Is induction of labour by Propess (R) safe? A comparison of midwife-led versus obstetrician-led labour management
Göster/ Aç
Erişim
info:eu-repo/semantics/closedAccessTarih
2015Yazar
Tekin, Yeşim BayoğluUral, Ülkü Mete
Kerimogğu, O. Seçilmiş
Balık, Gülşah
Şahin, Figen Kır
Güven, Emine Seda Güvendağ
Üst veri
Tüm öğe kaydını gösterKünye
Bayoglu Tekin, Y., Mete Ural, U., Kerimoglu, O. S., Balik, G., Kir Sahin, F., & Guvendag Guven, E. S. (2015). Is induction of labour by Propess(®) safe? A comparison of midwife-led versus obstetrician-led labour management. Journal of obstetrics and gynaecology : the journal of the Institute of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, 35(4), 346–349. https://doi.org/10.3109/01443615.2014.960829Özet
This retrospective study compared maternal and fetal outcomes after labour induction, using a dinoprostone vaginal pessary (Propess (R)) in midwife-led and obstetrician-led labour management. Labour induction outcomes, delivery mode and rates of admission to the neonatal intensive care unit were compared. A total of 405 women, 40.5% (n = 164) from midwife-led units and 59.5% (n = 241) from an obstetricianled unit, participated. There was no statistically significant difference between the two groups in caesarean section rate or neonatal intensive care unit admission rates (p = 0.789 and 0.769, respectively). Non-reassuring fetal non-stress test and uterine hyperstimulation risks were higher in the obstetricianled unit (p = 0.003 and 0.001, respectively, and odds ratio (OR) 0.165, 95% CI: 0.117-0.232 and OR 0.218, 95% CI: 0.078-0.611, respectively). Postpartum blood transfusion rate was higher in the midwife-led units (p = 0.002, OR 8.082, 95% CI: 1.879-39.292). Labour induction with Propess (R) is safe during both midwife-led and obstetrician-led labour management.