European guidelines on perinatal care- Peripartum care Episiotomy.

OF RECOMMENDATIONS1. Episiotomy should be performed by indication only, and not routinely (Moderate quality evidence +++-; Strong recommendation). Accepted indications for episiotomy are to shorten the second stage of labor when there is suspected fetal hypoxia (Low quality evidence ++-; Weak recommendation); to prevent obstetric anal sphincter injury in vaginal operative deliveries, or when obstetric sphincter injury occurred in previous deliveries (Moderate quality evidence +++-; Strong recommendation)2. Mediolateral or lateral episiotomy technique should be used (Moderate quality evidence +++-; Strong recommendation). Labor ward staff should be offered regular training in correct episiotomy techniques (Moderate quality evidence +++-; Strong recommendation).3. Pain relief needs to be considered before episiotomy is performed, and epidural analgesia may be insufficient. The perineal skin needs to be tested for pain before an episiotomy is performed, even when an epidural is in place. Local anesthetics or pudendal block need to be considered as isolated or additional pain relief methods (Low quality evidence ++-; Strong recommendation).4. After childbirth the perineum should be carefully inspected, and the anal sphincter palpated to identify possible injury (Moderate quality evidence +++-; Strong recommendation). Primary suturing immediately after childbirth should be offered and a continuous suturing technique should be used when repairing an uncomplicated episiotomy (High quality evidence ++++; Strong recommendation).

Induction of labor at term with vaginal misoprostol or a prostaglandin E2 pessary: a noninferiority randomized controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Induction of labor is among the most common procedures for pregnant women. Only a few randomized clinical trials with relatively small samples have compared misoprostol with dinoprostone. Although their efficacy seems similar, their safety profiles have not been adequately evaluated, and economic data are sparse. OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to test the noninferiority of vaginal misoprostol (prostaglandin E1) (25 µg) to a slow-release dinoprostone (prostaglandin E2) pessary (10 µg) for induction of labor with an unfavorable cervix at term. STUDY DESIGN: This was an open-label multicenter randomized noninferiority trial at 4 university hospitals of the Research Group in Obstetrics and Gynecology between 2012 and 2015. We recruited women who underwent induction of labor for medical reasons, those with a Bishop score of ≤5 at ≥36 weeks' gestation, and those with a cephalic-presenting singleton pregnancy with no previous cesarean delivery. Women were randomly allocated to receive either vaginal misoprostol at 4-hour intervals (25 µg) or a 10-mg slow-release dinoprostone pessary. The primary outcome was the total cesarean delivery rate. Noninferiority was defined as a difference in the cesarean delivery rates between the groups of no more than 5%. Secondary outcomes included neonatal and maternal morbidity, vaginal delivery at <24 hours after starting the induction of labor process, and maternal satisfaction. RESULTS: The study included 1674 randomized women. The per-protocol analysis included 790 women in each group. The total cesarean delivery rates were 22.1% (n=175) in the misoprostol group and 19.9% (n=157) in the dinoprostone group, a difference of 2.2% (with an upper-bound 95% confidence limit of 5.6%) (P=.092). Results in the intention-to-treat analysis were similar. Neonatal and maternal morbidity rates were similar between groups. Vaginal delivery within 24 hours was significantly higher in the misoprostol group (59.3% vs 45.7%; P<.001) as was maternal satisfaction, assessed in the postpartum period by a visual analog scale (mean score, 7.1±2.4 vs 5.8±3.1; P<.001). CONCLUSION: The noninferiority of a 25-µg dose of vaginal misoprostol every 4 hours to the dinoprostone pessary for cesarean delivery rates after induction of labor at term could not be demonstrated, although the confidence limit of the difference barely exceeded the noninferiority margin. Nonetheless, given the small difference between these cesarean delivery rates and the similarity of neonatal and maternal morbidity rates in this large study, the clinical risk-to-benefit ratio justifies the use of both drugs.

Rationale and design of ePPOP-ID: a multicenter randomized controlled trial using an electronic-personalized program for obesity in pregnancy to improve delivery.

BACKGROUND: Pre-pregnancy obesity and excessive gestational weight gain (GWG) are established risk factors for adverse pregnancy, delivery and birth outcomes. Pregnancy is an ideal moment for nutritional interventions in order to establish healthier lifestyle behaviors in women at high risk of obstetric and neonatal complications. METHODS: Electronic-Personalized Program for Obesity during Pregnancy to Improve Delivery (ePPOP-ID) is an open multicenter randomized controlled trial which will assess the efficacy of an e-health web-based platform offering a personalized lifestyle program to obese pregnant women in order to reduce the rate of labor procedures and delivery interventions in comparison to standard care. A total of 860 eligible pregnant women will be recruited in 18 centers in France between 12 and 22 weeks of gestation, randomized into the intervention or the control arm and followed until 10 weeks of postpartum. The intervention is based on nutrition, eating behavior, physical activity, motivation and well-being advices in which personalization is central, as well as the use of a mobile/tablet application. Inputs includes data from the medical record of participants (medical history, anthropometric data), from the web platform (questionnaires on dietary habits, eating behavior, physical activity and motivation in both groups), and adherence to the program (time of connection for the intervention group only). Data are collected at inclusion, 32 weeks, delivery and 10 weeks postpartum. As primary outcome, we will use a composite endpoint score of obstetrical interventions during labor and delivery, defined as caesarean section and instrumental delivery (forceps and vacuum extractor). Secondary outcomes will consist of data routinely collected as part of usual antenatal and perinatal care, such as GWG, hypertension, preeclampsia, as well as fetal and neonatal outcomes including premature birth, gestational age at birth, birth weight, macrosomia, Apgar score, arterial umbilical cord pH, neonatal traumatism, hyperbilirubinemia, respiratory distress syndrome, transfer in neonatal intensive care unit, and neonatal adiposity. Post-natal outcomes will be duration of breastfeeding, maternal weight retention and child weight at postnatal visit. DISCUSSION: The findings of the ePPOP-ID trial will help design e-health intervention program for obese women in pregnancy. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT02924636 / October 5th 2016.

Pilot randomised controlled trial comparing the risk of neonatal respiratory distress in elective caesarean section at 38 weeks' gestation following a course of corticosteroids versus caesarean at 39 weeks.

INTRODUCTION: The objective of this study was to compare neonatal respiratory morbidity and rate of emergency caesarean section between elective caesarean sections at 38 gestational weeks following a course of corticosteroids and planned caesarean sections at 39 gestational weeks. MATERIAL AND METHODS: This was a multicentre randomised controlled trial. The study was conducted between 2007 and 2013 in level 2 and 3 maternity units in France. A total of 208 women with an indication for elective caesarean section were enrolled and 200 analysed in per-protocol analysis. Women were randomised to either elective caesarean section at 38 gestational weeks after a course of corticosteroids (trial group) or elective caesarean section at 39 weeks (control group). The primary outcome was the rate of admission to the neonatal intensive care unit for respiratory distress. RESULTS: Two (2.1%) newborn in the tested group were admitted because of respiratory distress versus four (3.8%) in the control group. The relative risk was 0.54 in favour of the corticosteroid group (95% CI: 0.10; 2.86). There were fewer emergency caesareans in the trial group than in the control group: 12 (12.69%) versus 28 (26.67%), p=0.01. CONCLUSIONS: Our study suggests that planning caesarean sections at 38 gestational weeks after a course of corticosteroids would enable a significant reduction in the number of emergency caesareans without increasing the risk of neonatal respiratory distress. Limitations of this study include difficulties in patient recruitment and the small number of subjects.

Assessment of STAN S21 fetal heart monitor by medical staff.

OBJECTIVE: To compare the responses of medical staff using the STAN S21 fetal heart monitor versus standard cardiotocography (CTG) to monitor abnormal fetal heart rate in labor. METHOD: Questionnaires were completed by medical staff involved in a randomized controlled trial to compare STAN surveillance with traditional surveillance before the trial had finished. Respondents were questioned about their experience and confidence using the STAN system. RESULTS: The response rate was 82% (89/109). Overall, 71% of respondents preferred using STAN surveillance, while 5% preferred standard CTG. Reasons given for preference over CTG alone were the continuous nature of surveillance (47%), the need for fewer scalp pH tests (39%), and its capacity to screen for severe fetal distress (30%). CONCLUSION: Most of the medical staff surveyed preferred using STAN versus standard surveillance techniques to monitor abnormal fetal heart rate during labor.

A French randomized controlled trial of ST-segment analysis in a population with abnormal cardiotocograms during labor.

OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to assess whether knowledge of ST-segment analysis was associated with a reduction in operative deliveries for nonreassuring fetal status (NRFS) or with a need for at least 1 scalp pH during labor. STUDY DESIGN: Seven hundred ninety-nine women at term with abnormal cardiotocography or meconium-stained amniotic fluid (7%) were assigned randomly to the intervention group (cardiotocography + STAN) or the control group (cardiotocography) in 2 university hospitals in Strasbourg, France. Scalp pH testing was optional in both groups. Abnormal neonatal outcome was pH <7.05 or umbilical cord blood artery base deficit of >12 or a 5-min Apgar score of <7 or neonatal intensive care unit admission or convulsions or neonatal death. Study power was 80% for the detection of a prespecified reduction from 50%-40% in operative delivery for NRFS. RESULTS: The operative delivery (cesarean or instrumental) rate for NRFS did not differ between the 2 groups: 33.6% (134/399) in the cardiotocography + STAN analysis group vs 37% (148/400) in the cardiotocography group (relative risk, 0.91; 95% CI, 0.75-1.10). The rate of operative delivery for dystocia was also similar in both groups. The percentage of women whose fetus had at least 1 scalp pH measurement during labor was substantially lower in the group with ST-segment analysis: 27% compared with 62% (relative risk, 0.44; 95% CI, 0.36-0.52). Neonatal outcomes did not differ significantly between groups. CONCLUSION: In a population with abnormal cardiotocography in labor, cardiotocography combined with ST-segment analysis was not associated with a reduction in operative deliveries for NRFS. The proportion of infants without scalp pH sampling during labor increased substantially, however.