Standard

Outcomes after Internal versus External Tocodynamometry for Monitoring Labor. / Bakker, Jannet J. H.; Verhoeven, Corine J. M.; Janssen, Petra F. et al.

In: New England journal of medicine, Vol. 362, No. 4, 2010, p. 306-313.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticleAcademicpeer-review

Harvard

Bakker, JJH, Verhoeven, CJM, Janssen, PF, van Lith, JM, van Oudgaarden, ED, Bloemenkamp, KWM, Papatsonis, DNM, Mol, BWJ & van der Post, JAM 2010, 'Outcomes after Internal versus External Tocodynamometry for Monitoring Labor', New England journal of medicine, vol. 362, no. 4, pp. 306-313. https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJMoa0902748

APA

Bakker, J. J. H., Verhoeven, C. J. M., Janssen, P. F., van Lith, J. M., van Oudgaarden, E. D., Bloemenkamp, K. W. M., Papatsonis, D. N. M., Mol, B. W. J., & van der Post, J. A. M. (2010). Outcomes after Internal versus External Tocodynamometry for Monitoring Labor. New England journal of medicine, 362(4), 306-313. https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJMoa0902748

Vancouver

Bakker JJH, Verhoeven CJM, Janssen PF, van Lith JM, van Oudgaarden ED, Bloemenkamp KWM et al. Outcomes after Internal versus External Tocodynamometry for Monitoring Labor. New England journal of medicine. 2010;362(4):306-313. https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJMoa0902748

Author

Bakker, Jannet J. H. ; Verhoeven, Corine J. M. ; Janssen, Petra F. et al. / Outcomes after Internal versus External Tocodynamometry for Monitoring Labor. In: New England journal of medicine. 2010 ; Vol. 362, No. 4. pp. 306-313.

BibTeX

@article{aeadabaa53e34cf9997344b23588ae1e,
title = "Outcomes after Internal versus External Tocodynamometry for Monitoring Labor",
abstract = "BACKGROUND It has been hypothesized that internal tocodynamometry, as compared with external monitoring, may provide a more accurate assessment of contractions and thus improve the ability to adjust the dose of oxytocin effectively, resulting in fewer operative deliveries and less fetal distress. However, few data are available to test this hypothesis. METHODS We performed a randomized, controlled trial in six hospitals in the Netherlands to compare internal tocodynamometry with external monitoring of uterine activity in women for whom induced or augmented labor was required. The primary outcome was the rate of operative deliveries, including both cesarean sections and instrumented vaginal deliveries. Secondary outcomes included the use of antibiotics during labor, time from randomization to delivery, and adverse neonatal outcomes (defined as any of the following: an Apgar score at 5 minutes of less than 7, umbilical-artery pH of less than 7.05, and neonatal hospital stay of longer than 48 hours). RESULTS We randomly assigned 1456 women to either internal tocodynamometry (734) or external monitoring (722). The operative-delivery rate was 31.3% in the internal-tocodynamometry group and 29.6% in the external-monitoring group (relative risk with internal monitoring, 1.1; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.91 to 1.2). Secondary outcomes did not differ significantly between the two groups. The rate of adverse neonatal outcomes was 14.3% with internal monitoring and 15.0% with external monitoring (relative risk, 0.95; 95% CI, 0.74 to 1.2). No serious adverse events associated with use of the intrauterine pressure catheter were reported. CONCLUSIONS Internal tocodynamometry during induced or augmented labor, as compared with external monitoring, did not significantly reduce the rate of operative deliveries or of adverse neonatal outcomes. (Current Controlled Trials number, ISRCTN13667534; Netherlands Trial number, NTR285.)",
author = "Bakker, {Jannet J. H.} and Verhoeven, {Corine J. M.} and Janssen, {Petra F.} and {van Lith}, {Jan M.} and {van Oudgaarden}, {Elisabeth D.} and Bloemenkamp, {Kitty W. M.} and Papatsonis, {Dimitri N. M.} and Mol, {Ben Willem J.} and {van der Post}, {Joris A. M.}",
year = "2010",
doi = "10.1056/NEJMoa0902748",
language = "English",
volume = "362",
pages = "306--313",
journal = "New England journal of medicine",
issn = "0028-4793",
publisher = "Massachussetts Medical Society",
number = "4",

}

RIS

TY - JOUR

T1 - Outcomes after Internal versus External Tocodynamometry for Monitoring Labor

AU - Bakker, Jannet J. H.

AU - Verhoeven, Corine J. M.

AU - Janssen, Petra F.

AU - van Lith, Jan M.

AU - van Oudgaarden, Elisabeth D.

AU - Bloemenkamp, Kitty W. M.

AU - Papatsonis, Dimitri N. M.

AU - Mol, Ben Willem J.

AU - van der Post, Joris A. M.

PY - 2010

Y1 - 2010

N2 - BACKGROUND It has been hypothesized that internal tocodynamometry, as compared with external monitoring, may provide a more accurate assessment of contractions and thus improve the ability to adjust the dose of oxytocin effectively, resulting in fewer operative deliveries and less fetal distress. However, few data are available to test this hypothesis. METHODS We performed a randomized, controlled trial in six hospitals in the Netherlands to compare internal tocodynamometry with external monitoring of uterine activity in women for whom induced or augmented labor was required. The primary outcome was the rate of operative deliveries, including both cesarean sections and instrumented vaginal deliveries. Secondary outcomes included the use of antibiotics during labor, time from randomization to delivery, and adverse neonatal outcomes (defined as any of the following: an Apgar score at 5 minutes of less than 7, umbilical-artery pH of less than 7.05, and neonatal hospital stay of longer than 48 hours). RESULTS We randomly assigned 1456 women to either internal tocodynamometry (734) or external monitoring (722). The operative-delivery rate was 31.3% in the internal-tocodynamometry group and 29.6% in the external-monitoring group (relative risk with internal monitoring, 1.1; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.91 to 1.2). Secondary outcomes did not differ significantly between the two groups. The rate of adverse neonatal outcomes was 14.3% with internal monitoring and 15.0% with external monitoring (relative risk, 0.95; 95% CI, 0.74 to 1.2). No serious adverse events associated with use of the intrauterine pressure catheter were reported. CONCLUSIONS Internal tocodynamometry during induced or augmented labor, as compared with external monitoring, did not significantly reduce the rate of operative deliveries or of adverse neonatal outcomes. (Current Controlled Trials number, ISRCTN13667534; Netherlands Trial number, NTR285.)

AB - BACKGROUND It has been hypothesized that internal tocodynamometry, as compared with external monitoring, may provide a more accurate assessment of contractions and thus improve the ability to adjust the dose of oxytocin effectively, resulting in fewer operative deliveries and less fetal distress. However, few data are available to test this hypothesis. METHODS We performed a randomized, controlled trial in six hospitals in the Netherlands to compare internal tocodynamometry with external monitoring of uterine activity in women for whom induced or augmented labor was required. The primary outcome was the rate of operative deliveries, including both cesarean sections and instrumented vaginal deliveries. Secondary outcomes included the use of antibiotics during labor, time from randomization to delivery, and adverse neonatal outcomes (defined as any of the following: an Apgar score at 5 minutes of less than 7, umbilical-artery pH of less than 7.05, and neonatal hospital stay of longer than 48 hours). RESULTS We randomly assigned 1456 women to either internal tocodynamometry (734) or external monitoring (722). The operative-delivery rate was 31.3% in the internal-tocodynamometry group and 29.6% in the external-monitoring group (relative risk with internal monitoring, 1.1; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.91 to 1.2). Secondary outcomes did not differ significantly between the two groups. The rate of adverse neonatal outcomes was 14.3% with internal monitoring and 15.0% with external monitoring (relative risk, 0.95; 95% CI, 0.74 to 1.2). No serious adverse events associated with use of the intrauterine pressure catheter were reported. CONCLUSIONS Internal tocodynamometry during induced or augmented labor, as compared with external monitoring, did not significantly reduce the rate of operative deliveries or of adverse neonatal outcomes. (Current Controlled Trials number, ISRCTN13667534; Netherlands Trial number, NTR285.)

U2 - 10.1056/NEJMoa0902748

DO - 10.1056/NEJMoa0902748

M3 - Article

C2 - 20107216

VL - 362

SP - 306

EP - 313

JO - New England journal of medicine

JF - New England journal of medicine

SN - 0028-4793

IS - 4

ER -

ID: 1011257