by visual numerical rating scale.
RESULTS: For IOL (n = 80) vs expectant care (n = 80) arms respectively, primary outcomes of delivery at normal working hours was 27/80 (34%) vs 29/78 (37%), relative risk (RR) 0.9, 95% CI 0.5-1.7, P = 0.41, patient satisfaction was 8.0 ± 1.8 vs 7.8 ± 1.6, P = 0.41; presentation for spontaneous labour or rupture of membranes were 27/80 (34%) vs 70/79 (89%), RR 0.4, 95% CI 0.3-0.5, P
METHODS: : Nulliparas with uncomplicated PROM at term, a Bishop score less than or equal to 6, and who required labor induction were recruited for a double-blind randomized trial. Participants were randomly assigned to 3-mg dinoprostone pessary and oxytocin infusion or placebo and oxytocin infusion. A cardiotocogram was performed before induction and maintained to delivery. Dinoprostone pessary or placebo was placed in the posterior vaginal fornix. Oxytocin intravenous infusion was commenced at 2 milliunits/min and doubled every 30 minutes to a maximum of 32 milliunits/min. Oxytocin infusion rate was titrated to achieve four contractions every 10 minutes. Primary outcomes were vaginal delivery within 12 hours and maternal satisfaction with the birth process using a visual analog scale (VAS) from 0 to 10 (higher score, greater satisfaction).
RESULTS: : One hundred fourteen women were available for analysis. Vaginal delivery rates within 12 hours were 25 of 57 (43.9%) for concurrent treatment compared with 27/57 (47.4%) (relative risk 0.9, 95% confidence interval 0.6-1.4, P=.85) for oxytocin only; median VAS was 8 (interquartile range [IQR] 2) compared with 8 (IQR 2), P=.38. Uterine hyperstimulation was 14% compared with 5.3%, P=.20; overall vaginal delivery rates were 59.6% compared with 64.9%, P=.70; and induction to vaginal delivery interval 9.7 hours compared with 9.4 hours P=.75 for concurrent treatment compared with oxytocin, respectively. There was no significant difference for any other outcome.
CONCLUSION: : Concurrent vaginal dinoprostone and intravenous oxytocin for labor induction of term PROM did not expedite delivery or improve patient satisfaction.
CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: : Current Controlled Trials, www.controlled-trials.com, ISRCTN74376345
LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: : I.
METHODS: Women at term with one transverse lower segment cesarean delivery who were suitable for and who planned VBAC were approached to participate. Participants were randomly assigned to weekly membrane sweeping or weekly vaginal assessment for Bishop score until delivery. Participants and delivery providers were blinded to the allocated treatment. Standard obstetric care was given to all participants. The primary outcome was onset of labor which was defined as the presence of spontaneous regular and painful contractions that cause cervical dilation to at least 3 cm or prelabor rupture of membranes. Secondary outcomes included induction of labor and repeat cesarean delivery.
RESULTS: One hundred eight women were randomly assigned to membrane sweeping and 105 to control. The spontaneous labor rate was 78.5% compared with 72.1% (relative risk [RR] 1.1, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.9-1.3; P=.34), the induction of labor rate was 12.1% compared with 9.6% (RR 1.3, 95% CI 0.6-2.8; P=.66), and the all-cause cesarean delivery rate was 40.2% compared with 44.2% (RR 0.9, 95% CI 0.7-1.2; P=.58) for the membrane sweeping and control groups, respectively. Gestational age at delivery (mean+/-standard deviation) of 39.6+/-1.0 weeks for the membrane sweeping group compared with 39.6+/-0.9 weeks for the control group (P=.84) was no different.
CONCLUSION: Serial membrane sweeping at term in women who planned VBAC has no significant effect on the onset of labor, pregnancy duration, induction of labor, or repeat cesarean delivery.
CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: ISRCTN, isrctn.org, ISRCTN55163179.
LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: I.