Balloon catheter for induction of labor in women with one previous cesarean and an unfavorable cervix.

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.

Prediction of cesarean section risk in women with gestational hypertension or mild preeclampsia at term.

OBJECTIVE: In a recent randomized controlled trial we found that induction of labor in women with gestational hypertension (GH) or mild (preeclampsia) PE at term prevented high risk situations without increasing the cesarean section (CS) rate. We aimed to assess the predictability of the risk of CS. STUDY DESIGN: We used multivariable logistic regression analysis to identify predictive factors. Two models were created, one including antepartum and one including antepartum and intrapartum variables. The predictive capacity was assessed with ROC analysis and calibration. RESULTS: 126 (17%) of the 756 women delivered by CS. In multivariable analysis parity (OR 5.4), ethnicity (OR 2.4), previous miscarriage (OR 1.7), creatinine (OR 1.02), proteinuria (OR 2.4), cervical length (OR 1.02), engagement (OR 0.5) and dilatation (OR 0.7) were independent antepartum predictors. Intrapartum variables were parity (OR 3.6), ethnicity (OR 1.9), previous miscarriage (OR 1.5), gestational age at delivery (OR 1.2), antibiotic use (OR 8.0), disease progression (OR 2.4), uric acid (OR 1.4), proteinuria (OR 3.50) and dilatation (OR 0.76). Both models showed good discrimination (AUC 0.74 and 0.80) but calibration was moderate (Hosmer-Lemeshow P-value 0.42 and 0.70). CONCLUSION: In women with GH or mild PE at term, the risk of CS can be predicted.

Patient controlled analgesia with remifentanil versus epidural analgesia in labour: randomised multicentre equivalence trial.

OBJECTIVE: To determine women's satisfaction with pain relief using patient controlled analgesia with remifentanil compared with epidural analgesia during labour. DESIGN: Multicentre randomised controlled equivalence trial. SETTING: 15 hospitals in the Netherlands. PARTICIPANTS: Women with an intermediate to high obstetric risk with an intention to deliver vaginally. To exclude a clinically relevant difference in satisfaction with pain relief of more than 10%, we needed to include 1136 women. Because of missing values for satisfaction this number was increased to 1400 before any analysis. We used multiple imputation to correct for missing data. INTERVENTION: Before the onset of active labour consenting women were randomised to a pain relief strategy with patient controlled remifentanil or epidural analgesia if they requested pain relief during labour. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Primary outcome was satisfaction with pain relief, measured hourly on a visual analogue scale and expressed as area under the curve (AUC), thus providing a time weighted measure of total satisfaction with pain relief. A higher AUC represents higher satisfaction with pain relief. Secondary outcomes were pain intensity scores, mode of delivery, and maternal and neonatal outcomes. Analysis was done by intention to treat. The study was defined as an equivalence study for the primary outcome. RESULTS: 1414 women were randomised, of whom 709 were allocated to patient controlled remifentanil and 705 to epidural analgesia. Baseline characteristics were comparable. Pain relief was ultimately used in 65% (447/687) in the remifentanil group and 52% (347/671) in the epidural analgesia group (relative risk 1.32, 95% confidence interval 1.18 to 1.48). Cross over occurred in 7% (45/687) and 8% (51/671) of women, respectively. Of women primarily treated with remifentanil, 13% (53/402) converted to epidural analgesia, while in women primarily treated with epidural analgesia 1% (3/296) converted to remifentanil. The area under the curve for total satisfaction with pain relief was 30.9 in the remifentanil group versus 33.7 in the epidural analgesia group (mean difference -2.8, 95% confidence interval -6.9 to 1.3). For who actually received pain relief the area under the curve for satisfaction with pain relief after the start of pain relief was 25.6 in the remifentanil group versus 36.1 in the epidural analgesia group (mean difference -10.4, -13.9 to -7.0). The rate of caesarean section was 15% in both groups. Oxygen saturation was significantly lower (SpO2 <92%) in women who used remifentanil (relative risk 1.5, 1.4 to 1.7). Maternal and neonatal outcomes were comparable between both groups. CONCLUSION: In women in labour, patient controlled analgesia with remifentanil is not equivalent to epidural analgesia with respect to scores on satisfaction with pain relief. Satisfaction with pain relief was significantly higher in women who were allocated to and received epidural analgesia. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Netherlands Trial Register NTR2551.

Economic analysis comparing induction of labour and expectant management for intrauterine growth restriction at term (DIGITAT trial).

OBJECTIVE: Pregnancies complicated by intrauterine growth restriction (IUGR) are at increased risk for neonatal morbidity and mortality. The Dutch nationwide disproportionate intrauterine growth intervention trial at term (DIGITAT trial) showed that induction of labour and expectant monitoring were comparable with respect to composite adverse neonatal outcome and operative delivery. In this study we compare the costs of both strategies. STUDY DESIGN: A cost analysis was performed alongside the DIGITAT trial, which was a randomized controlled trial in which 650 women with a singleton pregnancy with suspected IUGR beyond 36 weeks of pregnancy were allocated to induction or expectant management. Resource utilization was documented by specific items in the case report forms. Unit costs for clinical resources were calculated from the financial reports of participating hospitals. For primary care costs Dutch standardized prices were used. All costs are presented in Euros converted to the year 2009. RESULTS: Antepartum expectant monitoring generated more costs, mainly due to longer antepartum maternal stays in hospital. During delivery and the postpartum stage, induction generated more direct medical costs, due to longer stay in the labour room and longer duration of neonatal high care/medium care admissions. From a health care perspective, both strategies generated comparable costs: on average €7106 per patient for the induction group (N=321) and €6995 for the expectant management group (N=329) with a cost difference of €111 (95%CI: €-1296 to 1641). CONCLUSION: Induction of labour and expectant monitoring in IUGR at term have comparable outcomes immediately after birth in terms of obstetrical outcomes, maternal quality of life and costs. Costs are lower, however, in the expectant monitoring group before 38 weeks of gestation and costs are lower in the induction of labour group after 38 weeks of gestation. So if induction of labour is considered to pre-empt possible stillbirth in suspected IUGR, it is reasonable to delay until 38 weeks, with watchful monitoring.

SIMPLE: implementation of recommendations from international evidence-based guidelines on caesarean sections in the Netherlands. Protocol for a controlled before and after study.

BACKGROUND: Caesarean section (CS) rates are rising worldwide. In the Netherlands, the most significant rise is observed in healthy women with a singleton in vertex position between 37 and 42 weeks gestation, whereas it is doubtful whether an improved outcome for the mother or her child was obtained. It can be hypothesized that evidence-based guidelines on CS are not implemented sufficiently. Therefore, the present study has the following objectives: to develop quality indicators on the decision to perform a CS based on key recommendations from national and international guidelines; to use the quality indicators in order to gain insight into actual adherence of Dutch gynaecologists to guideline recommendations on the performance of a CS; to explore barriers and facilitators that have a direct effect on guideline application regarding CS; and to develop, execute, and evaluate a strategy in order to reduce the CS incidence for a similar neonatal outcome (based on the information gathered in the second and third objectives). METHODS: An independent expert panel of Dutch gynaecologists and midwives will develop a set of quality indicators on the decision to perform a CS. These indicators will be used to measure current care in 20 hospitals with a population of 1,000 women who delivered by CS, and a random selection of 1,000 women who delivered vaginally in the same period. Furthermore, by interviewing healthcare professionals and patients, the barriers and facilitators that may influence the decision to perform a CS will be measured. Based on the results, a tailor-made implementation strategy will be developed and tested in a controlled before-and-after study in 12 hospitals (six intervention, six control hospitals) with regard to effectiveness, experiences, and costs. DISCUSSION: This study will offer insight into the current CS care and into the hindering and facilitating factors influencing obstetrical policy on CS. Furthermore, it will allow definition of patient categories or situations in which a tailor-made implementation strategy will most likely be meaningful and cost effective, without negatively affecting the outcome for mother and child. TRIAL REGISTRATION: http://www.clinicaltrials.gov: NCT01261676.

Remifentanil patient controlled analgesia versus epidural analgesia in labour. A multicentre randomized controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Pain relief during labour is a topic of major interest in the Netherlands. Epidural analgesia is considered to be the most effective method of pain relief and recommended as first choice. However its uptake by pregnant women is limited compared to other western countries, partly as a result of non-availability due to logistic problems. Remifentanil, a synthetic opioid, is very suitable for patient controlled analgesia. Recent studies show that epidural analgesia is superior to remifentanil patient controlled analgesia in terms of pain intensity score; however there was no difference in satisfaction with pain relief between both treatments. METHODS/DESIGN: The proposed study is a multicentre randomized controlled study that assesses the cost-effectiveness of remifentanil patient controlled analgesia compared to epidural analgesia. We hypothesize that remifentanil patient controlled analgesia is as effective in improving pain appreciation scores as epidural analgesia, with lower costs and easier achievement of 24 hours availability of pain relief for women in labour and efficient pain relief for those with a contraindication for epidural analgesia.Eligible women will be informed about the study and randomized before active labour has started. Women will be randomly allocated to a strategy based on epidural analgesia or on remifentanil patient controlled analgesia when they request pain relief during labour. Primary outcome is the pain appreciation score, i.e. satisfaction with pain relief.Secondary outcome parameters are costs, patient satisfaction, pain scores (pain-intensity), mode of delivery and maternal and neonatal side effects.The economic analysis will be performed from a short-term healthcare perspective. For both strategies the cost of perinatal care for mother and child, starting at the onset of labour and ending ten days after delivery, will be registered and compared. DISCUSSION: This study, considering cost effectiveness of remifentanil as first choice analgesia versus epidural analgesia, could strongly improve the care for 180.000 women, giving birth in the Netherlands yearly by giving them access to pain relief during labour, 24 hours a day. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: Dutch Trial Register NTR2551, http://www.trialregister.nl.

Prediction of progression to a high risk situation in women with gestational hypertension or mild pre-eclampsia at term.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate whether progression to a high-risk situation is predictable in women with gestational hypertension (GH) or mild pre-eclampsia (PE) at term. METHODS: Women with a singleton pregnancy, a fetus in cephalic position, between 36 and 41 weeks of gestation, complicated by GH or mild PE that were managed expectantly, were selected from the HYPITAT trial. We evaluated the predictability of progression to a high-risk situation. Logistic regression was used to determine the predictive value of clinical characteristics or laboratory findings and to generate a prediction model for progression to a high-risk situation. The predictive value of this model was assessed with receiver-operating characteristic (ROC) analysis, calibration and internal validation. RESULTS: We included 703 women, of whom 244 (34.7%) had progression to a high-risk situation. After multivariable analysis, nulliparity (OR 1.87), maternal age (OR 1.05 per year), gestational age (OR 0.88 per week), previous abortion (OR 1.26), ethnicity (OR 2.05 for non-Caucasian ethnicity), diastolic (OR 1.04 per mmHg), systolic blood pressure (OR 1.02 per mmHg) and the laboratory parameters proteinuria, haemoglobin, platelets, uric acid and alanine aminotransferase were included in the final model. The area under the ROC curve of this model was 0.71 (95% CI, 0.67-0.74). Even though the goodness of fit was moderate (P=0.40), internal validation showed the model could hold in the overall population. CONCLUSION: In the prediction of progression to a high-risk situation, in women with GH or mild PE at term, a distinction can be made between women with a low risk and women with high risk.

Disproportionate Intrauterine Growth Intervention Trial At Term: DIGITAT.

BACKGROUND: Around 80% of intrauterine growth restricted (IUGR) infants are born at term. They have an increase in perinatal mortality and morbidity including behavioral problems, minor developmental delay and spastic cerebral palsy. Management is controversial, in particular the decision whether to induce labour or await spontaneous delivery with strict fetal and maternal surveillance. We propose a randomised trial to compare effectiveness, costs and maternal quality of life for induction of labour versus expectant management in women with a suspected IUGR fetus at term. METHODS/DESIGN: The proposed trial is a multi-centre randomised study in pregnant women who are suspected on clinical grounds of having an IUGR child at a gestational age between 36+0 and 41+0 weeks. After informed consent women will be randomly allocated to either induction of labour or expectant management with maternal and fetal monitoring. Randomisation will be web-based. The primary outcome measure will be a composite neonatal morbidity and mortality. Secondary outcomes will be severe maternal morbidity, maternal quality of life and costs. Moreover, we aim to assess neurodevelopmental and neurobehavioral outcome at two years as assessed by a postal enquiry (Child Behavioral Check List-CBCL and Ages and Stages Questionnaire-ASQ). Analysis will be by intention to treat. Quality of life analysis and a preference study will also be performed in the same study population. Health technology assessment with an economic analysis is part of this so called Digitat trial (Disproportionate Intrauterine Growth Intervention Trial At Term). The study aims to include 325 patients per arm. DISCUSSION: This trial will provide evidence for which strategy is superior in terms of neonatal and maternal morbidity and mortality, costs and maternal quality of life aspects. This will be the first randomised trial for IUGR at term. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Dutch Trial Register and ISRCTN-Register: ISRCTN10363217.