Induction of labour from 39 weeks in low-risk multiparas with ripe cervixes: A randomised controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Induction of labour (IOL) in low-risk nulliparas at 39 weeks reduces caesarean delivery. Multiparas with ripe cervixes typically have vaginal delivery within eight hours. Delivery at night and weekend are associated with higher maternal and neonatal mortality. AIMS: To evaluate IOL in full-term multiparas with ripe cervixes to achieve delivery at normal working hours and improve maternal satisfaction. METHODS: A randomised trial was performed in a tertiary hospital in Malaysia. Low-risk multiparas with ripe cervixes (Bishop score ≥6) were recruited at 38+4 -40+0  weeks, then randomised to planned labour induction at 39+0  weeks or expectant care. Primary outcomes were delivery during 'normal working hours' 09:00-17:00 hours, Monday-Friday and patient satisfaction by visual numerical rating scale. RESULTS: For IOL (n = 80) vs expectant care (n = 80) arms respectively, primary outcomes of delivery at normal working hours was 27/80 (34%) vs 29/78 (37%), relative risk (RR) 0.9, 95% CI 0.5-1.7, P = 0.41, patient satisfaction was 8.0 ± 1.8 vs 7.8 ± 1.6, P = 0.41; presentation for spontaneous labour or rupture of membranes were 27/80 (34%) vs 70/79 (89%), RR 0.4, 95% CI 0.3-0.5, P < 0.001; and for labour induction 52/80 (65%) vs 15/79 (19%), RR 3.4, 95% CI 2.1-5.5, P < 0.001. Caesarean delivery was 8/80 (10%) vs 4/79 (5%), RR 2.0, 95% CI 0.62-6.3, P = 0.25; and mean birthweight was 3.1 ± 0.3 vs 3.3 ± 0.4 kg, P = 0.06 for IOL vs expectant care, respectively. CONCLUSION: Labour induction in low-risk multiparas does not increase births during working hours or improve patient satisfaction. Antenatal clinic visits and non-birth hospitalisation were significantly reduced.

Taste, smell and food-related nausea and vomiting responses in hyperemesis gravidarum: A case-controlled study.

A case-controlled study was performed to evaluate taste and smell impairment, nausea or vomiting (NV) response to taste and smell and toleration to food texture, item and cooking method in hyperemesis gravidarum patients (HG) compared to gestation-matched controls from a university hospital and primary care clinic in Malaysia. Taste strips (4 base tastes), sniff sticks (16 selected smells) and a food-related questionnaire were used. 124 participants were recruited. Taste impairment was found in 13%(8/62) vs. 0%(0/62) P = 0.003 and the median for correct smell identification was 5[4-6] vs. 9[7-9] P < 0.001 in HG vs. controls. In HG, bitter was most likely (32%) and sweet taste least likely (5%) to provoke NV. In both arms, fish smell was most likely to provoke NV, 77% vs. 32% P < 0.001 and peppermint smell least likely 10% vs. 0% P = 0.012; NV response was significantly more likely for HG arm in 10/16 smells. In HG, worst and best NV responses to food-texture were pasty 69% and crunchy 26%; food-item, plain rice 71% and apple 16% and cooking-style, deep-frying 71% and steaming 55%. HG demonstrated taste and smell impairment and increased NV responses to many tastes and smells. Crunchy sweet uncooked food (apple or watermelon) maybe best tolerated in HG.

Induction of labor compared to expectant management in term nulliparas with a latent phase of labor of more than 8 hours: a randomized trial.

BACKGROUND: Prolonged latent phase of labor is associated with adverse maternal and neonatal outcomes. Preliminary data indicate that labor induction for prolonged latent phase may reduce cesarean delivery. We performed a study powered to Cesarean delivery to evaluate labor induction compared to expectant management in full term nulliparas hospitalized for persistent contractions but non-progressive to established labor after an overnight stay. METHODS: From 2015 and 2017, nulliparas, ≥ 39 weeks' gestation with prolonged latent phase of labor (persistent contractions after overnight hospitalization > 8 h), cervical dilation ≤3 cm, intact membranes and reassuring cardiotocogram were recruited. Participants were randomized to immediate induction of labor (with vaginal dinoprostone or amniotomy or oxytocin as appropriate) or expectant management (await labor for at least 24 h unless indicated intervention as directed by care provider). Primary outcome measure was Cesarean delivery. RESULTS: Three hundred eighteen women were randomized (159 to each arm). Data from 308 participants were analyzed. Cesarean delivery rate was 24.2% (36/149) vs. 23.3%, (37/159) RR 1.0 95% CI 0.7-1.6; P = 0.96 in induction of labor vs. expectant arms. Interval from intervention to delivery was 17.1 ± 9.9 vs. 40.1 ± 19.8 h; P < 0.001, intervention to active labor 9.6 ± 10.2 vs. 29.6 ± 18.5 h; P < 0.001, active labor to delivery 7.6 ± 3.6 vs. 10.5 ± 7.2 h; P < 0.001, intervention to hospital discharge 2.4 ± 1.2 vs. 2.9 ± 1.4 days; P < 0.001 and dinoprostone use was 19.5% (29/149) vs. 8.2% (13/159) RR 2.4 95% CI 1.3-4.4; P = 0.01 in IOL compared with expectant arms respectively. Intrapartum oxytocin use, epidural analgesia and uterine hyperstimulation syndrome, postpartum hemorrhage, patient satisfaction on allocated intervention, during labor and delivery and baby outcome were not significantly different across trial arms. CONCLUSIONS: Induction of labor did not reduce Cesarean delivery rates but intervention to delivery and to hospital discharge durations are shorter. Patient satisfaction scores were similar. Induction of labor for prolonged latent phase of labor can be performed without apparent detriment to expedite delivery. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Registered in Malaysia National Medical Research Register (NMRR-15-16-23,886) on 6 January 2015 and the International Standard Randomised Controlled Trials Number registry, registration number ISRCTN14099170 on 5 Nov 2015.

Vaginal assessment and expedited amniotomy in oral misoprostol labor induction in nulliparas: a randomized trial.

BACKGROUND: Labor is induced in 20-30% of maternities, with an increasing trend of use. Labor induction with oral misoprostol is associated with reduced risk of cesarean deliveries and has a safety and effectiveness profile comparable to those of mechanical methods such as Foley catheter use. Labor induction in nulliparous women continues to be challenging, with the process often quite protracted. The eventual cesarean delivery rate is high, particularly when the cervix is unfavorable and ripening is required. Vaginal examination can cause discomfort and emotional distress particularly to nulliparous women, and plausibly can affect patient satisfaction with the induction and birth process. OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to evaluate regular (4-hourly prior to each oral misoprostol dose with amniotomy when feasible) compared with restricted (only if indicated) vaginal assessments during labor induction with oral misoprostol in term nulliparous women MATERIALS AND METHODS: We performed a randomized trial between November 2016 and September 2017 in a university hospital in Malaysia. Our oral misoprostol labor induction regimen comprised 50 µg of misoprostol administered 4 hourly for up to 3 doses in the first 24 hours. Participants assigned to regular assessment had vaginal examinations before each 4-hourly misoprostol dose with a view to amniotomy as soon as it was feasible. Participants in the restricted arm had vaginal examinations only if indicated. Primary outcomes were patient satisfaction with the birth process (using an 11-point visual numerical rating scale), induction to vaginal delivery interval, and vaginal delivery rate at 24 hours. RESULTS: Data from 204 participants (101 regular, 103 restricted) were analyzed. The patient satisfaction score with the birth process was as follows (median [interquartile range]): 7 [6-9] vs 8 [6-10], P = .15. The interval of induction to vaginal delivery (mean ± standard deviation) was 24.3 ± 12.8 vs 31.1 ± 15.0 hours (P = .013). The vaginal delivery rate at 24 hours was 27.7% vs 20.4%; (relative risk [RR], 1.4; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.8-2.3; P = .14) for the regular vs restricted arms, respectively. The cesarean delivery rate was 50% vs 43% (RR, 1.1; 95% CI, 0.9-1.5; P = .36). When assessed after delivery, participants' fidelity to their assigned vaginal examination schedule in a future labor induction was 45% vs 88% (RR, 0.5; 95% CI, 0.4-0.7; P < .001), and they would recommend their assigned schedule to a friend (47% vs 87%; RR, 0.6; 95% CI, 0.5-0.7; P < .001) in the regular compared with the restricted arms, respectively. CONCLUSION: Despite a shorter induction to vaginal delivery interval with regular vaginal examination and a similar vaginal delivery rate at 24 hours and birth process satisfaction score, women expressed a higher preference for the restricted examination schedule and were more likely to recommend such a schedule to a friend.