[Term Prelabor Rupture of Membranes: CNGOF Guidelines for Clinical Practice - Definition, Epidemiology, Complications and Risk Factors]. / Rupture des membranes à terme avant travail. Recommandations pour la pratique clinique du CNGOF ­ Définition, fréquence, complications et facteurs de risque.

OBJECTIVE: To synthesize current knowledge on definition, frequency, morbidity and risk factors related to term prelabor rupture of membranes. METHODS: The MedLine database, the Cochrane Library and French and foreign guidelines from 1980 to 2019 have been consulted. RESULTS: Term rupture of membranes is defined by the rupture of the membranes after 37 weeks of gestation (WG). Term prelabor rupture of membranes is defined by the rupture of membranes prior to the onset of labor after 37 WG. According to unpublished data from the 2016 French National Perinatal Survey, 26,5% of women with singleton pregnancies had a term rupture of membranes before their admission into labor ward. We were not able to assess if those were "prelabor" or not (LE3). Among women admitted with term rupture of membranes, 35,6% were still not in labor 12hours after the rupture i.e. 8,9% of all singleton pregnancies (LE3). Reported rates of term prelabor rupture of membranes vary between 6 and 22% in singleton pregnancies (LE3). Term prelabor rupture of membranes is associated with a risk of fever before (LE3), during (LE3) and after labor (LE3), as well as intrauterine and neonatal infection (LE3). The frequency of these complications in the context of a routine antibiotic prophylaxis is unknown. The expert group chose a delay of 12hours without spontaneous labor to differentiate a physiological situation from a potentially risky situation that could justify a medical intervention (Professional consensus). Risk factors for term prelabor rupture of membranes include history of term prelabor rupture of membranes (LE3), nulliparity (LE3), uterine contractions requiring treatment (LE3) and first trimester bleeding (LE3). CONCLUSION: Data on frequency, risk factors and morbidity of term prelabor rupture of membranes are limited or of poor quality.

[Term Prelabor Rupture of Membranes: CNGOF Guidelines for Clinical Practice - Methods for Inducing Labor]. / Rupture des membranes à terme avant travail. Recommandations pour la pratique clinique du CNGOF ­ Méthodes de déclenchement.

OBJECTIVES: To assess the studies comparing induction methods in women with term prelabor rupture of the membranes and establish if one is superior to the others. METHODS: The MedLine database, the Cochrane Library and the recommendations from the French and foreign obstetrical societies or colleges have been consulted. RESULTS: The included studies compared medical induction methods: oxytocin (intravenous), dinoprostone (vaginal gel, pessary or intracervical gel), and misoprostol (oral or vaginal route); and a mechanical induction method: the Foley catheter. The primary outcome measures were: labor induction to delivery interval, number of women delivered within 12 or 24hours of initiation of induction and cesarean delivery rate. The small sample size of the included studies as well as the limited number of reported complications does not provide a reasonable basis for concluding on the secondary outcome measures: pyrexia, chorioamnionitis, uterine tachysystole, Apgar scores of<7 at 5minutes. Induction of labor with misoprostol (oral and vaginal) reduced the labor induction to delivery interval compared with dinoprostone (LE2). This interval was unchanged when comparing induction with oxytocin and Foley catheter (LE2). The data comparing this interval in women induced with dinoprostone versus oxytocin and misoprostol versus oxytocin is limited or inconsistent. The cesarean delivery rate was comparable in women induced with dinoprostone (vaginal gel) versus oxytocin (LE2), misoprostol (oral and vaginal route) versus oxytocin (LE2), Foley catheter versus oxytocin (LE2), misoprostol versus dinoprostone (LE2) and misoprostol versus Foley catheter (LE2). The number of women delivered within 24hours of initiation of induction was comparable when induced with oral misoprostol versus oxytocin (LE2) and Foley catheter versus oxytocin (LE2). There is a lack of data for this outcome when comparing dinoprostone versus oxytocin, vaginal misoprotsol versus oxytocin, and misoprostol (oral and vaginal) versus dinoprostone. No induction method is superior to another for nulliparous women or women with unfavorable cervix (LE2). CONCLUSION: The superiority of an induction method, in terms of effectiveness or safety, could not be established with the current available data for women with term prelabor rupture of the membranes. An increased risk of chorioamnionitis due to induction using Foley catheter could not be ruled out by the available data. All medical methods are suitable for inducing women with term prelabor rupture of the membranes (Grade B).

[Does rupture of membranes have an impact on the fetal heart rate during spontaneous labor?] / Quel est l'impact de la rupture des membranes amniotiques sur le rythme cardiaque fœtal au cours du travail spontané ?

OBJECTIVES: Evaluate the influence of rupture of membranes (spontaneous or artificial) on fetal heart rate. Secondary objectives were to compare spontaneous and artificial ruptures and to investigate the risk factors associated with the occurrence of abnormalities of fetal heart rate (FHR). METHODS: This is a monocentric retrospective study (Lille, France) from January to March 2018. All low-risk pregnancies with cephalic presentation, spontaneous labor, gestational age more than 37 weeks of amenorrhea, singleton pregnancy, absence of maternal or fetal pathology were included. The elements sought were the occurrence of bradycardia, tachycardia, decelerations (early, late, typical variable, atypical variable, prolonged) and abnormal variability. FHR was analyzed one hour before and one hour after rupture. The groups with and without abnormalities of FHR were compared according to the type of rupture. RESULTS: Two hundred and thirty-three patients were included. A total of 44.54% (n=129, P<0.001) showed abnormalities of FHR after rupture of membranes. In the fetal heart rate time study after the rupture event, prolonged decelerations were more frequent in the first quarter hour compared to the second quarter hour. There was significantly more risk of abnormalities of fetal heart rate if the fetal heart rate before the rupture of membranes was already pathological, as well as if the time between rupture and delivery was short. The type of rupture, artificial or spontaneous, was not a risk factor. CONCLUSION: The rupture of membranes increased the occurrence of abnormalities of FHR. However, there is no more deleterious impact of one type of rupture than the other.

[Term Prelabor Rupture of Membranes: CNGOF Guidelines for Clinical Practice - Timing of Labor Induction]. / Rupture des membranes à terme avant travail. Recommandations pour la pratique clinique du CNGOF ­ Faut-il déclencher ?

OBJECTIVE: To assess the effect of immediate induction versus expectant management on maternal and neonatal outcomes in case of term prelabor rupture of membranes. METHODS: We searched Medline Database, Cochrane Library and consulted international guidelines. RESULTS: In case of term prelabor rupture of membranes, induction of labor is associated with shorter rupture of membranes to delivery intervals when compared to expectant management, if induction is conducted with oxytocin (LE2), prostaglandin E2 (LE2) or misoprostol (LE2), but not when induction is conducted with Foley® catheter (LE2), osmotic dilatator (LE2) or acupuncture (LE2). The strongest evidence to date comes from a large international randomized study, the TERMPROM study, which included over 5000 women between 1992 and 1995. This study compared immediate induction with oxytocin or prostaglandin E2 to expectant management up to 96hours, followed by induction by oxytocin or prostaglandin E2. Immediate induction was not associated with a decreased neonatal infection rate (LE1), even among women with a positive streptococcus B vaginal swab (LE2). Thus, expectant management can be offered without increasing the neonatal infection risk (Grade B). Induction with oxytocin was associated with a decreased risk of intra-uterine infection and postpartum fever in the TERMPROM study (LE2), however, this study had significant limitations concerning this outcome (unknown streptococcus B status and low rate of prophylactic antibiotics), and this association was not found in other smaller studies. This decrease was not observed with induction by prostaglandin E2. In the TERMPROM study, induction was not associated with an increase or decrease in the rate of cesarean section (LE2), whatever the parity (LE2) or Bishop score at admission (LE3). Induction can thus be proposed without increasing the cesarean section risk (Grade B). There is no study evaluating expectant management over 4 days. CONCLUSION: In case of term prelabor rupture of membranes, induction can be offered without increasing the cesarean section risk (Grade B). Expectant management can be offered without increasing the neonatal infection risk (Grade B), even among women with a positive streptococcus B vaginal swab (Professional consensus). The optimal moment of induction will therefore be guided by the maternity wards organization and women's preference after having informed them of the risks and benefits associated with induction and expectant management (Professional consensus). In case of meconial fluid or term prelabor rupture of membranes>4 days, induction must be offered (Professional consensus).

[Diagnosis of rupture of fetal membranes: CNGOF Preterm Premature Rupture of Membranes Guidelines]. / Diagnostic de la rupture des membranes. RPC Rupture prématurée des membranes avant terme CNGOF.

OBJECTIVE: To describe clinical and paraclinical tests diagnosing rupture of fetal membranes (ROM). METHODS: Bibliographic search over the period 1980-2017 considering articles in French and English as well as guidelines from national obstetrical societies. RESULTS: Typical amniotic fluid leakage occurs in ¾ of cases. In this situation, no additional test is required (Professional consensus). For ambiguous cases, a speculum examination can demonstrate pooling of amniotic fluid but suspicion can persist in 50% of cases (evidence level IV). In this context, we recommend to consider performing an IGFBP-1 or PAMG-1 test of vaginal fluid (evidence level III). Ability of these tests to reduce maternal or neonatal morbidity has never been demonstrated (Professional consensus). An isolated positive test should be considered cautiously as false positive does exist (Professional consensus). CONCLUSION: Symptoms suggestive of ROM and speculum examination demonstrating pooling of amniotic fluid are sufficient to diagnose ROM. If pooling is not observed, we recommend to consider performing an IGFBP-1 or PAMG-1 test of vaginal fluid.