medigraphic.com
Federación Mexicana de Ginecología y Obstetricia, A.C.

2014, Number 05

<< Back Next >>

Ginecol Obstet Mex 2014; 82 (05)

Comparative study between pregnancies induced for premature rupture of membranes and for prolonged pregnancy

Martínez-Medel J, Cabistany-Esqué AC, Campillos-Maza JM, Lapresta- Moros M, Castán-Mateo S, Lapresta-Moros C, Tobajas-Homs J

Language: Spanish
References: 36
Page: 314-324
PDF size: 414.92 Kb.


ABSTRACT

Background: To decrease maternal and fetal morbidity oftem is indicated the elective termination of pregnancy; when the cervix is unfavourable, it is possible to try to artificially reproduce these changes with exogenous prostaglandins.
Objectives: Comparative evaluation of maternal and fetal results between patients in which cervical ripening is practiced with indication of premature rupture of membranes and those with prolonged pregnancy.
Material and method: historic cohorts study about pregnancies requiring cervical ripening, either for premature rupture of membranes or for gestational age ≥ 41 weeks, in the “Miguel Servet” Hospital (Zaragoza, Spain), from 15/11/2005 to 15/05/2008. In all the cases dinoprostone (slow release vaginal system) was employed and the initial Bishop score was ‹7. The main analysed outcomes were: intrapartum fetal heart monitoring characteristics, type of delivery, umbilical artery pH, Apgar score, hospitalization in neonatal unit requirement and time from cervical ripening start to delivery.
Results: Neonatal hospitalization was significantly more frequent in the ruptured membranes cohort (11,70% vs 2,33%); p = 0,001. This difference could be justified by gestational age (OR: 2,623. IC: 0,515-13,353. P= 0,246). It was observed more time cervical ripening – delivery in prolonged pregnancies cohort (25,96h vs 20,11h); p ‹ 0,001. Umbilical cord medium pH was significantly superior in ruptured membranes group (7,25 vs 7,23); p = 0,017. No significant differences were observed in the rest of analyzed outcomes.
Conclusions: Pregnancies electively ended for premature rupture of membranes are associated with a shorter time to delivery and a slightly superior umbilical cord pH than induced prolonged pregnancies. Neonatal hospitalization requirement is determined by gestational age but not by the rupture of the membranes. Cervical ripening in those patients has been demonstrated to be secure and effective.


REFERENCES

  1. American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists. Induction of labor ACOG Practice Bulletin nº 10. Washington DC; ACOG, 1999.

  2. Sociedad Española de Ginecología y Obstetricia. Medios para acelerar la maduración cervical. Protocolos de procedimientos diagnósticos y terapéuticos en Obstetricia. Actualización 2004. Disponible en: http://www.sego.es

  3. Gülmezoglu A, Crowther C, Middleton P, Heatley E. Inducción del trabajo de parto para mejorar los resultados en mujeres a término o después del término. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews 2012 Issue 6. Art No.: CD004945. DOI: 10.1002/14651858. CD004945.

  4. Sociedad Española de Ginecología y Obstetricia. Embarazo cronológicamente prolongado. Protocolos de procedimientos diagnósticos y terapéuticos en Obstetricia. Actualización Junio 2010. Disponible en: http://www.sego.es

  5. Audra P, Pasquier JC. Rupture prématurée des membranes à terme. Encycl Méd Chir (Editions Scientifiques et Médicales Elsevier SAS, Paris, tous droits réservés), Obstétrique, 5-072-B-20; 2002. 6 p.

  6. Gunn GC, Mishell DR Jr, Morton DG. Premature rupture of the fetal membranes: a review. Am J Obstet Gynecol 1970; 106: 469-83.

  7. Duff P. Premature rupture of the membranes in term patients. Seminars in Perinatology 1996; 20(5): 401-408.

  8. Dare MR, Middleton P, Crowther CA, Flenady VJ, Varatharaju B. Planned early birth versus expectant management (waiting) for prelabour rupture of membranes at term (37 weeks or more). Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews 2006, Issue 1. Art. No.: CD005302. DOI: 10.1002/14651858. CD005302.pub2.

  9. Hannah ME, Ohlsson A, Farine D, Hewson SA, Hodnett ED, Myhr TL, et al. Induction of labor compared with expectant management for prelabor rupture of the membranes at term. N Engl J Med 1996; 334: 1005-10.

  10. Da Graça F, Cecatti JG, de Castro FG, Milanez HM, Parpinelli MA. Misoprostol versus expectant management in premature rupture of membranes at term. BJOG 2005; 112(9): 1284-90.

  11. Mc Caul JF 4th, Rogers LW, Perry KG Jr, Martin RW, Albert JR, Morrison JC. Premature rupture of membranes at term with an unfavorable cervix: comparison of expectant management, vaginal prostaglandin and oxytocin induction. South Med J 1997; 90 (12): 1229-33.

  12. Veloz M, Bolaños J, Guzmán M, Martínez O, Páez J, Hernández M. Manejo activo de la rotura prematura de membranas en embarazos de 34 a 37 semanas. Ginecol Obstet Méx 2006; 74(5): 252-259.

  13. Ekman-Ordeberg G, Uldbjerg N, Ulmsten U. Comparison of intravenous oxytocin and vaginal prostaglandin E2 gel in women with unripe cervixes and premature rupture of the membranes at term. Obstet Gynecol 1985; 66: 307–310.

  14. Van der Walt D, Venter PF. Management of term pregnancy with premature rupture of the membranes and unfavourable cervix. S Afr Med J 1989; 75: 54-56.

  15. Goeschen K. Premature rupture of membranes near term: Induction of labor with endocervical prostaglandin E2 gel or intravenous oxytocin. Am J Perinatol 1989; 6: 181-184.

  16. Ray DA, Garite TJ. Prostaglandin E2 for induction of labor in patients with premature rupture of membranes at term. AmJ Obstet Gynecol 1992; 166: 836-843.

  17. Chua S, Arulkumaran S, Yap C, Selamat N, Ratnam SS. Premature rupture of membranes in nulliparas at term with unfavorable cervices: A double-blind randomized trial of prostaglandin and placebo. Obstet Gynecol 1995; 86: 550-554.

  18. Boog G. Induced delivery in premature rupture of membranes. J Gynecol Obstet Biol Reprod 1995; 24 (1 Suppl): 48-53.

  19. El-Shawarby SA, Connell RJ. Induction of labour at term with vaginal prostaglandins preparations: a randomized controlled trial of Prostin vs Propess. J Obstet Gynaecol 2006; 26(7): 627-30.

  20. Frohn WE, Simmons S, Carlan SJ. Prostaglandin E2 gel versus misoprostol for cervical ripening in patients with premature rupture of membranes after 34 weeks. Obstet Gynecol 2002; 99(2): 206-10.

  21. Kalkat RK, McMillan E, Cooper H, Palmer K. Comparison of dinoprostone slow release pessary (Propess) with gel (Prostin) for induction of labour at term. A randomised trial. J Obstet Gynaecol 2008; 28(7): 695-9.

  22. Morgan F, Báez J, Quevedo E, Cuetos C, Osuna I. Misoprostol y oxitocina para inducción de madurez cervical y trabajo de parto en pacientes con embarazo a término y ruptura prematura de membranas. Ginec Obstet Mex 2002; 70:469-476.

  23. Sociedad Española de Ginecología y Obstetricia. Medios para acelerar la maduración cervical. Protocolos de procedimientos diagnósticos y terapéuticos en Obstetricia. Actualización 2004. Disponible en: http://www.sego.es

  24. Induction of labour. National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence (NICE) Guidelines. London: RCOG Press; July 2008.

  25. Mozurkewich E, Horrocks J, Daley S, Von Oeyen P, Halvorson M, Johnson M, et al. The MisoPROM study: A multicenter randomized comparison of oral misoprostol and oxytocin for premature rupture of membranes at term. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2003; 189 (4): 1026-30.

  26. Ben-Haroush A, Yogev Y, Glickman H, Bar J, Kaplan B, Hod M. Mode of delivery in pregnancies with premature rupture of membranes at or before term following induction of labor with vaginal prostaglandin E2. Am J Perinatol 2004; 21(5): 263-8.

  27. Ozden S, Delikara MN, Avci A, Fiçicioglu C. Intravaginal misoprostol vs expectant management in premature rupture of membranes with low Bishop scores at term. Int J Gynaecol Obstet 2002; 77(2): 109-115.

  28. Kyo Hoon Park, Joon-Seok Hong, Ji Kyung Ko, Yong Kyoon Cho, Chul Min Lee, Hoon Choi, et al. Comparative study of induction of labor in nulliparous women with premature rupture of membranes at term compared to those with intact membranes: Duration of labor and mode of delivery. J Obstet Gynaecol Res 2006; 32 (5): 482-8.

  29. Larrañaga-Azcárate C, Campo-Molina G, Pérez-Rodríguez AF, Ezcurdia-Gurpegui M. Dinoprostone vaginal slow-release system (Propess) compared to expectant management in the active treatment of premature rupture of the membranes at term: impact on maternal and fetal outcomes. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand 2008; 87(2): 195-200.

  30. Arroyo A. Fecundidad. En: Tendencias demográficas durante el siglo XX en España. Madrid: Instituto Nacional de Estadística; 2004. p. 122-144.

  31. Lin M, Nuthalapaty F, Carver A, Case A, Ramsey P. Misoprostol for labor induction in women with term premature rupture of membranes. A Meta-Analysis. Obstet Gynecol 2005; 106 (3): 593-601.

  32. Ingemarsson I. Controversies: Premature rupture of membranes at term: no advantage of delaying induction > 24 hours. J Perinat Med 1996; 24 (6): 573-9.

  33. Austin SC, Sanchez-Ramos L, Adair CD. Labor induction with intravaginal misoprostol compared with the dinoprostone vaginal insert: a systematic review and metaanalysis. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2010; 202: 624.e1-9.

  34. Wing DA; misoprostol vaginal insert consortium. Misoprostol vaginal insert compared with dinoprostone vaginal insert: a randomized control trial. Obstet Gynecol 2008; 112: 801-12.

  35. Mazouni C, Provensal M, Ménard JP, Heckenroth H, Guidicelli B, Gamerre M, et al. Evaluation of controlled-release dinoprostona Propess for labor induction. Gynecol Obstet Fertil 2006; 34(6): 489-92.

  36. Lyrenas S, Clason I, Ulmsten U. In vivo controlled release of PGE2 from a vaginal insert (0.8 mm, 10 mg) during induction of labour. BJOG 2001; 108 (2): 169-78.




2020     |     www.medigraphic.com