Prophylactic oxytocin for the third stage of labour to prevent postpartum haemorrhage.
Journal
The Cochrane database of systematic reviews
ISSN: 1469-493X
Titre abrégé: Cochrane Database Syst Rev
Pays: England
ID NLM: 100909747
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
29 04 2019
29 04 2019
Historique:
pubmed:
30
4
2019
medline:
4
6
2019
entrez:
30
4
2019
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
Active management of the third stage of labour reduces the risk of postpartum blood loss (postpartum haemorrhage (PPH)), and is defined as administration of a prophylactic uterotonic, early umbilical cord clamping and controlled cord traction to facilitate placental delivery. The choice of uterotonic varies across the globe and may have an impact on maternal outcomes. This is an update of a review first published in 2001 and last updated in 2013. To determine the effectiveness of prophylactic oxytocin to prevent PPH and other adverse maternal outcomes in the third stage of labour. For this update, we searched Cochrane Pregnancy and Childbirth's Trials Register, ClinicalTrials.gov, WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP) (6 March 2019) and reference lists of retrieved studies. Randomised, quasi- or cluster-randomised trials including women undergoing vaginal delivery who received prophylactic oxytocin during management of the third stage of labour. Primary outcomes were blood loss 500 mL or more after delivery, need for additional uterotonics, and maternal all-cause mortality. Two review authors independently assessed trials for inclusion, extracted data, and assessed trial quality. Data were checked for accuracy. We assessed the quality of the evidence using the GRADE approach. This review includes 24 trials, with 23 trials involving 10,018 women contributing data. Due to many trials assessed at high risk of bias, evidence grade ranged from very low to moderate quality.Prophylactic oxytocin versus no uterotonics or placebo (nine trials)Prophylactic oxytocin compared with no uterotonics or placebo may reduce the risk of blood loss of 500 mL after delivery (average risk ratio (RR) 0.51, 95% confidence interval (C) 0.37 to 0.72; 4162 women; 6 studies; Tau² = 0.10, I² = 75%; low-quality evidence), and blood loss 1000 mL after delivery (RR 0.59, 95% CI 0.42 to 0.83; 4123 women; 5 studies; low-quality evidence). Prophylactic oxytocin probably reduces the need for additional uterotonics (average RR 0.54, 95% CI 0.36 to 0.80; 3135 women; 4 studies; Tau² = 0.07, I² = 44%; moderate-quality evidence). There may be no difference in the risk of needing a blood transfusion in women receiving oxytocin compared to no uterotonics or placebo (RR 0.88, 95% CI 0.44 to 1.78; 3081 women; 3 studies; low-quality evidence). Oxytocin may be associated with an increased risk of a third stage greater than 30 minutes (RR 2.55, 95% CI 0.88 to 7.44; 1947 women; 1 study; moderate-quality evidence), however the confidence interval is wide and includes 1.0, indicating that there may be little or no difference.Prophylactic oxytocin versus ergot alkaloids (15 trials)It is uncertain whether oxytocin reduces the likelihood of blood loss 500 mL (average RR 0.84, 95% CI 0.56 to 1.25; 3082 women; 10 studies; Tau² = 0.14, I² = 49%; very low-quality evidence) or the need for additional uterotonics compared to ergot alkaloids (average RR 0.89, 95% CI 0.43 to 1.81; 2178 women; 8 studies; Tau² = 0.76, I² = 79%; very low-quality evidence), because the quality of this evidence is very low. The quality of evidence was very low for blood loss of 1000 mL (RR 1.13, 95% CI 0.63 to 2.01; 1577 women; 3 studies; very low-quality evidence), and need for blood transfusion (average RR 1.37, 95% CI 0.34 to 5.51; 1578 women; 7 studies; Tau² = 1.34, I² = 45%; very low-quality evidence), making benefit of oxytocin over ergot alkaloids uncertain. Oxytocin probably increases the risk of a prolonged third stage greater than 30 minutes (RR 4.69, 95% CI 1.63 to 13.45; 450 women; 2 studies; moderate-quality evidence), although it is uncertain if this translates into increased risk of manual placental removal (average RR 1.10, 95% CI 0.39 to 3.10; 3127 women; 8 studies; Tau² = 1.07, I² = 76%; very low-quality evidence). Oxytocin may make little or no difference to risk of diastolic blood pressure > 100 mm Hg (average RR 0.28, 95% CI 0.04 to 2.05; 960 women; 3 studies; Tau² = 1.23, I² = 50%; low-quality evidence), and is probably associated with a lower risk of vomiting (RR 0.09, 95% CI 0.05 to 0.14; 1991 women; 7 studies; moderate-quality evidence), although the impact of oxytocin on headaches is uncertain (average RR 0.19, 95% CI 0.03 to 1.02; 1543 women; 5 studies; Tau² = 2.54, I² = 72%; very low-quality evidence).Prophylactic oxytocin-ergometrine versus ergot alkaloids (four trials)Oxytocin-ergometrine may slightly reduce the risk of blood loss greater than 500 mL after delivery compared to ergot alkaloids (RR 0.44, 95% CI 0.20 to 0.94; 1168 women; 3 studies; low-quality evidence), based on outcomes from quasi-randomised trials with a high risk of bias. There were no maternal deaths reported in either treatment group in the one trial that reported this outcome (RR not estimable; 1 trial, 807 women; moderate-quality evidence). Need for additional uterotonics was not reported.No subgroup differences were observed between active or expectant management, or different routes or doses of oxytocin for any of our comparisons. Prophylactic oxytocin compared with no uterotonics may reduce blood loss and the need for additional uterotonics. The effect of oxytocin compared to ergot alkaloids is uncertain with regards to blood loss, need for additional uterotonics, and blood transfusion. Oxytocin may increase the risk of a prolonged third stage compared to ergot alkaloids, although whether this translates into increased risk of manual placental removal is uncertain. This potential risk must be weighed against the possible increased risk of side effects associated with ergot alkaloids. Oxytocin-ergometrine may reduce blood loss compared to ergot alkaloids, however the certainty of this conclusion is low. More high-quality trials are needed to assess optimal dosing and route of oxytocin administration, with inclusion of important outcomes such as maternal mortality, shock, and transfer to a higher level of care. A network meta-analysis of uterotonics for PPH prevention plans to address issues around optimal dosing and routes of oxytocin and other uterotonics.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
Active management of the third stage of labour reduces the risk of postpartum blood loss (postpartum haemorrhage (PPH)), and is defined as administration of a prophylactic uterotonic, early umbilical cord clamping and controlled cord traction to facilitate placental delivery. The choice of uterotonic varies across the globe and may have an impact on maternal outcomes. This is an update of a review first published in 2001 and last updated in 2013.
OBJECTIVES
To determine the effectiveness of prophylactic oxytocin to prevent PPH and other adverse maternal outcomes in the third stage of labour.
SEARCH METHODS
For this update, we searched Cochrane Pregnancy and Childbirth's Trials Register, ClinicalTrials.gov, WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP) (6 March 2019) and reference lists of retrieved studies.
SELECTION CRITERIA
Randomised, quasi- or cluster-randomised trials including women undergoing vaginal delivery who received prophylactic oxytocin during management of the third stage of labour. Primary outcomes were blood loss 500 mL or more after delivery, need for additional uterotonics, and maternal all-cause mortality.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Two review authors independently assessed trials for inclusion, extracted data, and assessed trial quality. Data were checked for accuracy. We assessed the quality of the evidence using the GRADE approach.
MAIN RESULTS
This review includes 24 trials, with 23 trials involving 10,018 women contributing data. Due to many trials assessed at high risk of bias, evidence grade ranged from very low to moderate quality.Prophylactic oxytocin versus no uterotonics or placebo (nine trials)Prophylactic oxytocin compared with no uterotonics or placebo may reduce the risk of blood loss of 500 mL after delivery (average risk ratio (RR) 0.51, 95% confidence interval (C) 0.37 to 0.72; 4162 women; 6 studies; Tau² = 0.10, I² = 75%; low-quality evidence), and blood loss 1000 mL after delivery (RR 0.59, 95% CI 0.42 to 0.83; 4123 women; 5 studies; low-quality evidence). Prophylactic oxytocin probably reduces the need for additional uterotonics (average RR 0.54, 95% CI 0.36 to 0.80; 3135 women; 4 studies; Tau² = 0.07, I² = 44%; moderate-quality evidence). There may be no difference in the risk of needing a blood transfusion in women receiving oxytocin compared to no uterotonics or placebo (RR 0.88, 95% CI 0.44 to 1.78; 3081 women; 3 studies; low-quality evidence). Oxytocin may be associated with an increased risk of a third stage greater than 30 minutes (RR 2.55, 95% CI 0.88 to 7.44; 1947 women; 1 study; moderate-quality evidence), however the confidence interval is wide and includes 1.0, indicating that there may be little or no difference.Prophylactic oxytocin versus ergot alkaloids (15 trials)It is uncertain whether oxytocin reduces the likelihood of blood loss 500 mL (average RR 0.84, 95% CI 0.56 to 1.25; 3082 women; 10 studies; Tau² = 0.14, I² = 49%; very low-quality evidence) or the need for additional uterotonics compared to ergot alkaloids (average RR 0.89, 95% CI 0.43 to 1.81; 2178 women; 8 studies; Tau² = 0.76, I² = 79%; very low-quality evidence), because the quality of this evidence is very low. The quality of evidence was very low for blood loss of 1000 mL (RR 1.13, 95% CI 0.63 to 2.01; 1577 women; 3 studies; very low-quality evidence), and need for blood transfusion (average RR 1.37, 95% CI 0.34 to 5.51; 1578 women; 7 studies; Tau² = 1.34, I² = 45%; very low-quality evidence), making benefit of oxytocin over ergot alkaloids uncertain. Oxytocin probably increases the risk of a prolonged third stage greater than 30 minutes (RR 4.69, 95% CI 1.63 to 13.45; 450 women; 2 studies; moderate-quality evidence), although it is uncertain if this translates into increased risk of manual placental removal (average RR 1.10, 95% CI 0.39 to 3.10; 3127 women; 8 studies; Tau² = 1.07, I² = 76%; very low-quality evidence). Oxytocin may make little or no difference to risk of diastolic blood pressure > 100 mm Hg (average RR 0.28, 95% CI 0.04 to 2.05; 960 women; 3 studies; Tau² = 1.23, I² = 50%; low-quality evidence), and is probably associated with a lower risk of vomiting (RR 0.09, 95% CI 0.05 to 0.14; 1991 women; 7 studies; moderate-quality evidence), although the impact of oxytocin on headaches is uncertain (average RR 0.19, 95% CI 0.03 to 1.02; 1543 women; 5 studies; Tau² = 2.54, I² = 72%; very low-quality evidence).Prophylactic oxytocin-ergometrine versus ergot alkaloids (four trials)Oxytocin-ergometrine may slightly reduce the risk of blood loss greater than 500 mL after delivery compared to ergot alkaloids (RR 0.44, 95% CI 0.20 to 0.94; 1168 women; 3 studies; low-quality evidence), based on outcomes from quasi-randomised trials with a high risk of bias. There were no maternal deaths reported in either treatment group in the one trial that reported this outcome (RR not estimable; 1 trial, 807 women; moderate-quality evidence). Need for additional uterotonics was not reported.No subgroup differences were observed between active or expectant management, or different routes or doses of oxytocin for any of our comparisons.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
Prophylactic oxytocin compared with no uterotonics may reduce blood loss and the need for additional uterotonics. The effect of oxytocin compared to ergot alkaloids is uncertain with regards to blood loss, need for additional uterotonics, and blood transfusion. Oxytocin may increase the risk of a prolonged third stage compared to ergot alkaloids, although whether this translates into increased risk of manual placental removal is uncertain. This potential risk must be weighed against the possible increased risk of side effects associated with ergot alkaloids. Oxytocin-ergometrine may reduce blood loss compared to ergot alkaloids, however the certainty of this conclusion is low. More high-quality trials are needed to assess optimal dosing and route of oxytocin administration, with inclusion of important outcomes such as maternal mortality, shock, and transfer to a higher level of care. A network meta-analysis of uterotonics for PPH prevention plans to address issues around optimal dosing and routes of oxytocin and other uterotonics.
Identifiants
pubmed: 31032882
doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD001808.pub3
pmc: PMC6487388
doi:
Substances chimiques
Oxytocin
50-56-6
Types de publication
Journal Article
Meta-Analysis
Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't
Systematic Review
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
CD001808Commentaires et corrections
Type : UpdateOf
Références
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2018 Jun 07;6:CD005456
pubmed: 29879293
S Afr Med J. 1980 Oct 4;58(14):549
pubmed: 7423290
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2018 Dec 19;12:CD011689
pubmed: 30569545
Br J Obstet Gynaecol. 1995 May;102(5):377-80
pubmed: 7612530
Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2013 Jul;209(1):51.e1-6
pubmed: 23507549
Ginecol Obstet Mex. 2016 May;84(5):306-13
pubmed: 27476252
Int J Gynaecol Obstet. 2010 Oct;111(1):32-6
pubmed: 20599196
Br J Obstet Gynaecol. 1991 Jun;98(6):528-30
pubmed: 1873241
Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol. 1992 Jan 31;43(2):131-5
pubmed: 1563560
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2012 Aug 15;(8):CD000494
pubmed: 22895917
Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2001 Oct;185(4):878-82
pubmed: 11641670
Obstet Gynecol. 1961 Jan;17:9-18
pubmed: 13728699
Int J Gynaecol Obstet. 2009 Nov;107(2):130-4
pubmed: 19628206
Int J Gynaecol Obstet. 1994 Jul;46(1):15-8
pubmed: 7805977
Aust N Z J Obstet Gynaecol. 2001 Nov;41(4):411-4
pubmed: 11787915
Int J Gynaecol Obstet. 2014 Jan;124(1):67-71
pubmed: 24365208
Anesth Analg. 2007 Dec;105(6):1736-40, table of contents
pubmed: 18042876
BMC Pregnancy Childbirth. 2012 Jun 07;12:42
pubmed: 22676921
Arch Gynecol Obstet. 2011 Jun;283(6):1207-13
pubmed: 20508942
Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2008 Nov;199(5):519.e1-7
pubmed: 18639209
Ann Chir Gynaecol Fenn. 1964;53:173-8
pubmed: 14163868
Lancet Glob Health. 2014 Jun;2(6):e323-33
pubmed: 25103301
Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand. 1996 May;75(5):464-8
pubmed: 8677772
Am J Obstet Gynecol. 1997 Oct;177(4):770-4
pubmed: 9369817
Int J Gynaecol Obstet. 2007 Mar;96(3):198-9
pubmed: 17289048
Gynecol Obstet Invest. 2004;58(2):72-6
pubmed: 15103233
J Obstet Gynaecol Res. 2007 Jun;33(3):254-8
pubmed: 17578351
Br J Obstet Gynaecol. 1988 Jan;95(1):3-16
pubmed: 3277663
Obstet Gynecol. 2005 Feb;105(2):294-9
pubmed: 15684155
Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2009 Sep;201(3):303.e1-7
pubmed: 19632665
Obstet Gynecol. 2016 Oct;128(4):805-11
pubmed: 27607864
Br Med J. 1963 May 25;1(5342):1387-9
pubmed: 20789817
Am J Obstet Gynecol. 1957 Jun;73(6):1306-13
pubmed: 13424596
Br J Obstet Gynaecol. 1979 Aug;86(8):633-6
pubmed: 497133
Drugs. 1998 Oct;56(4):523-35
pubmed: 9806101
PLoS Med. 2013 Oct;10(10):e1001524
pubmed: 24130463
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2019 Feb 13;2:CD007412
pubmed: 30754073
Obstet Gynecol. 2004 Sep;104(3):601-6
pubmed: 15339775
Lancet. 2016 Oct 8;388(10053):1775-1812
pubmed: 27733286
Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2018 Aug;219(2):162-168
pubmed: 29660298
Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2001 Oct;185(4):873-7
pubmed: 11641669
Br J Obstet Gynaecol. 1988 Jan;95(1):17-30
pubmed: 3277662
J Obstet Gynaecol Br Commonw. 1963 Aug;70:593-6
pubmed: 14078036
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2016 Apr 14;4:CD011491
pubmed: 27078125
West J Surg Obstet Gynecol. 1956 Jan;64(1):22-8
pubmed: 13282263
BMJ. 1988 Jul 16;297(6642):167-9
pubmed: 3261614
Br Med J. 1932 Jun 18;1(3728):1119-22
pubmed: 20776906
Lancet. 2010 May 8;375(9726):1609-23
pubmed: 20382417
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2015 Jun 16;(6):CD007872
pubmed: 26079202
BJOG. 2019 Jan;126(1):83-93
pubmed: 29920912
Br J Anaesth. 1976 Jun;48(6):571-4
pubmed: 952692
JAMA. 1964 Aug 10;189:411-3
pubmed: 14162138
Int J Gynaecol Obstet. 2008 May;101(2):129-32
pubmed: 18164304
Int J Gynaecol Obstet. 2014 Nov;127(2):175-9
pubmed: 25108586
Aust N Z J Obstet Gynaecol. 1965 Feb;5(1):47-51
pubmed: 14271801
J Obstet Gynaecol India. 2014 Jun;64(3):175-9
pubmed: 24966500
Am J Obstet Gynecol. 1958 Jul;76(1):141-6
pubmed: 13545290
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2012 Apr 18;(4):CD005457
pubmed: 22513931
Br J Obstet Gynaecol. 1997 Jul;104(7):781-6
pubmed: 9236641
Can Med Assoc J. 1955 May 15;72(10):727-34
pubmed: 14364431
Int J Gynaecol Obstet. 2001 Dec;75(3):235-41
pubmed: 11728483
Br Med J. 1963 Dec 28;2(5373):1620-3
pubmed: 14066183
Gynecol Obstet Invest. 1990;29(3):177-80
pubmed: 2358192
Br J Obstet Gynaecol. 1996 Nov;103(11):1068-73
pubmed: 8916990
J Obstet Gynaecol Can. 2004 May;26(5):481-8
pubmed: 15151735
J Obstet Gynaecol India. 2016 Oct;66(Suppl 1):229-34
pubmed: 27651609
J Matern Fetal Neonatal Med. 2007 Sep;20(9):703-5
pubmed: 17701671
Obstet Gynecol. 1991 Aug;78(2):254-6
pubmed: 2067772
Obstet Gynecol. 2012 Feb;119(2 Pt 1):293-300
pubmed: 22227638
Ann Chir Gynaecol Fenn. 1964;53:424-9
pubmed: 14232101
J Biol Chem. 1953 Dec;205(2):949-57
pubmed: 13129273
Obstet Gynecol. 1978 Dec;52(6):694-7
pubmed: 310530
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2012 Mar 14;(3):CD006176
pubmed: 22419311
J Obstet Gynaecol Br Commonw. 1974 Aug;81(8):596-9
pubmed: 4547532
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2013 Oct 30;(10):CD001808
pubmed: 24173606