Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item:
https://hdl.handle.net/2440/86315
Citations | ||
Scopus | Web of Science® | Altmetric |
---|---|---|
?
|
?
|
Type: | Journal article |
Title: | Outcomes after internal versus external tocodynamometry for monitoring labor |
Author: | Bakker, J. Verhoeven, C. Janssen, P. van Lith, J. van Oudgaarden, E. Bloemenkamp, K. Papatsonis, D. Mol, B. van der Post, J. |
Citation: | New England Journal of Medicine, 2010; 362(4):306-313 |
Publisher: | Massachusetts Medical Society |
Issue Date: | 2010 |
ISSN: | 0028-4793 1533-4406 |
Statement of Responsibility: | Jannet J.H. Bakker, Corine J.M. Verhoeven, Petra F. Janssen, Jan M. van Lith, Elisabeth D. van Oudgaarden, Kitty W.M. Bloemenkamp, Dimitri N.M. Papatsonis, Ben Willem J. Mol, and Joris A.M. van der Post |
Abstract: | Background: It has been hypothesized that internal tocodynamometry, as compared with external monitoring, may provide a more accurate assessment of contractions and thus improve the ability to adjust the dose of oxytocin effectively, resulting in fewer operative deliveries and less fetal distress. However, few data are available to test this hypothesis. Methods: We performed a randomized, controlled trial in six hospitals in the Netherlands to compare internal tocodynamometry with external monitoring of uterine activity in women for whom induced or augmented labor was required. The primary outcome was the rate of operative deliveries, including both cesarean sections and instrumented vaginal deliveries. Secondary outcomes included the use of antibiotics during labor, time from randomization to delivery, and adverse neonatal outcomes (defined as any of the following: an Apgar score at 5 minutes of less than 7, umbilical-artery pH of less than 7.05, and neonatal hospital stay of longer than 48 hours). Results: We randomly assigned 1456 women to either internal tocodynamometry (734) or external monitoring (722). The operative-delivery rate was 31.3% in the internal-tocodynamometry group and 29.6% in the external-monitoring group (relative risk with internal monitoring, 1.1; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.91 to 1.2). Secondary outcomes did not differ significantly between the two groups. The rate of adverse neonatal outcomes was 14.3% with internal monitoring and 15.0% with external monitoring (relative risk, 0.95; 95% CI, 0.74 to 1.2). No serious adverse events associated with use of the intrauterine pressure catheter were reported. Conclusions: Internal tocodynamometry during induced or augmented labor, as compared with external monitoring, did not significantly reduce the rate of operative deliveries or of adverse neonatal outcomes. (Current Controlled Trials number, ISRCTN13667534; Netherlands Trial number, NTR285.) |
Keywords: | Humans Uterine Monitoring Pregnancy Outcome Cesarean Section Extraction, Obstetrical Labor, Induced Statistics, Nonparametric Pregnancy Labor, Obstetric Adult Female Kaplan-Meier Estimate |
Rights: | Copyright © 2010 Massachusetts Medical Society. All rights reserved. |
DOI: | 10.1056/NEJMoa0902748 |
Published version: | http://dx.doi.org/10.1056/nejmoa0902748 |
Appears in Collections: | Aurora harvest 2 Obstetrics and Gynaecology publications |
Files in This Item:
There are no files associated with this item.
Items in DSpace are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved, unless otherwise indicated.