Attempted vaginal birth after cesarean section: a multicenter comparison of outpatient prostaglandin E2 gel with expectant management

Rayburn, William; Lucas, Michael J.; Gittens, Lisa; Goodwin, T. Murphy; Baxi, Laxmi; Gall, Stanley A.; Mostello, Dorothea; Heyl, Peter S.

doi:10.1016/s1068-607x(98)00096-1

Cited by 8 publications

(10 citation statements)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Vaginal prostaglandin (PGE 2 ) versus expectant management or placebo (five studies) (Hage 1993; Newman 1997; O’Brien 1995; Sawai 1991; Sawai 1994). Intracervical prostaglandin (PgE 2 ) versus expectant management or placebo (seven studies) (Buttino 1990; Gittens 1996; Larmon 2002; Lien 1998; Magann 1998; McKenna 1999; Rayburn 1999). Vaginal misoprostol versus placebo (four studies) (Incerpi 2001; McKenna 2004; Oboro 2005; Stitely 2000).…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Intracervical prostaglandin (PgE 2 ) versus expectant management or placebo (seven studies) (Buttino 1990; Gittens 1996; Larmon 2002; Lien 1998; Magann 1998; McKenna 1999; Rayburn 1999).…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…In the trials by Gittens 1996, Lelaidier 1994 and Rayburn 1999 women that had had a previous caesarean delivery were recruited; Incerpi 2001 focused on women with insulin-dependent diabetes and Newman 1997 included women with diabetes along with those requiring induction of labour for postmaturity. Two studies (Lelaidier 1994; Rayburn 1999) recruited women who had had a previous caesarean section (CS) and who were aiming to achieve a vaginal delivery. In the remaining studies the main indication for induction of labour was prolonged pregnancy, although recruitment was not always restricted to this group.…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…In the remaining studies the main indication for induction of labour was prolonged pregnancy, although recruitment was not always restricted to this group. Four studies included only primiparous women (Bollapragada 2006; Elliott 1998; Hage 1993; Harper 2006) and two multiparous women only (Lelaidier 1994; Rayburn 1999).…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…In view of the small number of studies included in each comparison we were not able to carry out the planned analyses. In all but three of the included studies (Incerpi 2001; Lelaidier 1994; Rayburn 1999) the main indication for induction of labour was ‘postdates’ pregnancy. The majority of studies recruited both primi- and multiparous women, and separate figures were not provided for subgroups.…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 4 more Smart Citations

Different methods for the induction of labour in outpatient settings

Dowswell¹,

Kelly²,

Livio³

et al. 2010

Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background Induction of labour is carried out for a variety of indications and using a range of pharmacological, mechanical and other methods. For women at low risk, some methods of induction of labour may be suitable for use in outpatient settings. Objectives To examine pharmacological and mechanical interventions to induce labour in outpatient settings in terms of feasibility, effectiveness, maternal satisfaction, healthcare costs and, where information is available, safety. The review complements existing reviews on labour induction examining effectiveness and safety. Search methods We searched the Cochrane Pregnancy and Childbirth Group’s Trials Register (December 2009) and reference lists of retrieved studies. Selection criteria We included randomised controlled trials examining outpatient cervical ripening or induction of labour with pharmacological agents or mechanical methods. Data collection and analysis Two authors independently extracted data and assessed eligible papers for risk of bias. We checked all data after entry into review manager software. Main results We included 28 studies with 2616 women examining different methods of induction of labour where women received treatment at home or were sent home after initial treatment and monitoring in hospital. Studies examined vaginal and intracervical PGE2, vaginal and oral misoprostol, isosorbide mononitrate, mifepristone, oestrogens, and acupuncture. Overall, the results demonstrate that outpatient induction of labour is feasible and that important adverse events are rare. There was no strong evidence that agents used to induce labour in outpatient settings had an impact (positive or negative) on maternal or neonatal health. There was some evidence that, compared to placebo or no treatment, induction agents reduced the need for further interventions to induce labour, and shortened the interval from intervention to birth. We were unable to pool results on outcomes relating to progress in labour as studies tended to measure a very broad range of outcomes. There was no evidence that induction agents increased interventions in labour such as operative deliveries. Only two studies provided information on women’s views about the induction process, and overall there was very little information on the costs to health service providers of different methods of labour induction in outpatient settings. Authors’ conclusions Induction of labour in outpatient settings appears feasible. We do not have sufficient evidence to know which induction methods are preferred by women, or the interventions that are most effective and safe to use in outpatient settings.

show abstract

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Intracervical prostaglandin (PgE 2 ) versus expectant management or placebo (seven studies) (Buttino 1990; Gittens 1996; Larmon 2002; Lien 1998; Magann 1998; McKenna 1999; Rayburn 1999).…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%