Oxytocin versus prostaglandins for labour Induction of women with an unfavourable cervix after 24 hours of cervical ripening (OPIC): protocol for an open multicentre randomised non-inferiority trial.
maternal medicine
organisation of health services
protocols & guidelines
Journal
BMJ open
ISSN: 2044-6055
Titre abrégé: BMJ Open
Pays: England
ID NLM: 101552874
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
17 04 2023
17 04 2023
Historique:
medline:
19
4
2023
entrez:
17
4
2023
pubmed:
18
4
2023
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
It remains uncertain whether the most appropriate management for women with an unfavourable cervix after 24 hours of cervical ripening is repeating the ripening procedure or proceeding directly to induction by oxytocin. No adequately powered trial has compared these strategies. We hypothesise that induction of labour with oxytocin among women who have just undergone an ineffective first ripening procedure is not associated with a higher risk of caesarean delivery than a repeated cervical ripening with prostaglandins. We will conduct a multicentre, non-inferiority, open-label, randomised controlled trial aimed at comparing labour induction by oxytocin with a second cervical ripening that uses prostaglandins (slow-release vaginal dinoprostone; oral misoprostol 25 µg; dinoprostone vaginal gel 2 mg). Women (n=1494) randomised in a 1:1 ratio in 10 French maternity units must be ≥18 years with a singleton fetus in vertex presentation, at a term from ≥37+0 weeks of gestation, and have just completed a 24-hour cervical ripening procedure by any method (pharmacological or mechanical) with a Bishop score ≤6. Exclusion criteria comprise being in labour, having more than 3 contractions per 10 min, or a prior caesarean delivery or a history of uterine surgery, or a fetus with antenatally suspected severe congenital abnormalities or a non-reassuring fetal heart rate. The primary endpoint will be the caesarean delivery rate, regardless of indication. Secondary outcomes concern delivery, perinatal morbidity, maternal satisfaction and health economic evaluations. The nature of the assessed procedures prevents masking the study investigators and patients to group assignment. All participants will provide written informed consent. The ethics committee 'Comité de Protection des Personnes Ile de France VII' approved this study on 2 April 2021 (No 2021-000989-15). Study findings will be submitted for publication and presented at relevant conferences. NCT04949633.
Identifiants
pubmed: 37068892
pii: bmjopen-2021-058282
doi: 10.1136/bmjopen-2021-058282
pmc: PMC10111897
doi:
Substances chimiques
Oxytocin
50-56-6
Dinoprostone
K7Q1JQR04M
Prostaglandins
0
Oxytocics
0
Abortifacient Agents, Nonsteroidal
0
Banques de données
ClinicalTrials.gov
['NCT04949633']
Types de publication
Equivalence Trial
Clinical Trial Protocol
Journal Article
Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
e058282Informations de copyright
© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2023. Re-use permitted under CC BY-NC. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ.
Déclaration de conflit d'intérêts
Competing interests: None declared.
Références
Zhonghua Gan Zang Bing Za Zhi. 2014 Oct;22(10):781-91
pubmed: 25558501
Obstet Gynecol Int. 2013;2013:745159
pubmed: 23997770
BJOG. 2002 Mar;109(3):254-60
pubmed: 11950179
Trials. 2020 Jan 8;21(1):51
pubmed: 31915047
Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2014 Mar;210(3):179-93
pubmed: 24565430
J Gynecol Obstet Hum Reprod. 2017 Dec;46(10):701-713
pubmed: 29031048
Value Health. 2008 Mar-Apr;11(2):251-8
pubmed: 18380637
J Affect Disord. 1998 Jun;49(3):167-80
pubmed: 9629946
BMC Pregnancy Childbirth. 2017 Aug 30;17(1):279
pubmed: 28854894
Birth. 2003 Mar;30(1):36-46
pubmed: 12581038
J Gynecol Obstet Hum Reprod. 2018 Feb;47(2):57-62
pubmed: 29196154
Birth. 2008 Jun;35(2):121-8
pubmed: 18507583
BMC Pregnancy Childbirth. 2014 Oct 23;14:350
pubmed: 25338555
Reprod Sci. 2016 Jun;23(6):779-84
pubmed: 26626794