No abstract

No abstract

Objective To determine women’s satisfaction with pain relief using patient controlled analgesia with remifentanil compared with epidural analgesia during labour. Design Multicentre randomised controlled equivalence trial. Setting 15 hospitals in the Netherlands. Participants Women with an intermediate to high obstetric risk with an intention to deliver vaginally. To exclude a clinically relevant difference in satisfaction with pain relief of more than 10%, we needed to include 1136 women. Because of missing values for satisfaction this number was increased to 1400 before any analysis. We used multiple imputation to correct for missing data. Intervention Before the onset of active labour consenting women were randomised to a pain relief strategy with patient controlled remifentanil or epidural analgesia if they requested pain relief during labour. Main outcome measures Primary outcome was satisfaction with pain relief, measured hourly on a visual analogue scale and expressed as area under the curve (AUC), thus providing a time weighted measure of total satisfaction with pain relief. A higher AUC represents higher satisfaction with pain relief. Secondary outcomes were pain intensity scores, mode of delivery, and maternal and neonatal outcomes. Analysis was done by intention to treat. The study was defined as an equivalence study for the primary outcome. Results 1414 women were randomised, of whom 709 were allocated to patient controlled remifentanil and 705 to epidural analgesia. Baseline characteristics were comparable. Pain relief was ultimately used in 65% (447/687) in the remifentanil group and 52% (347/671) in the epidural analgesia group (relative risk 1.32, 95% confidence interval 1.18 to 1.48). Cross over occurred in 7% (45/687) and 8% (51/671) of women, respectively. Of women primarily treated with remifentanil, 13% (53/402) converted to epidural analgesia, while in women primarily treated with epidural analgesia 1% (3/296) converted to remifentanil. The area under the curve for total satisfaction with pain relief was 30.9 in the remifentanil group versus 33.7 in the epidural analgesia group (mean difference −2.8, 95% confidence interval −6.9 to 1.3). For who actually received pain relief the area under the curve for satisfaction with pain relief after the start of pain relief was 25.6 in the remifentanil group versus 36.1 in the epidural analgesia group (mean difference −10.4, −13.9 to −7.0). The rate of caesarean section was 15% in both groups. Oxygen saturation was significantly lower (SpO 2 <92%) in women who used remifentanil (relative risk 1.5, 1.4 to 1.7). Maternal and neonatal outcomes were comparable between both groups. Conclusion In women in labour, patient controlled analgesia with remifentanil is not equivalent to epidural analgesia with respect to scores on satisfaction with pain relief...

Objective To compare reproductive outcomes in couples carrying a structural chromosome abnormality and non-carrier couples referred for chromosome analysis after two or more miscarriages.

Objective To identify additional factors, such as maternal age or factors related to previous reproductive outcome or family history, and the corresponding probability of carrying a chromosome abnormality in couples with two or more miscarriages. Design Nested case-control study. Setting Six centres for clinical genetics in the Netherlands. Participants Couples referred for chromosome analysis after two or more miscarriages in 1992-2000; 279 carrier couples were marked as cases, and 428 non-carrier couples served as controls. Main outcome measures Independent factors influencing the probability of carrier status and the corresponding probability of carrier status. Results Four factors influencing the probability of carrier status could be identified: maternal age at second miscarriage, a history of three or more miscarriages, a history of two or more miscarriages in a brother or sister of either partner, and a history of two or more miscarriages in the parents of either partner. The calculated probability of carrier status in couples referred for chromosome analysis after two or more miscarriages varied between 0.5% and 10.2%. Conclusions The probability of carrier status in couples with two or more miscarriages is modified by additional factors. Selective chromosome analysis would result in a more appropriate referral policy, could decrease the annual number of chromosome analyses, and could therefore lower the costs.

Currently, there are insufficient data indicating that PGD improves the live birth rate in couples with RM carrying a structural chromosome abnormality.

No abstract

Topics: Systems-based Practice, Obstetric Complications E lective repeat cesarean delivery (CD) contributes sig-