Your browser doesn't support javascript.
loading
Mostrar: 20 | 50 | 100
Resultados 1 - 4 de 4
Filtrar
Más filtros

Bases de datos
Tipo del documento
País de afiliación
Intervalo de año de publicación
1.
Am J Perinatol ; 2023 Jun 19.
Artículo en Inglés | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-37336231

RESUMEN

OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to conduct a systematic review and meta-analysis of all randomized and nonrandomized controlled trials (RCTs and NCTs, respectively) that explored the maternal-neonatal outcomes of cervical osmotic dilators versus dinoprostone in promoting cervical ripening during labor induction. STUDY DESIGN: Six major databases were screened until August 27, 2022. The quality of included studies was evaluated. The data were summarized as mean difference or risk ratio (RR) with 95% confidence interval (CI) in a random-effects model. RESULTS: Overall, 14 studies with 15 arms were analyzed (n = 2,380 patients). Ten and four studies were RCTs and NCTs, respectively. The overall quality for RCTs varied (low risk n = 2, unclear risk n = 7, and high risk n = 1), whereas all NCTs had good quality (n = 4). For the primary endpoints, there was no significant difference between both groups regarding the rate of normal vaginal delivery (RR = 1.04, 95% CI: 0.95-1.14, p = 0.41) and rate of cesarean delivery (RR = 1.04, 95% CI: 0.93-1.17, p = 0.51). Additionally, there was no significant difference between both groups regarding the mean change in Bishop score and mean time from intervention to delivery. The rate of uterine hyperstimulation was significantly lower in the cervical osmotic dilator group. For the neonatal outcomes, during cervical ripening, the rate of fetal distress was significantly lower in the cervical osmotic dilator group. There was no significant difference between both groups regarding the mean Apgar scores, rate of meconium-stained amniotic fluid, rate of umbilical cord metabolic acidosis, rate of neonatal infection, and rate of neonatal intensive care unit admission. CONCLUSION: During labor induction, cervical ripening with cervical osmotic dilators and dinoprostone had comparable maternal-neonatal outcomes. Cervical osmotic dilators had low risk of uterine hyperstimulation compared with dinoprostone. Overall, cervical osmotic dilators might be more preferred over dinoprostone in view of their analogous cervical ripening effects, comparable maternal-neonatal outcomes, and lack of drug-related adverse events. KEY POINTS: · This is the first analysis of cervical osmotic dilators versus PGE2 for cervical ripening during labor.. · There was no difference between both arms regarding the rates of normal vaginal/cesarean deliveries.. · There was no difference between both arms regarding the rates of neonatal adverse events.. · Cervical osmotic dilators had significant lower risk of uterine hyperstimulation compared with PGE2.. · Cervical osmotic dilators may be superior to PGE2 in view of their similar efficacy and better safety..

2.
J Obstet Gynaecol Res ; 48(7): 1523-1530, 2022 Jul.
Artículo en Inglés | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-35466496

RESUMEN

AIM: To evaluate the impact of warm distension medium versus room temperature distension medium on pain control among patients undergoing office hysteroscopy. METHODS: A systematic search was done in PubMed, Cochrane Library, Scopus, and ISI web of science from inception to October 2021. We selected randomized clinical trials (RCTs) compared warmed saline distension medium in the intervention group versus room temperature distension medium in the control group among women undergoing diagnostic and/or operative office hysteroscopy. Revman software was utilized for performing our meta-analysis. Our primary outcomes were pain scores evaluated by the visual analog scale (VAS) during and after the procedure. Our secondary outcome was the patient satisfaction between both groups. RESULTS: Five RCTs met our inclusion criteria with a total number of 441 patients. We found warm saline was linked to a significant reduction in the VAS pain score during the procedure compared to the control group (mean difference [MD] = -1.12, 95% confidence interval [CI] [-1.80, -0.45], p = 0.001). Moreover, the VAS pain score after the procedure was significantly declined among the warm saline group (MD = -0.62, 95% CI [-0.97, -0.27], p = 0.005). Interestingly, more patients were significantly satisfied with warm saline distension medium application compared to room temperature group (odds ratio [OR] = 3.71, 95% CI [2.01, 6.86], p < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Warm saline application in office hysteroscopy is effective in reducing pain during and after the procedure as well as improvement in patient satisfaction.


Asunto(s)
Histeroscopía , Manejo del Dolor , Femenino , Humanos , Histeroscopía/métodos , Dolor/etiología , Manejo del Dolor/métodos , Dimensión del Dolor , Embarazo , Ensayos Clínicos Controlados Aleatorios como Asunto , Solución Salina
3.
Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol ; 291: 61-69, 2023 Dec.
Artículo en Inglés | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-37832480

RESUMEN

AIM: To conduct the first-ever systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) on the antihemorrhagic utility and safety of tranexamic acid (TXA) versus misoprostol for management (prevention and/or treatment) of postpartum hemorrhage (PPH). METHODS: Six databases were screened from inception until May 2023 and updated in September 2023. The RCTs were assessed for quality according to the Cochrane's risk of bias tool. The endpoints were summarized as mean difference (MD) or risk ratio (RR) with 95% confidence interval (CI) in a random-effects model. RESULTS: Ten RCTs with 2121 patients (TXA = 1061 and misoprostol = 1060) were analyzed. There was no significant difference between TXA and misoprostol groups regarding the mean intraoperative blood loss (n = 9 RCTs, MD = 17.32 ml, 95% CI [-40.43, 75.07], p = 0.56), mean change in hemoglobin (n = 6 RCTs, MD = 0.11 mg/dl, 95% CI [-0.1, 0.31], p = 0.30), mean hospital stay (n = 2 RCTs, MD = -0.3 day, 95% CI [-0.61, 0.01], p = 0.06), blood transfusion rate (n = 4 RCTs, RR = 0.49, 95% CI [0.16, 1.47], p = 0.2), and rate of additional uterotonic agents (n = 4 RCTs, RR = 1.05, 95% CI [0.72, 1.53], p = 0.81). Leave-one-out sensitivity analysis showed robustness of the results, and there was no evidence of publication bias. Regarding safety endpoints, there was no significant difference between both groups regarding the rates of minor side effects, such as diarrhea, fever, nausea, and vomiting. No patient developed thromboembolic events in the TXA group. CONCLUSION: There was no significant antihemorrhagic efficacy between adjunct TXA and misoprostol for the management of PPH. The safety profile was comparable between both agents.


Asunto(s)
Antifibrinolíticos , Hemostáticos , Misoprostol , Hemorragia Posparto , Ácido Tranexámico , Embarazo , Femenino , Humanos , Misoprostol/efectos adversos , Hemorragia Posparto/tratamiento farmacológico , Hemorragia Posparto/prevención & control , Ácido Tranexámico/efectos adversos , Ensayos Clínicos Controlados Aleatorios como Asunto , Pérdida de Sangre Quirúrgica/prevención & control , Antifibrinolíticos/efectos adversos
4.
Obstet Gynecol Sci ; 65(5): 406-419, 2022 Sep.
Artículo en Inglés | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-35896179

RESUMEN

To perform a systematic review and meta-analysis of all randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that evaluated the efficacy and safety of prophylactic tranexamic acid (TXA) versus a control (placebo or no treatment) during hysterectomy for benign conditions. Six databases were screened from inception to January 23, 2022. Eligible studies were assessed for risk of bias. Outcomes were summarized as weighted mean differences and risk ratios with 95% confidence intervals in a random-effects model. Five studies, comprising six arms and 911 patients were included in the study. Two and three studies had an overall unclear and low risk of bias, respectively. Estimated intraoperative blood loss, requirement for postoperative blood transfusion, and requirement for intraoperative topical hemostatic agents were significantly reduced in a prophylactic TXA group when compared with a control group. Moreover, postoperative hemoglobin level was significantly higher in the prophylactic TXA group than in the control group. Conversely, the frequency of self-limiting nausea and vomiting was significantly higher in the prophylactic TXA group than in the control group. There were no significant differences between the groups in terms of surgery duration, hospital stay, and diarrhea rate. All the RCTs reported no incidence of major adverse events in either group, such as mortality, thromboembolic events, visual disturbances, or seizures. There was no publication bias for any outcome, and leave-one-out sensitivity analyses demonstrated stability of the findings. Among patients who underwent hysterectomy for benign conditions, prophylactic TXA appeared largely safe and correlated with substantial reductions in estimated intraoperative blood loss and related morbidities.

SELECCIÓN DE REFERENCIAS
DETALLE DE LA BÚSQUEDA