RESUMO
BACKGROUND: There is little evidence to guide the management of women with hypertensive disorders in late preterm pregnancy. We investigated the effect of immediate delivery versus expectant monitoring on maternal and neonatal outcomes in such women. METHODS: We did an open-label, randomised controlled trial, in seven academic hospitals and 44 non-academic hospitals in the Netherlands. Women with non-severe hypertensive disorders of pregnancy between 34 and 37 weeks of gestation were randomly allocated to either induction of labour or caesarean section within 24 h (immediate delivery) or a strategy aimed at prolonging pregnancy until 37 weeks of gestation (expectant monitoring). The primary outcomes were a composite of adverse maternal outcomes (thromboembolic disease, pulmonary oedema, eclampsia, HELLP syndrome, placental abruption, or maternal death), and neonatal respiratory distress syndrome, both analysed by intention-to-treat. This study is registered with the Netherlands Trial Register (NTR1792). FINDINGS: Between March 1, 2009, and Feb 21, 2013, 897 women were invited to participate, of whom 703 were enrolled and randomly assigned to immediate delivery (n=352) or expectant monitoring (n=351). The composite adverse maternal outcome occurred in four (1·1%) of 352 women allocated to immediate delivery versus 11 (3·1%) of 351 women allocated to expectant monitoring (relative risk [RR] 0·36, 95% CI 0·12-1·11; p=0·069). Respiratory distress syndrome was diagnosed in 20 (5·7%) of 352 neonates in the immediate delivery group versus six (1·7%) of 351 neonates in the expectant monitoring group (RR 3·3, 95% CI 1·4-8·2; p=0·005). No maternal or perinatal deaths occurred. INTERPRETATION: For women with non-severe hypertensive disorders at 34-37 weeks of gestation, immediate delivery might reduce the already small risk of adverse maternal outcomes. However, it significantly increases the risk of neonatal respiratory distress syndrome, therefore, routine immediate delivery does not seem justified and a strategy of expectant monitoring until the clinical situation deteriorates can be considered. FUNDING: ZonMw.
Assuntos
Cesárea , Hipertensão Induzida pela Gravidez/terapia , Hipertensão/terapia , Trabalho de Parto Induzido , Pré-Eclâmpsia/terapia , Complicações Cardiovasculares na Gravidez/terapia , Resultado da Gravidez , Adulto , Feminino , Humanos , Hipertensão/diagnóstico , Hipertensão Induzida pela Gravidez/diagnóstico , Recém-Nascido , Monitorização Fisiológica , Pré-Eclâmpsia/diagnóstico , Gravidez , Complicações Cardiovasculares na Gravidez/diagnóstico , Terceiro Trimestre da Gravidez , Fatores de RiscoRESUMO
BACKGROUND: To determine: 1) whether substandard factors were present in cases of perinatal death, and to what extent another course of action might have resulted in a better outcome, and 2) whether there were differences in the frequency of substandard factors by level of care, particularly between midwives and gynecologists/obstetricians and between home and hospital births. METHODS: Population-based perinatal audit, with explicit evidence-based audit criteria. SETTING: The northern part of the province of South-Holland in The Netherlands. All levels of perinatal care (primary, secondary and tertiary care, and home and hospital births) were included. CASES: Three hundred and forty-two cases of perinatal mortality (24 weeks of pregnancy--28 days after birth). MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Scores by a Dutch and a European audit panel. Score 0: no substandard factors identified; score 1, 2 or 3: one or more substandard factors identified, which were unlikely (1), possibly (2) or probably (3) related to the perinatal death. RESULTS: In 25% of the perinatal deaths (95% Confidence Interval: 20-30%) a substandard factor was identified that according to the Dutch panel was possibly or probably related to the perinatal death. These were mainly maternal/social factors (10% of all perinatal deaths; most frequent substandard factor: smoking during pregnancy), and antenatal care factors (10% of all perinatal deaths; most frequent substandard factor: detection of intra-uterine growth retardation). We did not find statistically significant differences in scores between midwives and gynecologists/obstetricians or between home and hospital births. The European panel identified more substandard factors, but these were again equally distributed by level of care. CONCLUSIONS: Perinatal deaths might be partly preventable in The Netherlands. There is no evidence that the frequency of substandard factors is related to specific aspects of the perinatal care system in The Netherlands.