Prelabour rupture of membranes at term prospective study of expectant management versus induction of labour

Vijay Zutshi; Sumitra Bachani; Sakshi Goel; Renu Arora; Sana Tiwari

doi:10.18203/2319-2003.ijbcp20162443

Authors

Vijay Zutshi Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, VMMC and SJH, New Delhi, India
Sumitra Bachani Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, VMMC and SJH, New Delhi, India
Sakshi Goel Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, VMMC and SJH, New Delhi, India
Renu Arora Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, VMMC and SJH, New Delhi, India
Sana Tiwari Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, VMMC and SJH, New Delhi, India

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.18203/2319-2003.ijbcp20162443

Keywords:

Premature rupture of membranes, Expectant management, Induction, Obstetric outcome, Neonatal outcome

Abstract

Background: Premature rupture of membranes (PROM) complicates 5-10 % of pregnancies. Approximately 60-70 % of term PROM cases are followed by the onset of labor within 24 hours. Diagnosis and proper management is very important. In spite of many studies available in the literature, the clinical management is surprisingly controversial.

Methods: Study conducted was prospective randomised controlled trial. Total 150 women were selected fulfilling the inclusion criteria, randomly allotted to the 3 groups. In group A, patients were observed for 24 hours. If labor didn’t supervene in 24 hours since admission, induction of labor was done depending on the bishop’s score. In the group B, labour was induced by vaginal misoprostol 25 micrograms given 4 hourly for 4 doses and in group C, labor was induced by instillation of 0.5mg PGE2 gel in the posterior fornix. The women were observed for onset and progress of labour. Failure of induction was considered if patient was not in established labour within 24 hours of instillation of first dose of cerviprime/misoprostol. Labour was monitored and managed as per hospital protocol. The analysis verified the following variables: duration of latent phase and active phase of labour, mode of delivery (spontaneous/vaccum/forceps/LSCS), third stage complications (PPH/fever/retained placenta), neonatal outcome.

Results: Thirty percent women had onset of spontaneous labor during expectant management in group A. The durations of latent phase and active phase of labour were lower in group B and C than group A (9 and 10.4 versus 15 hours; p<0.001) and (4 and 6 versus10 hours; p<0.001), respectively. Immediate induction in group B and C resulted in significantly lower rate of caesarean section (17% and 19% versus 28.5%, P= 0.049) and operative vaginal delivery (5% and 3% versus 13%, P=0.007). Only a few maternal-neonatal infections occurred and no significant difference was noted (2.7% and 3% versus 3.5%, P= 0.71).

Conclusions: Immediate induction with prostaglandin shortens the delivery interval and lowers the caesarean section rate as compared to expectant management; however the neonatal outcome is similar in the three groups.

Metrics

Metrics Loading ...

References

Chaudhuri S, Mitra, Biswas P, Bhattacharyya S. Premature rupture of membranes at term: immediate induction with PGE2 gel compared with delayed induction with oxytocin. J Obstet Gynecol India. 2006;56(3):224-9.

Larranaga-Azcarate C, Campo-Molina G, Perez-Rodrı´guez, Ezcurdia-Gurpegui M. 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 obstetrica. 2008;87:195-200.

Hoffmann RA, Anthony J, Fawcus S. Oral misoprostol versus Placebo in the management of prelabor rupture of membranes at term. Int J of gynec obstet. 2001;72:215-21.

ACOG Committee on practice bulletins-obstetrics. ACOG Practice bulletin no. 107: induction of labor. Obstet Gynecol. 2009;114:386-97.

Hannah ME, Ohlsson A, Farine D, Hewson SA, Hodnett ED, Myhr TL, et al. Induction of labor compared with expectant management for labor rupture of membranes at term. TERMPROM Study Group. N Engl J Med. 1996;334:1005-10.

Gunn GC, Mishell DR, Morton DG. Premature rupture of fetal membranes. A review. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 1970;106:469-83.

Grant JM, Keirse MJNC. Prelabor rupture of the membranes at term. In: Chalmers L, Enkin M, Keirse MJNC, editors. Effective care in pregnancy and child birth. Vol. 2. Child birth. Oxford: Oxford University Press; 1989:112-7.

Ezra Y, Cohen RM, Abramov Y, Rojansky N. Prelabor rupture of membranes at term: when to induce labor? Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol. 2004;115:23-7.

Tarik Y, Zamzami Y. Prelabor rupture of membranes at term in low risk women: induce or wait? Arch Gynecol Obstet. 2006;273:278-82.

Tran SH, Cheng YW, Kaimal AJ, Caughey AB. Length of rupture of membranes at term and infectious maternal morbidity. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2008;198:700:e1-5.

Dare MR, Middleton P, Crowther CA, Flenady VJ, Varatharaju B. Planned early birth versus expectant management (waiting) for prelabor rupture of membranes at term (37 weeks or more). Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2006;25(1):CD005302.

Shanthi K, Devi GP, Bharathi T, Chandrasekharan PA. Comparative study of active versus expectant management and maternal and neonatal outcome in premature rupture of the membranes (PROM) in tertiary care hospital, Tirupathi. IOSR Journal of Dental and Medical Sciences. 2015;14(4):34-9.

Varner MW, Galask RP. Conservative management of premature rupture of the membranes. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 1981;140(1):39-45.

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.

Ayaz A, Saeed S, Farooq MU, Ahmad F, Bahoo LA, Ahmad I. Pre-labor rupture of membranes at term in patients with an unfavorable cervix: active versus conservative management. Taiwan J obstet gynecol. 2008;47:192-6.