Search

Background: Induction of labour (IOL) is common practice and different methods carry different effectiveness and safety profiles., Objectives: To compare the effectiveness, and maternal and perinatal safety outcomes of IOL with vaginal misoprostol versus vaginal dinoprostone using individual participant data from randomised clinical trials., Search Strategy: The following databases were searched from inception to March 2023: CINAHL Plus, ClinicalTrials.gov, Cochrane Pregnancy and Childbirth Group Trial Register, Ovid Embase, Ovid Emcare, Ovid MEDLINE, Scopus and the World Health Organization (WHO) International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP)., Selection Criteria: Randomised controlled trials (RCTs), with viable singleton gestation, no language restrictions, and all published and unpublished data., Data Collection and Analysis: An individual participant data meta-analysis was carried out., Main Results: Ten of 52 eligible trials provided individual participant data, of which two were excluded after checking data integrity. The remaining eight trials compared low-dose vaginal misoprostol versus dinoprostone, including 4180 women undergoing IOL, which represents 32.8% of all participants in the published RCTs. Of these, 2077 were assigned to low-dose vaginal misoprostol and 2103 were assigned to vaginal dinoprostone. Compared with vaginal dinoprostone, low-dose vaginal misoprostol had a comparable rate of vaginal birth. Composite adverse perinatal outcomes did not differ between the groups. Compared with vaginal dinoprostone, composite adverse maternal outcomes were significantly lower with low-dose vaginal misoprostol (aOR 0.80, 95% CI 0.65-0.98, P = 0.03, I 2  = 0%)., Conclusions: Low-dose vaginal misoprostol and vaginal dinoprostone for IOL are comparable in terms of effectiveness and perinatal safety. However, low-dose vaginal misoprostol is likely to lead to a lower rate of composite adverse maternal outcomes than vaginal dinoprostone., (© 2024 The Authors. BJOG: An International Journal of Obstetrics and Gynaecology published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd.)

Introduction: When women with a previous cesarean section and an unfavorable cervix have an indication for delivery, the choice is to induce labor or to perform a cesarean section. This study aims to assess the effectiveness and safety of a balloon catheter as a method of induction of labor in women with one previous cesarean section and an unfavorable cervix compared with an elective repeat cesarean section., Material and Methods: We performed a prospective cohort study in 51 hospitals in the Netherlands on term women with one previous cesarean section, a live singleton fetus in cephalic position, an unfavorable cervix and an indication for delivery. We recorded obstetric, maternal and neonatal characteristics. We compared the outcome of women who were induced with a balloon catheter with the outcome of women who delivered by elective repeat cesarean section. Main outcomes were maternal and neonatal morbidity. Mode of delivery was a secondary outcome for women who were induced. Adjusted odds ratios (aOR) were calculated using logistic regression, adjusted for potential confounders., Results: Analysis was performed on 993 women who were induced and 321 women who had a repeat cesarean section (August 2011 until September 2012). Among the women who were induced, 560 (56.4%) delivered vaginally and 11 (1.1%) sustained a uterine rupture. Composite adverse maternal outcome (uterine rupture, severe postpartum hemorrhage or postpartum infection) occurred in 73 (7.4%) in the balloon and 14 (4.5%) women in the repeat cesarean section group (aOR 1.58, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.85-2.96). Composite adverse neonatal outcome (Apgar score <7 at 5 minutes or umbilical pH <7.10) occurred in 57 (5.7%) and 10 (3.2%) neonates, respectively (aOR 1.40, 95% CI 0.87-3.48). Women who were induced had a shorter postpartum admission time (2.0 vs 3.0 days (P < 0.0001))., Conclusions: In women with a previous cesarean section and a need for delivery, induction of labor with a balloon catheter does not result in a significant increase in adverse maternal and neonatal outcomes as compared with planned cesarean section., (© 2019 The Authors. Acta Obstetricia et Gynecologica Scandinavica published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd on behalf of Nordic Federation of Societies of Obstetrics and Gynecology (NFOG).)

Background: The influence of ethnicity in women with gestational diabetes in relation to maternal, pregnancy and neonatal outcome is not well defined., Aim: To compare the perinatal outcome in women with gestational diabetes between different ethnic groups reflecting the multi-ethnic population in the Netherlands., Methods: Patients with gestational diabetes (n = 388) who visited the multidisciplinary outpatient clinic for Diabetes Care and Obstetrics of the Sint Franciscus Gasthuis in Rotterdam between 2010 and 2013 were included. Ethnicity was distinguished into six groups: Moroccan (n = 100); Turkish (n = 43); Caucasian (n = 146); Suriname-Creole (n = 23); Suriname-Hindu (n = 32); and Miscellaneous (n = 44)., Results: Caucasians were the largest group with gestational diabetes (37.7%), followed by Moroccans (25.8%). Body mass index before pregnancy was highest in Surinamese-Creole women, followed by Turks and Moroccans (p &lt; 0.001). Gravidity and parity were highest in Moroccans. Gravidity was lowest in Surinamese-Hindus and parity was lowest in Caucasians (p &lt; 0.001). There was also a remarkable, significant difference in the mode of delivery between the ethnicities with the lowest number of normal deliveries in Caucasians and the highest in Moroccans (p = 0.03). Assisted delivery occurred most frequently in Caucasian women, although there was no difference in the frequency of caesarean sections. Birth weight was the only neonatal parameter showing significant differences between the ethnicities, with the highest birth weight for Moroccan children and the lowest for Surinamese children (3542 g vs. 3200; p = 0.001)., Conclusion: This study did not show major differences in maternal or neonatal complications, however there are significant disparities in (percentile) birth weight and mode of delivery across the different ethnic groups.