Comparison of induction of labor versus expectant management in PROM patients 2018-2019

International Journal of Medical Science

© 2020 by SSRG - IJMS Journal

Volume 7 Issue 10

Year of Publication : 2020

Authors : Dina Dawd, Maisoon Dayoub

10.14445/23939117/IJMS-V7I10P101

How to Cite?

Dina Dawd, Maisoon Dayoub, "Comparison of induction of labor versus expectant management in PROM patients 2018-2019," SSRG International Journal of Medical Science, vol. 7,  no. 10, pp. 1-4, 2020. Crossref, https://doi.org/10.14445/23939117/IJMS-V7I10P101

Abstract:

Background: Premature rupture of membrane at term (term PROM) is a common obstetric condition that is associated with increased maternal and neonatal complications. Its management is still controversial.
Objective: This study aimed to compare maternal outcomes in induced versus expectant management of patients with term PROM to access to the clinical management that reduces the rate of maternal infections without increasing the need for cesarean section.
Materials and Methods: This randomized prospective study comprised 100 patients with term PROM. Half of them were managed by expectant protocol, up to 12 hours, and the other half by induction of labor directly was upon admission with oxytocin. The primary studied outcome was a maternal infection, and the secondary outcome was the cesarean section rate.
Results: The rates of cesarean section were significantly higher in the induction group (32% vs. 10%, P < 0.05), whereas clinical chorioamnionitis was
less likely to happen in this group. However, it was not statistically significant (2% vs. 4%, P > 0.05).
Conclusion: Expectant management of 12 hours is better than early induction because it allows a large number of patients to deliver vaginally without an increase in the cesarean section rate and infectious morbidity for mother.

Keywords:

Chorioamnionitis; Expectant management; Induction of labor; Premature rupture of membrane; Term PROM.

References:

[1] Marowits A, Jordan R. “Midwifery management of prelabour rupture of membranes at term”. J Midwifery Women's Health 2007;52(3):199–206
[2] Larranaga-Azcarate C, Campo-Molina G, Perez-Rodríguez AF, et al. “Dinoprostone vaginal slow-release system compared to expectant management in the active treatment of premature rupture of the membranes at term: impact on maternal and fetal outcome“. Acta obstetrics 2008; 87:195–200.
[3] Gunn G, Mishell D, Morton D. “Premature rupture of the fetal membranes”. Am J Obs Gyne 1970 Feb;106(3):469?
[4] Saccone G, Berghella V. Antibiotic prophylaxis for the term or near-term premature rupture of membranes: a meta-analysis of randomized trials. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2015; 212:627. e1–627.e9
[5] Tran SH, Cheng YW, Kaimal AJ, Caughey AB. “Length of rupture of membranes in the setting of premature rupture of membranes at term and infectious, maternal morbidity”. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2008; 198:700. e1–700.e5
[6] Herbst A, Kallen K. “Time between membrane rupture and delivery and septicemia in term neonates”. Obstet Gynecol 2007; 110(3):612–618
[7] Anderson BL, Simhan HN, Simons KM, et al. “Untreated asymptomatic group B streptococcal bacteriuria early in pregnancy and chorioamnionitis at delivery”. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2007;196(6): 524.e1–5.
[8] Munson LA, Graham A, Koos BJ, Valenzuela GJ. “Is there a need for digital examination in patients with spontaneous rupture of the membranes? “ Am J Obstet Gynecol 1985; 153:562-3.
[9] ACOG Committee on Practice Bulletins-Obstetrics, Authors. Clinical Management Guidelines for Obstetriciangynaecologists. (ACOG Practice Bulletin No. 80: Premature Rupture of Membranes). Obstet Gynecol 2007; 109:10071019.
[10] Garite TJ. Management of Premature Rupture of Membranes. Clin Perinatol 2001; 28:837-847
[11] Li K, Wang Y, Li H, Yang H. “A study of 579 pregnant women with premature rupture of membranes at term“. Int J Gynaecol Obstet 2011; 112:45–47
[12] American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists. Practice bulletins No. 139: premature rupture of membranes: clinical management guidelines for obstetrician-gynecologists. Obstet Gynecol 2013;122(4):918–930
[13] Hannah ME, Ohlsson A, Farine D, et al. “Induction of labor compared with expectant management for prelabour rupture of membranes at term. TERMPROM Study Group“. N Engl J Med 1996; 334(16):1005–1010
[14] Higgins RD, Saade G, Polin RA, et al., for the Chorioamnionitis Workshop Participants. Evaluation and management of women and newborns with a maternal diagnosis of chorioamnionitis: summary of a workshop. Obstet Gynecol 2016 Mar;127(3):426-36.
[15] Sadeh-Mestechkin D, Samara N, Wiser A, Markovitch O, Shechter-Maor G, Biron-Shental T. “Premature rupture of the membranes at term: time to reevaluate the management. Arch Gynecol Obstet 2016 Nov;294(6):1203-1207
[16] Shah K, Doshi H. “Premature rupture of membrane at term: Early induction versus expectant management”. Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology of India 2012;62(2):172‐ 5