Pulsatile versus continuous administration of oxytocin for induction and augmentation of labor: two randomized controlled trials.
rct · Level II
Where this comes from
- Record sourced from PubMed, PMID 22206748.
- Also identified by DOI 10.1016/j.ajog.2011.11.001.
- No licence information is recorded for this record.
- Because redistribution is not established, this page shows the abstract only. Follow the links below for the full text.
Abstract
To determine whether pulsatile oxytocin infusion improves delivery outcome in women requiring induction or augmentation of labor. Two related randomized controlled trials undertaken in 2 inner-city United Kingdom university hospitals (ISRCTN72773405; http://www.isrctn.org/). Women were randomly assigned to a pulsatile or continuous infusion protocol. cesarean section rate (induction trial); operative delivery rate (augmentation trial). For induction, cesarean section rates were similar in women receiving pulsatile (n = 264, 38.3%) vs continuous infusion of oxytocin (n = 257; 37.7%; risk ratio, 1.01; 95% confidence interval, 0.81-1.26; P = .903), but associated with increased "infusion to time of delivery" intervals (P < .001) in the pulsatile group. For augmentation, pulsatile infusion resulted in higher operative delivery rates (70.1%, n = 251) vs continuous infusion (62.7%, n = 249; risk ratio, 1.12; 95% confidence interval, 0.99-1.27; P = .077) and increased neonatal morbidity. For induction, pulsatile infusion of oxytocin is effective, but conferred little clinical benefit. Pulsatile infusion is not recommended for augmentation.
Medical subject headings
- Labor, Induced
- Oxytocin