We have located links that may give you full text access.
COMPARATIVE STUDY
JOURNAL ARTICLE
High-dose compared with low-dose oxytocin for induction of labour of nulliparous women at term.
Journal of Maternal-fetal & Neonatal Medicine 2019 Februrary
BACKGROUND: The optimal oxytocin infusion regimen to induce labour with the lowest caesarean section rate, instrumental delivery rate and length of active labour is unclear. We compared the effect of a low-dose to high-dose oxytocin regimen to induce labour.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: We conducted a retrospective study of nulliparous women induced at term in a single tertiary centre from 2009 to 2015. The oxytocin induction protocol changed from a high to low-dose regimen in November 2012, affording us the opportunity to compare outcomes 3 years prior to, and following the change in protocol. Main outcome measures were caesarean section rate, instrumental delivery rate and length of active labour.
RESULTS: Four thousand eight hundred and eighty-five participants were included, 2211 were induced via the low-dose regimen, and 2674 using the high-dose regimen. There was no difference in caesarean section rate (adjusted OR 0.99; 95% CI 0.87-1.13) or instrumental delivery rates once adjusted for regional anaesthesia (adjusted OR 1.16; 95% CI 0.99-1.36) between the different regimens. Surprisingly, the length of labour was longer in the high-dose oxytocin group (adjusted mean difference 0.60 h; 95%CI 0.81-0.12). There were significantly more postpartum haemorrhage ≥1000 ml (10.5% versus 7.8%, p < .001) and regional anaesthesia use (55.8% versus 52.1%, p = .03) in the low-dose cohort. There were no differences in neonatal outcomes.
CONCLUSION: Outcomes between high- and low-dose oxytocin induction regimens are relatively comparable with similar caesarean section and instrumental delivery rates. Therefore, either regimen is acceptable for use for induction of labour.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: We conducted a retrospective study of nulliparous women induced at term in a single tertiary centre from 2009 to 2015. The oxytocin induction protocol changed from a high to low-dose regimen in November 2012, affording us the opportunity to compare outcomes 3 years prior to, and following the change in protocol. Main outcome measures were caesarean section rate, instrumental delivery rate and length of active labour.
RESULTS: Four thousand eight hundred and eighty-five participants were included, 2211 were induced via the low-dose regimen, and 2674 using the high-dose regimen. There was no difference in caesarean section rate (adjusted OR 0.99; 95% CI 0.87-1.13) or instrumental delivery rates once adjusted for regional anaesthesia (adjusted OR 1.16; 95% CI 0.99-1.36) between the different regimens. Surprisingly, the length of labour was longer in the high-dose oxytocin group (adjusted mean difference 0.60 h; 95%CI 0.81-0.12). There were significantly more postpartum haemorrhage ≥1000 ml (10.5% versus 7.8%, p < .001) and regional anaesthesia use (55.8% versus 52.1%, p = .03) in the low-dose cohort. There were no differences in neonatal outcomes.
CONCLUSION: Outcomes between high- and low-dose oxytocin induction regimens are relatively comparable with similar caesarean section and instrumental delivery rates. Therefore, either regimen is acceptable for use for induction of labour.
Full text links
Related Resources
Trending Papers
Heart failure with preserved ejection fraction: diagnosis, risk assessment, and treatment.Clinical Research in Cardiology : Official Journal of the German Cardiac Society 2024 April 12
Proximal versus distal diuretics in congestive heart failure.Nephrology, Dialysis, Transplantation 2024 Februrary 30
Efficacy and safety of pharmacotherapy in chronic insomnia: A review of clinical guidelines and case reports.Mental Health Clinician 2023 October
World Health Organization and International Consensus Classification of eosinophilic disorders: 2024 update on diagnosis, risk stratification, and management.American Journal of Hematology 2024 March 30
Get seemless 1-tap access through your institution/university
For the best experience, use the Read mobile app
All material on this website is protected by copyright, Copyright © 1994-2024 by WebMD LLC.
This website also contains material copyrighted by 3rd parties.
By using this service, you agree to our terms of use and privacy policy.
Your Privacy Choices
You can now claim free CME credits for this literature searchClaim now
Get seemless 1-tap access through your institution/university
For the best experience, use the Read mobile app