Objective To compare the effect of induction of labour with a policy of expectant monitoring for intrauterine growth restriction near term.Design Multicentre randomised equivalence trial (the Disproportionate Intrauterine Growth Intervention Trial At Term (DIGITAT)).Setting Eight academic and 44 non-academic hospitals in the Netherlands between November 2004 and November 2008.Participants Pregnant women who had a singleton pregnancy beyond 36+0 weeks’ gestation with suspected intrauterine growth restriction.Interventions Induction of labour or expectant monitoring.Main outcome measures The primary outcome was a composite measure of adverse neonatal outcome, defined as death before hospital discharge, five minute Apgar score of less than 7, umbilical artery pH of less than 7.05, or admission to the intensive care unit. Operative delivery (vaginal instrumental delivery or caesarean section) was a secondary outcome. Analysis was by intention to treat, with confidence intervals calculated for the differences in percentages or means.Results 321 pregnant women were randomly allocated to induction and 329 to expectant monitoring. Induction group infants were delivered 10 days earlier (mean difference −9.9 days, 95% CI −11.3 to −8.6) and weighed 130 g less (mean difference −130 g, 95% CI −188 g to −71 g) than babies in the expectant monitoring group. A total of 17 (5.3%) infants in the induction group experienced the composite adverse neonatal outcome, compared with 20 (6.1%) in the expectant monitoring group (difference −0.8%, 95% CI −4.3% to 3.2%). Caesarean sections were performed on 45 (14.0%) mothers in the induction group and 45 (13.7%) in the expectant monitoring group (difference 0.3%, 95% CI −5.0% to 5.6%).Conclusions In women with suspected intrauterine growth restriction at term, we found no important differences in adverse outcomes between induction of labour and expectant monitoring. Patients who are keen on non-intervention can safely choose expectant management with intensive maternal and fetal monitoring; however, it is rational to choose induction to prevent possible neonatal morbidity and stillbirth.Trial registration International Standard Randomised Controlled Trial number ISRCTN10363217.
Objective To assess the effect of red blood cell (RBC) transfusion on quality of life in acutely anaemic women after postpartum haemorrhage.Design Randomised non-inferiority trial.Setting Thirty-seven Dutch university and general hospitals.Population Women with acute anaemia (haemoglobin 4.8-7.9 g/dl [3.0-4.9 mmol/l] 12-24 hours postpartum) without severe anaemic symptoms or severe comorbidities.Methods Women were allocated to RBC transfusion or non-intervention.Main outcome measures Primary outcome was physical fatigue 3 days postpartum (Multidimensional Fatigue Inventory, scale 4-20; 20 represents maximal fatigue). Non-inferiority was demonstrated if the physical fatigue difference between study arms was maximal 1.3. Secondary outcomes were health-related quality of life and physical complications. Health-related quality of life questionnaires were completed at five time-points until 6 weeks postpartum.Results In all, 521 women were randomised to non-intervention (n = 262) or RBC transfusion (n = 259). Mean physical fatigue score at day 3 postpartum, adjusted for baseline and mode of delivery, was 0.8 lower in the RBC transfusion arm (95% confidence interval: 0.1-1.5, P = 0.02) and at 1 week postpartum was 1.06 lower (95% confidence interval: 0.3-1.8, P = 0.01). A median of two RBC units was transfused in the RBC transfusion arm. In the non-intervention arm, 33 women received RBC transfusion, mainly because of anaemic symptoms. Physical complications were comparable.Conclusions Statistically, non-inferiority could not be demonstrated as the confidence interval crossed the non-inferiority boundary. Nevertheless, with only a small difference in physical fatigue and no differences in secondary outcomes, implementation of restrictive management seems clinically justified.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.