RESUMO
INTRODUCTION: It remains uncertain whether the most appropriate management for women with an unfavourable cervix after 24 hours of cervical ripening is repeating the ripening procedure or proceeding directly to induction by oxytocin. No adequately powered trial has compared these strategies. We hypothesise that induction of labour with oxytocin among women who have just undergone an ineffective first ripening procedure is not associated with a higher risk of caesarean delivery than a repeated cervical ripening with prostaglandins. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: We will conduct a multicentre, non-inferiority, open-label, randomised controlled trial aimed at comparing labour induction by oxytocin with a second cervical ripening that uses prostaglandins (slow-release vaginal dinoprostone; oral misoprostol 25 µg; dinoprostone vaginal gel 2 mg). Women (n=1494) randomised in a 1:1 ratio in 10 French maternity units must be ≥18 years with a singleton fetus in vertex presentation, at a term from ≥37+0 weeks of gestation, and have just completed a 24-hour cervical ripening procedure by any method (pharmacological or mechanical) with a Bishop score ≤6. Exclusion criteria comprise being in labour, having more than 3 contractions per 10 min, or a prior caesarean delivery or a history of uterine surgery, or a fetus with antenatally suspected severe congenital abnormalities or a non-reassuring fetal heart rate. The primary endpoint will be the caesarean delivery rate, regardless of indication. Secondary outcomes concern delivery, perinatal morbidity, maternal satisfaction and health economic evaluations. The nature of the assessed procedures prevents masking the study investigators and patients to group assignment. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: All participants will provide written informed consent. The ethics committee 'Comité de Protection des Personnes Ile de France VII' approved this study on 2 April 2021 (No 2021-000989-15). Study findings will be submitted for publication and presented at relevant conferences. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT04949633.
Assuntos
Abortivos não Esteroides , Trabalho de Parto Induzido , Ocitócicos , Feminino , Humanos , Gravidez , Maturidade Cervical , Colo do Útero , Dinoprostona/uso terapêutico , Trabalho de Parto Induzido/métodos , Estudos Multicêntricos como Assunto , Ocitocina/uso terapêutico , Prostaglandinas/uso terapêutico , Estudos de Equivalência como AsuntoRESUMO
INTRODUCTION: Prenatal care is recommended during pregnancy to improve neonatal and maternal outcomes. Women of lower socioeconomic status (SES) are less compliant to recommended prenatal care and suffer a higher risk of adverse perinatal outcomes. Several attempts to encourage optimal pregnancy follow-up have shown controversial results, particularly in high-income countries. Few studies have assessed financial incentives to encourage prenatal care, and none reported materno-fetal events as the primary outcome. Our study aims to determine whether financial incentives could improve pregnancy outcomes in women with low SES in a high-income country. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: This pragmatic cluster-randomised clinical trial includes pregnant women with the following criteria: (1) age above 18 years, (2) first pregnancy visit before 26 weeks of gestation and (3) belonging to a socioeconomically disadvantaged group. The intervention consists in offering financial incentives conditional on attending scheduled pregnancy follow-up consultations. Clusters are 2-month periods with random turnover across centres. A composite outcome of maternal and neonatal morbidity and mortality is the primary endpoint. Secondary endpoints include maternal or neonatal outcomes assessed separately, qualitative assessment of the perception of the intervention and cost-effectiveness analysis for which children will be followed to the end of their first year through the French health insurance database. The study started in June 2016, and based on an expected decrease in the primary endpoint from 18% to 14% in the intervention group, we plan to include 2000 women in each group. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: Ethics approval was first gained on 28 September 2014. An independent data security and monitoring committee has been established. Results of the main trial and each of the secondary analyses will be submitted for publication in a peer-reviewed journal. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT02402855; pre-results.