ABSTRACT
OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to conduct a systematic review and meta-analysis of all randomized and nonrandomized controlled trials (RCTs and NCTs, respectively) that explored the maternal-neonatal outcomes of cervical osmotic dilators versus dinoprostone in promoting cervical ripening during labor induction. STUDY DESIGN: Six major databases were screened until August 27, 2022. The quality of included studies was evaluated. The data were summarized as mean difference or risk ratio (RR) with 95% confidence interval (CI) in a random-effects model. RESULTS: Overall, 14 studies with 15 arms were analyzed (n = 2,380 patients). Ten and four studies were RCTs and NCTs, respectively. The overall quality for RCTs varied (low risk n = 2, unclear risk n = 7, and high risk n = 1), whereas all NCTs had good quality (n = 4). For the primary endpoints, there was no significant difference between both groups regarding the rate of normal vaginal delivery (RR = 1.04, 95% CI: 0.95-1.14, p = 0.41) and rate of cesarean delivery (RR = 1.04, 95% CI: 0.93-1.17, p = 0.51). Additionally, there was no significant difference between both groups regarding the mean change in Bishop score and mean time from intervention to delivery. The rate of uterine hyperstimulation was significantly lower in the cervical osmotic dilator group. For the neonatal outcomes, during cervical ripening, the rate of fetal distress was significantly lower in the cervical osmotic dilator group. There was no significant difference between both groups regarding the mean Apgar scores, rate of meconium-stained amniotic fluid, rate of umbilical cord metabolic acidosis, rate of neonatal infection, and rate of neonatal intensive care unit admission. CONCLUSION: During labor induction, cervical ripening with cervical osmotic dilators and dinoprostone had comparable maternal-neonatal outcomes. Cervical osmotic dilators had low risk of uterine hyperstimulation compared with dinoprostone. Overall, cervical osmotic dilators might be more preferred over dinoprostone in view of their analogous cervical ripening effects, comparable maternal-neonatal outcomes, and lack of drug-related adverse events. KEY POINTS: · This is the first analysis of cervical osmotic dilators versus PGE2 for cervical ripening during labor.. · There was no difference between both arms regarding the rates of normal vaginal/cesarean deliveries.. · There was no difference between both arms regarding the rates of neonatal adverse events.. · Cervical osmotic dilators had significant lower risk of uterine hyperstimulation compared with PGE2.. · Cervical osmotic dilators may be superior to PGE2 in view of their similar efficacy and better safety..
ABSTRACT
To evaluate the efficacy of lidocaine local analgesia on maternal pain reduction during amniocentesis. Web of Science, Scopus, PubMed, and CENTRAL databases were screened from inception and updated in July 2022. The included randomized controlled trials (RCTs) were evaluated for the risk of bias via the Cochrane tool. The primary outcome was pain perception using the 10 cm visual analog scale, and was summarized as mean difference (MD) with 95% confidence interval (CI) in a random-effects model. Subgroup analysis was performed according to the mode of administration. Meta-analysis was done via Review Manager software. We included five RCTs totaling 1004 women (lidocaine arm n=502 patients and control arm n=502 patients). Overall, there was no significant difference between both arms [MD=-0.21, 95% CI (-0.48, 0.07), p=0.80]. The pooled analysis showed homogeneity (p=0.13, I2=43%). Subgroup analysis according to the mode of administration showed that pain perception did not significantly differ between both arms when lidocaine was employed as injection [n=3 RCTs, MD=-0.26, 95% CI (-0.76, 0.23), p=0.29] or non-injection [n=2 RCTs, MD=-0.18, 95% CI (-0.55, 0.18), p=0.33]. The pooled analyses showed heterogeneity (p=0.05, I2=66%) and homogeneity (p=0.27, I2=19%), respectively. There was no noteworthy change concerning maternal pain perception between the lidocaine and control arms. Most women reported just minimal discomfort during amniocentesis. Counseling should educate patients that the pain they might experience during amniocentesis is comparable to venous blood sampling.
ABSTRACT
Globally, postpartum hemorrhage (PPH) is the top cause of maternal death. Multiple uterotonic medications are available to prevent PPH; however, it is still unclear whether one is the most effective. The current study compared the efficacy and safety of intravenous carbetocin with rectal misoprostol for the active management of the third stage of labor in order to prevent PPH. Eligible studies were found utilizing digital medical sources, including the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), Web of Science (WOS), PubMed, Scopus, and Google Scholar, from inception until September 2022. Only randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that matched the inclusion requirements were chosen. We used the Cochrane Risk of Bias scale (version 2) to assess the quality of the included studies. The Review Manager (version 5.4 for Windows) was used to conduct the meta-analysis. The results were summarized as mean difference (MD) or risk ratio (RR) with a 95% confidence interval (CI) in fixed- or random-effects models according to the degree of between-study heterogeneity. Collectively, we screened 621 articles after omitting duplicates and eventually included three RCTs for analysis. Overall, 404 patients were included in these studies; 202 patients were allocated to the intravenous carbetocin group whereas 202 patients were allocated to the rectal misoprostol group. Two RCTs were judged as "low" risk of bias, whereas one RCT was judged as having "some concerns" regarding the quality assessment. Regarding efficacy endpoints, the intravenous carbetocin group had significantly lower blood loss (n=3 RCTs, MD=-117.74 mL, 95% CI [-185.41, -50.07], p<0.001), need for additional uterotonics (n=2 RCTs, RR=0.06, 95% CI [0.01, 0.46], p=0.007), need for uterine massage (n=2 RCTs, RR=0.40, 95% CI [0.20, 0.80], p=0.009), and need for blood transfusion (n=2 RCTs, RR=0.38, 95% CI [0.15, 0.95], p=0.04) compared with the rectal misoprostol group. Regarding safety endpoints, the rates of diarrhea (n=3 RCTs, RR=0.18, 95% CI [0.06, 0.55], p=0.003) and chills (n=2 RCTs, RR=0.31, 95% CI [0.12, 0.83], p=0.02) were significantly lower in the intravenous carbetocin group compared with the rectal misoprostol group. However, there was no significant difference between both groups regarding the rates of headache (n=3 RCTs, RR=1.23, 95% CI [0.06, 1.91], p=0.35) and facial flushing (n=2 RCTs, RR=0.88, 95% CI [0.46, 1.68], p=0.70). In conclusion, it was discovered that intravenous carbetocin was a superior substitute for rectal misoprostol for the active management of the third stage of labor. With far fewer side effects, intravenous carbetocin decreased postpartum blood loss and further uterotonic use. For women who have a high risk of PPH, intravenous carbetocin is advised.
