Suppr超能文献

在非医疗机构分娩环境中使用缩宫素预防产后出血

Oxytocin for preventing postpartum haemorrhage (PPH) in non-facility birth settings.

作者信息

Pantoja Tomas, Abalos Edgardo, Chapman Evelina, Vera Claudio, Serrano Valentina P

机构信息

Department of Family Medicine, Faculty of Medicine, Pontificia Universidad Católica de Chile, Centro Medico San Joaquin, Vicuña Mackenna 4686, Macul, Santiago, Chile.

出版信息

Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2016 Apr 14;4(4):CD011491. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD011491.pub2.

Abstract

BACKGROUND

Postpartum haemorrhage (PPH) is the single leading cause of maternal mortality worldwide. Most of the deaths associated with PPH occur in resource-poor settings where effective methods of prevention and treatment - such as oxytocin - are not accessible because many births still occur at home, or in community settings, far from a health facility. Likewise, most of the evidence supporting oxytocin effectiveness comes from hospital settings in high-income countries, mainly because of the need of well-organised care for its administration and monitoring. Easier methods for oxytocin administration have been developed for use in resource-poor settings, but as far as we know, its effectiveness has not been assessed in a systematic review.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effectiveness and safety of oxytocin provided in non-facility birth settings by any way in the third stage of labour to prevent PPH.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Pregnancy and Childbirth Group's Trials Register, the WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP), ClinicalTrials.gov (12 November 2015), and reference lists of retrieved reports.

SELECTION CRITERIA

All published, unpublished or ongoing randomised or quasi-randomised controlled trials comparing the administration of oxytocin with no intervention, or usual/standard care for the management of the third stage of labour in non-facility birth settings were considered for inclusion.Quasi-randomised controlled trials and randomised controlled trials published in abstract form only were eligible for inclusion but none were identified. Cross-over trials were not eligible for inclusion in this review.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently assessed studies for eligibility, assessed risk of bias and extracted the data using an agreed data extraction form. Data were checked for accuracy.

MAIN RESULTS

We included one cluster-randomised trial conducted in four rural districts in Ghana that randomised 28 community health officers (CHOs) (serving 2404 potentially eligible pregnant women) to the intervention group and 26 CHOs (serving 3515 potentially eligible pregnant women) to the control group. Overall, the trial had a high risk of bias. CHOs delivered the intervention in the experimental group (injection of 10 IU (international units) of oxytocin in the thigh one minute following birth using a prefilled, auto-disposable syringe). In the control group, CHOs did not provide this prophylactic injection to the women they observed. CHOs had no midwifery skills and did not in any way manage the birth. All other CHO activities (outcome measurement, data collection, and early treatment and referral when necessary) were identical across the control and oxytocin CHOs.Although only one of the nine cases of severe PPH (blood loss greater or equal to 1000 mL) occurred in the oxytocin group, the effect estimate for this outcome was very imprecise and it is uncertain whether the intervention prevents severe PPH (risk ratio (RR) 0.16, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.02 to 1.30; 1570 women (very low-quality evidence)). Similarly, because of the lack of cases of severe maternal morbidity (e.g. uterine rupture) and maternal deaths, it was not possible to obtain effect estimates for those outcomes (both very low-quality evidence).Oxytocin compared with the control group decreased the incidence of PPH (> 500 mL) in both our unadjusted (RR 0.48, 95% CI 0.28 to 0.81; 1569 women) and adjusted (RR 0.49, 95% CI 0.27 to 0.90; 1174 women (both low-quality evidence)) analyses. There was little or no difference between the oxytocin and control groups on the rates of transfer or referral of the mother to a healthcare facility (RR 0.72, 95% CI 0.34 to 1.56; 1586 women (low-quality evidence)), stillbirths (RR 1.27, 95% CI 0.67 to 2.40; 2006 infants (low-quality evidence)); andearly infant deaths (0 to three days) (RR 1.03, 95% CI 0.35 to 3.07; 1969 infants (low-quality evidence)). There were no cases of needle-stick injury or any other maternal major or minor adverse event or unanticipated harmful event. There were no cases of oxytocin use during labour.There were no data reported for some of this review's secondary outcomes: manual removal of placenta, maternal anaemia, neonatal death within 28 days, neonatal transfer to health facility for advanced care, breastfeeding rates. Similarly, the women's or the provider's satisfaction with the intervention was not reported.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: It is uncertain if oxytocin administered by CHO in non-facility settings compared with a control group reduces the incidence of severe PPH (>1000 mL), severe maternal morbidity or maternal deaths. However, the intervention probably decreases the incidence of PPH (> 500 mL).The quality of the one trial included in this review was limited because of the risk of attrition and recruitment biases related to limitations in the follow-up of pregnant women in both arms of the trials and some baseline imbalance on the size of babies at birth. Additionally, there was serious imprecision of the effect estimates for most of the primary outcomes mainly because of the size of the trial, very few or no events and CIs around both relative and absolute estimates of effect that include both appreciable benefit and appreciable harm.Although the trial presented data both for primary and secondary outcomes, it seemed to be underpowered to detect differences in the primary outcomes that are the ones more relevant for making judgments about the potential applicability of the intervention in other settings (especially severe PPH).Therefore, taking into account the extreme setting where the intervention was implemented, the limited role of the CHO in the trial and the lack of power for detecting effects on primary (relevant) outcomes, the applicability of the evidence found seems to be rather limited.Further well-executed and adequately-powered randomised controlled trials assessing the effects of using oxytocin in pre-filled injection devices or other new delivery systems (spray-dried ultrafine formulation of oxytocin) on severe PPH are urgently needed. Likewise, other important outcomes like possible adverse events and acceptability of the intervention by mothers and other community stakeholders should also be assessed.

摘要

背景

产后出血(PPH)是全球孕产妇死亡的首要单一原因。与产后出血相关的大多数死亡发生在资源匮乏地区,在这些地区,诸如催产素等有效的预防和治疗方法无法获得,因为许多分娩仍在家中或社区环境中进行,距离医疗机构很远。同样,大多数支持催产素有效性的证据来自高收入国家的医院环境,主要是因为其给药和监测需要组织良好的护理。已经开发出更简便的催产素给药方法用于资源匮乏地区,但据我们所知,其有效性尚未在系统评价中得到评估。

目的

评估在非医疗机构分娩环境中,通过任何方式在第三产程使用催产素预防产后出血的有效性和安全性。

检索方法

我们检索了Cochrane妊娠和分娩组试验注册库、世界卫生组织国际临床试验注册平台(ICTRP)、ClinicalTrials.gov(2015年11月12日)以及检索报告的参考文献列表。

选择标准

所有已发表、未发表或正在进行的随机或半随机对照试验,比较在非医疗机构分娩环境中催产素给药与不干预或第三产程管理的常规/标准护理,均被考虑纳入。仅以摘要形式发表的半随机对照试验和随机对照试验符合纳入条件,但未检索到此类试验。交叉试验不符合本综述的纳入条件。

数据收集与分析

两位综述作者独立评估研究的纳入资格,评估偏倚风险,并使用商定的数据提取表提取数据。检查数据的准确性。

主要结果

我们纳入了一项在加纳四个农村地区进行的整群随机试验,该试验将28名社区卫生工作者(CHOs)(服务2404名潜在合格孕妇)随机分配至干预组,26名社区卫生工作者(服务3515名潜在合格孕妇)随机分配至对照组。总体而言,该试验存在较高的偏倚风险。社区卫生工作者在实验组实施干预(使用预填充的自动一次性注射器在出生后一分钟于大腿注射10国际单位(IU)催产素)。在对照组中,社区卫生工作者未对其观察的妇女进行这种预防性注射。社区卫生工作者没有助产技能,也未以任何方式管理分娩。对照组和催产素组的社区卫生工作者的所有其他活动(结果测量、数据收集以及必要时的早期治疗和转诊)均相同。尽管9例严重产后出血(失血≥1000 mL)病例中仅有1例发生在催产素组,但该结果的效应估计非常不精确,尚不确定该干预措施是否能预防严重产后出血(风险比(RR)0.16,95%置信区间(CI)0.02至1.30;1570名妇女(极低质量证据))。同样,由于缺乏严重孕产妇发病(如子宫破裂)和孕产妇死亡病例,无法获得这些结果的效应估计(均为极低质量证据)。与对照组相比,催产素在我们未调整(RR 0.48,95%CI 0.28至0.81;1569名妇女)和调整(RR 0.49,95%CI 0.27至0.90;1174名妇女(均为低质量证据))分析中均降低了产后出血(>500 mL)的发生率。催产素组与对照组在母亲转诊至医疗机构的比例(RR 0.72,95%CI 0.34至1.56;1586名妇女(低质量证据))、死产(RR 1.27,95%CI 0.67至2.40;2006名婴儿(低质量证据))以及早期婴儿死亡(0至3天)(RR 1.03,95%CI 0.35至3.07;1969名婴儿(低质量证据))方面几乎没有差异。没有针刺伤或任何其他母亲严重或轻微不良事件或意外有害事件的病例。分娩期间没有使用催产素的病例。本综述的一些次要结果未报告数据:人工剥离胎盘、孕产妇贫血、28天内新生儿死亡、新生儿转诊至医疗机构接受高级护理、母乳喂养率。同样,未报告妇女或提供者对干预措施的满意度。

作者结论

与对照组相比,社区卫生工作者在非医疗机构环境中使用催产素是否能降低严重产后出血(>1000 mL)发生率、严重孕产妇发病或孕产妇死亡尚不确定。然而,该干预措施可能会降低产后出血(>500 mL)的发生率。本综述纳入的一项试验质量有限,原因是与试验两组孕妇随访受限相关的失访和招募偏倚风险以及出生时婴儿大小的一些基线不平衡。此外,表示效应估计的主要结果大多存在严重不精确性,主要原因是试验规模、事件极少或无事件以及效应的相对和绝对估计周围的置信区间包含可观的益处和可观的危害。尽管该试验提供了主要和次要结果的数据,但似乎检测主要结果差异的效能不足,而主要结果对于判断该干预措施在其他环境中的潜在适用性更为相关(尤其是严重产后出血)。因此,考虑到实施干预的极端环境、社区卫生工作者试验中的有限作用以及检测对主要(相关)结果影响的效能不足,所发现证据的适用性似乎相当有限。迫切需要进一步开展执行良好且样本量充足的随机对照试验,评估使用预填充注射装置或其他新给药系统(催产素喷雾干燥超细制剂)的催产素对严重产后出血的影响。同样重要的是,还应评估其他重要结果,如可能的不良事件以及母亲和其他社区利益相关者对干预措施的可接受性。

相似文献

1
Oxytocin for preventing postpartum haemorrhage (PPH) in non-facility birth settings.
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2016 Apr 14;4(4):CD011491. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD011491.pub2.
2
Breastfeeding or nipple stimulation for reducing postpartum haemorrhage in the third stage of labour.
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2016 Jan 27;2016(1):CD010845. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD010845.pub2.
3
Uterotonic agents for preventing postpartum haemorrhage: a network meta-analysis.
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2018 Apr 25;4(4):CD011689. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD011689.pub2.
4
Methods for blood loss estimation after vaginal birth.
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2018 Sep 13;9(9):CD010980. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD010980.pub2.
5
Planned birth at or near term for improving health outcomes for pregnant women with gestational diabetes and their infants.
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2018 Jan 5;1(1):CD012910. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD012910.
6
Discontinuation of intravenous oxytocin in the active phase of induced labour.
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2018 Aug 20;8(8):CD012274. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD012274.pub2.
7
Uterotonic agents for first-line treatment of postpartum haemorrhage: a network meta-analysis.
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2020 Nov 24;11(11):CD012754. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD012754.pub2.
8
Antifibrinolytic drugs for treating primary postpartum haemorrhage.
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2018 Feb 20;2(2):CD012964. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD012964.
9
Methods of term labour induction for women with a previous caesarean section.
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2017 Jun 9;6(6):CD009792. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD009792.pub3.
10
Different corticosteroids and regimens for accelerating fetal lung maturation for babies at risk of preterm birth.
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2022 Aug 9;8(8):CD006764. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD006764.pub4.

引用本文的文献

2
Mechanical and surgical interventions for treating primary postpartum haemorrhage.
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2020 Jul 1;7(7):CD013663. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD013663.
5
Prophylactic oxytocin for the third stage of labour to prevent postpartum haemorrhage.
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2019 Apr 29;4(4):CD001808. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD001808.pub3.

本文引用的文献

2
Active versus expectant management for women in the third stage of labour.
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2015 Mar 2(3):CD007412. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD007412.pub4.
3
Global causes of maternal death: a WHO systematic analysis.
Lancet Glob Health. 2014 Jun;2(6):e323-33. doi: 10.1016/S2214-109X(14)70227-X. Epub 2014 May 5.
6
Postpartum uterine response to oxytocin and carbetocin.
J Reprod Med. 2014 Mar-Apr;59(3-4):167-73.
7
Treatment for primary postpartum haemorrhage.
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2014 Feb 13;2014(2):CD003249. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD003249.pub3.
9
Prophylactic oxytocin for the third stage of labour to prevent postpartum haemorrhage.
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2013 Oct 30(10):CD001808. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD001808.pub2.

文献AI研究员

20分钟写一篇综述,助力文献阅读效率提升50倍。

立即体验

用中文搜PubMed

大模型驱动的PubMed中文搜索引擎

马上搜索

文档翻译

学术文献翻译模型,支持多种主流文档格式。

立即体验