scholarly journals Induction of labour at 41 weeks or expectant management until 42 weeks: A systematic review and an individual participant data meta-analysis of randomised trials

PLoS Medicine ◽  
2020 ◽  
Vol 17 (12) ◽  
pp. e1003436
Author(s):  
Mårten Alkmark ◽  
Judit K. J. Keulen ◽  
Joep C. Kortekaas ◽  
Christina Bergh ◽  
Jeroen van Dillen ◽  
...  

Background The risk of perinatal death and severe neonatal morbidity increases gradually after 41 weeks of pregnancy. Several randomised controlled trials (RCTs) have assessed if induction of labour (IOL) in uncomplicated pregnancies at 41 weeks will improve perinatal outcomes. We performed an individual participant data meta-analysis (IPD-MA) on this subject. Methods and findings We searched PubMed, Excerpta Medica dataBASE (Embase), The Cochrane Library, Cumulative Index of Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL), and PsycINFO on February 21, 2020 for RCTs comparing IOL at 41 weeks with expectant management until 42 weeks in women with uncomplicated pregnancies. Individual participant data (IPD) were sought from eligible RCTs. Primary outcome was a composite of severe adverse perinatal outcomes: mortality and severe neonatal morbidity. Additional outcomes included neonatal admission, mode of delivery, perineal lacerations, and postpartum haemorrhage. Prespecified subgroup analyses were conducted for parity (nulliparous/multiparous), maternal age (<35/≥35 years), and body mass index (BMI) (<30/≥30). Aggregate data meta-analysis (MA) was performed to include data from RCTs for which IPD was not available. From 89 full-text articles, we identified three eligible RCTs (n = 5,161), and two contributed with IPD (n = 4,561). Baseline characteristics were similar between the groups regarding age, parity, BMI, and higher level of education. IOL resulted overall in a decrease of severe adverse perinatal outcome (0.4% [10/2,281] versus 1.0% [23/2,280]; relative risk [RR] 0.43 [95% confidence interval [CI] 0.21 to 0.91], p-value 0.027, risk difference [RD] −57/10,000 [95% CI −106/10,000 to −8/10,000], I2 0%). The number needed to treat (NNT) was 175 (95% CI 94 to 1,267). Perinatal deaths occurred in one (<0.1%) versus eight (0.4%) pregnancies (Peto odds ratio [OR] 0.21 [95% CI 0.06 to 0.78], p-value 0.019, RD −31/10,000, [95% CI −56/10,000 to −5/10,000], I2 0%, NNT 326, [95% CI 177 to 2,014]) and admission to a neonatal care unit ≥4 days occurred in 1.1% (24/2,280) versus 1.9% (46/2,273), (RR 0.52 [95% CI 0.32 to 0.85], p-value 0.009, RD −97/10,000 [95% CI −169/10,000 to −26/10,000], I2 0%, NNT 103 [95% CI 59 to 385]). There was no difference in the rate of cesarean delivery (10.5% versus 10.7%; RR 0.98, [95% CI 0.83 to 1.16], p-value 0.81) nor in other important perinatal, delivery, and maternal outcomes. MA on aggregate data showed similar results. Prespecified subgroup analyses for the primary outcome showed a significant difference in the treatment effect (p = 0.01 for interaction) for parity, but not for maternal age or BMI. The risk of severe adverse perinatal outcome was decreased for nulliparous women in the IOL group (0.3% [4/1,219] versus 1.6% [20/1,264]; RR 0.20 [95% CI 0.07 to 0.60], p-value 0.004, RD −127/10,000, [95% CI −204/10,000 to −50/10,000], I2 0%, NNT 79 [95% CI 49 to 201]) but not for multiparous women (0.6% [6/1,219] versus 0.3% [3/1,264]; RR 1.59 [95% CI 0.15 to 17.30], p-value 0.35, RD 27/10,000, [95% CI −29/10,000 to 84/10,000], I2 55%). A limitation of this IPD-MA was the risk of overestimation of the effect on perinatal mortality due to early stopping of the largest included trial for safety reasons after the advice of the Data and Safety Monitoring Board. Furthermore, only two RCTs were eligible for the IPD-MA; thus, the possibility to assess severe adverse neonatal outcomes with few events was limited. Conclusions In this study, we found that, overall, IOL at 41 weeks improved perinatal outcome compared with expectant management until 42 weeks without increasing the cesarean delivery rate. This benefit is shown only in nulliparous women, whereas for multiparous women, the incidence of mortality and morbidity was too low to demonstrate any effect. The magnitude of risk reduction of perinatal mortality remains uncertain. Women with pregnancies approaching 41 weeks should be informed on the risk differences according to parity so that they are able to make an informed choice for IOL at 41 weeks or expectant management until 42 weeks. Study Registration: PROSPERO CRD42020163174

2020 ◽  
Vol 127 (11) ◽  
pp. 1439-1439 ◽  
Author(s):  
José Morales‐Roselló ◽  
Gabriela Loscalzo ◽  
Silvia Buongiorno ◽  
Vaidilė Jakaitė ◽  
Alfredo Perales‐Marín

2020 ◽  
Vol 128 (2) ◽  
pp. 226-235 ◽  
Author(s):  
CA Vollgraff Heidweiller‐Schreurs ◽  
IR Osch ◽  
MW Heymans ◽  
W Ganzevoort ◽  
LJ Schoonmade ◽  
...  

BMJ Open ◽  
2020 ◽  
Vol 10 (3) ◽  
pp. e034595
Author(s):  
Anna Lene Seidler ◽  
Lelia Duley ◽  
Anup C Katheria ◽  
Catalina De Paco Matallana ◽  
Eugene Dempsey ◽  
...  

IntroductionTiming of cord clamping and other cord management strategies may improve outcomes at preterm birth. However, it is unclear whether benefits apply to all preterm subgroups. Previous and current trials compare various policies, including time-based or physiology-based deferred cord clamping, and cord milking. Individual participant data (IPD) enable exploration of different strategies within subgroups. Network meta-analysis (NMA) enables comparison and ranking of all available interventions using a combination of direct and indirect comparisons.Objectives(1) To evaluate the effectiveness of cord management strategies for preterm infants on neonatal mortality and morbidity overall and for different participant characteristics using IPD meta-analysis. (2) To evaluate and rank the effect of different cord management strategies for preterm births on mortality and other key outcomes using NMA.Methods and analysisSystematic searches of Medline, Embase, clinical trial registries, and other sources for all ongoing and completed randomised controlled trials comparing cord management strategies at preterm birth (before 37 weeks’ gestation) have been completed up to 13 February 2019, but will be updated regularly to include additional trials. IPD will be sought for all trials; aggregate summary data will be included where IPD are unavailable. First, deferred clamping and cord milking will be compared with immediate clamping in pairwise IPD meta-analyses. The primary outcome will be death prior to hospital discharge. Effect differences will be explored for prespecified participant subgroups. Second, all identified cord management strategies will be compared and ranked in an IPD NMA for the primary outcome and the key secondary outcomes. Treatment effect differences by participant characteristics will be identified. Inconsistency and heterogeneity will be explored.Ethics and disseminationEthics approval for this project has been granted by the University of Sydney Human Research Ethics Committee (2018/886). Results will be relevant to clinicians, guideline developers and policy-makers, and will be disseminated via publications, presentations and media releases.Registration numberAustralian New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry (ANZCTR) (ACTRN12619001305112) and International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews (PROSPERO, CRD42019136640).


2016 ◽  
Vol 123 (11) ◽  
pp. 1753-1760 ◽  
Author(s):  
EOG van Vliet ◽  
GH Dijkema ◽  
E Schuit ◽  
KY Heida ◽  
C Roos ◽  
...  

2019 ◽  
Author(s):  
Anna Lene Seidler ◽  
Lelia Duley ◽  
Anup Katheria ◽  
Catalina De Paco Matallana ◽  
Eugene Dempsey ◽  
...  

ABSTRACTIntroductionTiming of cord clamping and other cord management strategies may improve outcomes at preterm birth. However, it is unclear whether benefits apply to all preterm subgroups such as those who usually receive immediate neonatal care. Previous and current trials compare various policies, including immediate cord clamping, time- or physiology-based deferred cord clamping, and cord milking. Individual participant data (IPD) enables exploration of different strategies within subgroups. Network meta-analysis (NMA) enables comparison and ranking of all available interventions using a combination of direct and indirect comparisons.Objectives1) To evaluate the effectiveness of cord management strategies for preterm infants on neonatal mortality and morbidity overall and for different participant characteristics using IPD meta-analysis; and 2) to evaluate and rank the effect of different cord management strategies for preterm births on mortality and other key outcomes using NMA.Methods and analysisWe will conduct a systematic search of Medline, Embase, clinical trial registries, and other sources for all planned, ongoing and completed randomised controlled trials comparing alternative cord management strategies at preterm birth (before 37 weeks’ gestation). IPD will be sought for all trials. First, deferred clamping and cord milking will be compared with immediate clamping in pairwise IPD meta-analyses. The primary outcome will be death prior to hospital discharge. Effect differences will be explored for pre-specified subgroups of participants. Second, all identified cord management strategies will be compared and ranked in an IPD NMA for the primary outcome and the key secondary outcomes intraventricular haemorrhage (any grade) and infant blood transfusions (any). Treatment effect differences by participant characteristics will be identified. Inconsistency and heterogeneity will be explored.Ethics and disseminationApproved by University of Sydney Human Research Ethics Committee (2018/886). Results will be relevant to clinicians, guideline-developers and policy-makers, and will be disseminated via publications, presentations, and media releases.RegistrationAustralian New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry: ACTRN12619001305112.STRENGTH AND LIMITATIONS OF THIS STUDYThis will be the most comprehensive review to date of interventions for umbilical cord management in preterm infants and the findings will be highly relevant to clinicians and guideline developersThe use of individual participant data will allow assessment of the best treatment option for key subgroups of participantsNetwork meta-analysis will enable the comparison and ranking of all available treatment options using direct and indirect evidenceFor some of the trials it will not be possible to obtain individual participant data, so published aggregate results will be used insteadRisk of bias in the primary trials will be assessed using Cochrane criteria, and certainty of evidence for the meta-analyses will be appraised using the GRADE approach for the pairwise comparisons, and the CINeMA approach for the network meta-analysis


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document