Lateral episiotomy or no episiotomy in vacuum assisted delivery in nulliparous women (EVA): multicentre, open label, randomised controlled trial.


Journal

BMJ (Clinical research ed.)
ISSN: 1756-1833
Titre abrégé: BMJ
Pays: England
ID NLM: 8900488

Informations de publication

Date de publication:
17 Jun 2024
Historique:
medline: 18 6 2024
pubmed: 18 6 2024
entrez: 17 6 2024
Statut: epublish

Résumé

To assess the effect of lateral episiotomy, compared with no episiotomy, on obstetric anal sphincter injury in nulliparous women requiring vacuum extraction. A multicentre, open label, randomised controlled trial. Eight hospitals in Sweden, 2017-23. 717 nulliparous women with a single live fetus of 34 gestational weeks or more, requiring vacuum extraction were randomly assigned (1:1) to lateral episiotomy or no episiotomy using sealed opaque envelopes. Randomisation was stratified by study site. A standardised lateral episiotomy was performed during the vacuum extraction, at crowning of the fetal head, starting 1-3 cm from the posterior fourchette, at a 60° (45-80°) angle from the midline, and 4 cm (3-5 cm) long. The comparison was no episiotomy unless considered indispensable. The primary outcome of the episiotomy in vacuum assisted delivery (EVA) trial was obstetric anal sphincter injury, clinically diagnosed by combined visual inspection and digital rectal and vaginal examination. The primary analysis used a modified intention-to-treat population that included all consenting women with attempted or successful vacuum extraction. As a result of an interim analysis at significance level P<0.01, the primary endpoint was tested at 4% significance level with accompanying 96% confidence interval (CI). From 1 July 2017 to 15 February 2023, 717 women were randomly assigned: 354 (49%) to lateral episiotomy and 363 (51%) to no episiotomy. Before vacuum extraction attempt, one woman withdrew consent and 14 had a spontaneous birth, leaving 702 for the primary analysis. In the intervention group, 21 (6%) of 344 women sustained obstetric anal sphincter injury, compared with 47 (13%) of 358 women in the comparison group (P=0.002). The risk difference was -7.0% (96% CI -11.7% to -2.5%). The risk ratio adjusted for site was 0.47 (96% CI 0.23 to 0.97) and unadjusted risk ratio was 0.46 (0.28 to 0.78). No significant differences were noted between groups in postpartum pain, blood loss, neonatal outcomes, or total adverse events, but the intervention group had more wound infections and dehiscence. Lateral episiotomy can be recommended for nulliparous women requiring vacuum extraction to significantly reduce the risk of obstetric anal sphincter injury. ClinicalTrials.gov NCT02643108.

Identifiants

pubmed: 38886011
doi: 10.1136/bmj-2023-079014
doi:

Banques de données

ClinicalTrials.gov
['NCT02643108']

Types de publication

Journal Article Multicenter Study Randomized Controlled Trial

Langues

eng

Sous-ensembles de citation

IM

Pagination

e079014

Informations de copyright

© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2019. 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: All authors have completed the ICMJE uniform disclosure form at www.icmje.org/disclosure-of-interest/ and declare: funding from the Swedish Research Council (2016-00526), the Stockholm Region (FoUI-960261/2021), and the Uppsala-Örebro Research Council (RFR-939428); no support from any organisation for the submitted work; no financial relationships with any organisations that might have an interest in the submitted work in the previous three years; and no other relationships or activities that could appear to have influenced the submitted work.

Auteurs

Sandra Bergendahl (S)

Department of Clinical Sciences, Danderyd Hospital, Karolinska Institutet, Stockholm, Sweden sandra.bergendahl@ki.se.

Maria Jonsson (M)

Department of Women's and Children's Health, Uppsala University, Uppsala, Sweden.

Susanne Hesselman (S)

Department of Women's and Children's Health, Centre for Clinical Research Dalarna, Falun, Sweden.

Victoria Ankarcrona (V)

Department of Clinical Sciences, Danderyd Hospital, Karolinska Institutet, Stockholm, Sweden.

Åsa Leijonhufvud (Å)

Department of Clinical Science Helsingborg, Lund University, Helsingborg, Sweden.

Anna-Carin Wihlbäck (AC)

Department of Clinical Sciences, Obstetrics and Gynecology, Umeå University, Umeå, Sweden.

Tove Wallström (T)

Department of Clinical Science and Education, South General Hospital, Karolinska Institutet, Stockholm, Sweden.

Emmie Rydström (E)

Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Växjö Central Hospital, Växjö, Sweden.

Hanna Friberg (H)

Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Sahlgrenska University Hospital, Göteborg, Sweden.

Helena Kopp Kallner (H)

Department of Clinical Sciences, Danderyd Hospital, Karolinska Institutet, Stockholm, Sweden.

Sophia Brismar Wendel (S)

Department of Clinical Sciences, Danderyd Hospital, Karolinska Institutet, Stockholm, Sweden.

Articles similaires

[Redispensing of expensive oral anticancer medicines: a practical application].

Lisanne N van Merendonk, Kübra Akgöl, Bastiaan Nuijen
1.00
Humans Antineoplastic Agents Administration, Oral Drug Costs Counterfeit Drugs

Smoking Cessation and Incident Cardiovascular Disease.

Jun Hwan Cho, Seung Yong Shin, Hoseob Kim et al.
1.00
Humans Male Smoking Cessation Cardiovascular Diseases Female
Humans United States Aged Cross-Sectional Studies Medicare Part C
1.00
Humans Yoga Low Back Pain Female Male

Classifications MeSH