8
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      Induction of labour at 41 weeks versus expectant management and induction of labour at 42 weeks (SWEdish Post-term Induction Study, SWEPIS): multicentre, open label, randomised, superiority trial

      research-article

      Read this article at

      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          Objective

          To evaluate if induction of labour at 41 weeks improves perinatal and maternal outcomes in women with a low risk pregnancy compared with expectant management and induction of labour at 42 weeks.

          Design

          Multicentre, open label, randomised controlled superiority trial.

          Setting

          14 hospitals in Sweden, 2016-18.

          Participants

          2760 women with a low risk uncomplicated singleton pregnancy randomised (1:1) by the Swedish Pregnancy Register. 1381 women were assigned to the induction group and 1379 were assigned to the expectant management group.

          Interventions

          Induction of labour at 41 weeks and expectant management and induction of labour at 42 weeks.

          Main outcome measures

          The primary outcome was a composite perinatal outcome including one or more of stillbirth, neonatal mortality, Apgar score less than 7 at five minutes, pH less than 7.00 or metabolic acidosis (pH <7.05 and base deficit >12 mmol/L) in the umbilical artery, hypoxic ischaemic encephalopathy, intracranial haemorrhage, convulsions, meconium aspiration syndrome, mechanical ventilation within 72 hours, or obstetric brachial plexus injury. Primary analysis was by intention to treat.

          Results

          The study was stopped early owing to a significantly higher rate of perinatal mortality in the expectant management group. The composite primary perinatal outcome did not differ between the groups: 2.4% (33/1381) in the induction group and 2.2% (31/1379) in the expectant management group (relative risk 1.06, 95% confidence interval 0.65 to 1.73; P=0.90). No perinatal deaths occurred in the induction group but six (five stillbirths and one early neonatal death) occurred in the expectant management group (P=0.03). The proportion of caesarean delivery, instrumental vaginal delivery, or any major maternal morbidity did not differ between the groups.

          Conclusions

          This study comparing induction of labour at 41 weeks with expectant management and induction at 42 weeks does not show any significant difference in the primary composite adverse perinatal outcome. However, a reduction of the secondary outcome perinatal mortality is observed without increasing adverse maternal outcomes. Although these results should be interpreted cautiously, induction of labour ought to be offered to women no later than at 41 weeks and could be one (of few) interventions that reduces the rate of stillbirths.

          Trial registration

          Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN26113652.

          Related collections

          Most cited references31

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: not found

          Labor Induction versus Expectant Management in Low-Risk Nulliparous Women

          The perinatal and maternal consequences of induction of labor at 39 weeks among low-risk nulliparous women are uncertain.
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: not found

            Estimating the causes of 4 million neonatal deaths in the year 2000.

            Information on cause-of-death is lacking for 98% of the world's 4 million neonatal deaths that occur in countries with inadequate vital registration (VR). Our aim was to estimate, by country for the year 2000, the distribution of neonatal deaths across programme-relevant causes including: asphyxia, preterm birth, congenital abnormalities, sepsis/pneumonia, neonatal tetanus, diarrhoea, and 'other'. Two sources of neonatal cause-of-death data were examined: VR datasets for countries with high coverage (>90%), and published and unpublished studies identified through systematic searches. Multinomial regression was used to model the distribution of neonatal deaths. A VR-based model was used to estimate the distribution of causes of death for 37 low-mortality countries without national data. A study-based model was applied to obtain estimates for 111 high-mortality countries. Uncertainty estimates were derived using the jackknife approach. Data from 44 countries with VR (96 797 neonatal deaths) and from 56 studies (29 countries, 13 685 neonatal deaths) met inclusion criteria. The distribution of reported causes of death varied substantially between countries and across studies. Based on 193 countries, the major causes of neonatal death globally were estimated to be infections (sepsis/pneumonia, tetanus, and diarrhoea, 35%), preterm birth (28%), and asphyxia (23%). Regional variation is important. Substantial uncertainty surrounds these estimates. This exercise highlights the lack of reliable cause-of-death data in the settings in which most neonatal deaths occur. Complex statistical models are not a panacea. Representative data with comparable case definitions and consistent hierarchical cause-of-death attribution are required.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: found
              Is Open Access

              The Swedish Pregnancy Register – for quality of care improvement and research

              Abstract Introduction The objective of this study was to present the Swedish Pregnancy Register and to explore regional differences in maternal characteristics, antenatal care, first trimester combined screening and delivery outcomes in Sweden. Material and methods The Pregnancy Register (www.graviditetsregistret.se) collects data on pregnancy and childbirth, starting at the first visit to antenatal care and ending at the follow‐up visit to the antenatal care, which usually occurs at around 8–16 weeks postpartum. The majority of data is collected directly from the electronic medical records. The Register includes demographic, reproductive and maternal health data, as well information on prenatal diagnostics, and pregnancy outcome for the mother and the newborn. Results Today the Register covers more than 90% of all deliveries in Sweden, with the aim to include all deliveries within 2018. The care providers can visualize quality measures over time and compare results with other clinics, regionally and nationally by creating reports on an aggregated level or using case‐mix adjusted Dash Boards in real time. Detailed data can be extracted after ethical approval for research. In this report, we showed regional differences in patient characteristics, antenatal care, fetal diagnosis and delivery outcomes in Sweden. Conclusions Our report indicates that quality in antenatal and delivery care in Sweden varies between regions, which warrants further actions. The Swedish Pregnancy Register is a new and valuable resource for benchmarking, quality improvement and research in pregnancy, fetal diagnosis and delivery.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Contributors
                Role: associate professor
                Role: senior consultant in obstetrics and gynaecology
                Role: midwife, researcher
                Role: senior consultanty
                Role: professor
                Role: senior consultant in obstetrics and gynaecology
                Role: senior consultant
                Role: associate professor in obstetrics and gynaecology
                Role: associate professor
                Role: associate professor
                Role: senior consultant in obstetrics and gynaecology
                Role: professor in paediatrics
                Role: professor in obstetrics and gynaecology
                Role: associate professor in reproductive and perinatal health
                Role: associate professor in obstetrics and gynaecology
                Role: professor
                Journal
                BMJ
                BMJ
                BMJ-UK
                bmj
                The BMJ
                BMJ Publishing Group Ltd.
                0959-8138
                1756-1833
                2019
                20 November 2019
                : 367
                : l6131
                Affiliations
                [1 ]Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, Institute of Clinical Sciences, Sahlgrenska Academy, Gothenburg University, Sahlgrenska University Hospital, 416 85 Gothenburg, Sweden
                [2 ]Department of Women’s and Children’s Health, Karolinska Institutet, Karolinska University Hospital, Stockholm, Sweden
                [3 ]Institute of Health and Care Sciences, Sahlgrenska Academy, Gothenburg University, Sweden
                [4 ]Department of Clinical Sciences, Karolinska Institutet, Danderyd Hospital, Stockholm, Sweden
                [5 ]Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, Faculty of Medicine and Health, Örebro University, Örebro, Sweden
                [6 ]Department of Women’s and Children’s Health, Uppsala University, Uppsala, Sweden
                [7 ]Center for Clinical Research Dalarna, Uppsala University, Sweden
                [8 ]Department of Paediatrics, Institute of Clinical Sciences, Sahlgrenska Academy, Gothenburg University, Sahlgrenska University Hospital, Gothenburg, Sweden
                [9 ]Department of Medicine, Solna, Clinical Epidemiology Division, Karolinska Institutet, Stockholm, Sweden
                Author notes
                Correspondence to: U-B Wennerholm ulla-britt.wennerholm@ 123456vgregion.se
                Author information
                http://orcid.org/0000-0003-2475-2226
                http://orcid.org/0000-0003-1615-2829
                http://orcid.org/0000-0001-8457-9651
                http://orcid.org/0000-0001-5648-3505
                http://orcid.org/0000-0001-6049-7731
                http://orcid.org/0000-0002-9401-8062
                http://orcid.org/0000-0002-2691-7525
                http://orcid.org/0000-0002-2657-1958
                http://orcid.org/0000-0002-7512-2059
                http://orcid.org/0000-0002-3608-7430
                http://orcid.org/0000-0003-1907-1071
                http://orcid.org/0000-0002-7010-7191
                http://orcid.org/0000-0001-6431-3303
                http://orcid.org/0000-0003-0000-0476
                http://orcid.org/0000-0003-1528-4563
                http://orcid.org/0000-0003-3962-1448
                Article
                wenu051538
                10.1136/bmj.l6131
                6939660
                31748223
                d5f01169-df6e-47d3-850e-c4963a088d24
                Published by the BMJ Publishing Group Limited. For permission to use (where not already granted under a licence) please go to http://group.bmj.com/group/rights-licensing/permissions

                This is an Open Access article distributed in accordance with the Creative Commons Attribution Non Commercial (CC BY-NC 4.0) license, which permits others to distribute, remix, adapt, build upon this work non-commercially, and license their derivative works on different terms, provided the original work is properly cited and the use is non-commercial. See: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/.

                History
                : 16 October 2019
                Categories
                Research

                Medicine
                Medicine

                Comments

                Comment on this article