ABSTRACT
OBJECTIVE: The evidence for the management of near term prelabor rupture of membranes is poor. From January 2007 until September 2009, we performed the PPROM Expectant Management versus Induction of Labor (PPROMEXIL) trial. In this trial, we showed that in women with preterm prelabor rupture of membranes (PPROM), the incidence of neonatal sepsis was low, and the induction of labor (IoL) did not reduce this risk. Because the PPROMEXIL trial was underpowered and because of a lower-than-expected incidence of neonatal sepsis, we performed a second trial (PPROMEXIL-2), aiming to randomize 200 patients to improve the evidence in near-term PPROM. STUDY DESIGN: In a nationwide multicenter study, nonlaboring women with PPROM between 34 and 37 weeks' gestational age were eligible for inclusion. Patients were randomized to IoL or expectant management (EM). The primary outcome measure was neonatal sepsis. RESULTS: From December 2009 until January 2011, we randomized 100 women to IoL and 95 to EM. Neonatal sepsis was seen in 3 neonates (3.0%) in the IoL-group versus 4 neonates (4.1%) in the EM group (relative risk, 0.74; 95% confidence interval, 0.17-3.2). One of the sepsis cases in the IoL group resulted in neonatal death because of asphyxia. There were no significant differences in secondary outcomes. CONCLUSION: The risk of neonatal sepsis after PPROM near term is low. Induction of labor does not reduce this risk.
Subject(s)
Fetal Membranes, Premature Rupture/therapy , Labor, Induced , Sepsis/diagnosis , Watchful Waiting , Adult , Female , Fetal Membranes, Premature Rupture/epidemiology , Humans , Incidence , Infant, Newborn , Male , Pregnancy , Pregnancy Trimester, Third , Sepsis/epidemiology , Sepsis/prevention & control , Treatment OutcomeABSTRACT
Prelabor rupture of membranes (PROM) is a common obstetrical problem, but its diagnosis is frequently problematic. Lacking a gold standard, the diagnosis is equivocal in some 10% of cases. We performed a systematic review to assess the accuracy of several tests for the diagnosis of PROM in these equivocal cases. We performed an electronic search in PubMed, Embase, DARE and the Cochrane Library and reference lists for potentially missed articles. No language restrictions were used. Only accuracy studies for diagnostic methods for PROM in women with equivocal PROM were selected. The studies were scored according to STARD and QUADAS guidelines. Based on the full description of reference and index tests, an expert panel finally decided whether the selected articles were of sufficient quality to be included. We identified 3864 studies of which 146 full manuscripts were obtained. We excluded 133 due to multiple reasons. The remaining 13 studies were scored by an expert panel. Only three articles with a total of 155 patients fulfilled all criteria. These articles tested three different methods, pH measurement (64 patients), insulin-like growth factor binding protein-1 (ILGBP-1, 83 patients) and alpha fetoprotein (AFP, 8 patients). Sensitivity varied from 88% (pH) to 100% (AFP), specificity varied from 56% (ILGPP-1) to 100% (AFP). Based on the limited evidence on the accuracy of tests to diagnose ruptured membranes, we conclude that the use of a particular test cannot be recommended.