Planned early birth versus expectant management for women with preterm prelabour rupture of membranes prior to 37 weeks' gestation for improving pregnancy outcome.Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2017 03 03; 3:CD004735.CD
Current management of preterm prelabour rupture of the membranes (PPROM) involves either initiating birth soon after PPROM or, alternatively, adopting a 'wait and see' approach (expectant management). It is unclear which strategy is most beneficial for mothers and their babies. This is an update of a Cochrane review published in 2010 (Buchanan 2010).
To assess the effect of planned early birth versus expectant management for women with preterm prelabour rupture of the membranes between 24 and 37 weeks' gestation for fetal, infant and maternal well being.
We searched Cochrane Pregnancy and Childbirth's Trials Register (30 September 2016), and reference lists of retrieved studies.
Randomised controlled trials comparing planned early birth with expectant management for women with PPROM prior to 37 weeks' gestation. We excluded quasi-randomised trials.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Two review authors independently evaluated trials for inclusion into the review and for methodological quality. Two review authors independently extracted data. We checked data for accuracy. We assessed the quality of evidence using the GRADE approach.
We included 12 trials in the review (3617 women and 3628 babies). For primary outcomes, we identified no clear differences between early birth and expectant management in neonatal sepsis (risk ratio (RR) 0.93, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.66 to 1.30, 12 trials, 3628 babies, evidence graded moderate), or proven neonatal infection with positive blood culture (RR 1.24, 95% CI 0.70 to 2.21, seven trials, 2925 babies). However, early birth increased the incidence of respiratory distress syndrome (RDS) (RR 1.26, 95% CI 1.05 to 1.53, 12 trials, 3622 babies, evidence graded high). Early birth was also associated with an increased rate of caesarean section (RR 1.26, 95% CI 1.11 to 1.44, 12 trials, 3620 women, evidence graded high).Assessment of secondary perinatal outcomes showed no clear differences in overall perinatal mortality (RR 1.76, 95% CI 0.89 to 3.50, 11 trials, 3319 babies), or intrauterine deaths (RR 0.45, 95% CI 0.13 to 1.57, 11 trials, 3321 babies) when comparing early birth with expectant management. However, early birth was associated with a higher rate of neonatal death (RR 2.55, 95% CI 1.17 to 5.56, 11 trials, 3316 babies) and need for ventilation (RR 1.27, 95% CI 1.02 to 1.58, seven trials, 2895 babies, evidence graded high). Babies of women randomised to early birth were delivered at a gestational age lower than those randomised to expectant management (mean difference (MD) -0.48 weeks, 95% CI -0.57 to -0.39, eight trials, 3139 babies). Admission to neonatal intensive care was more likely for those babies randomised to early birth (RR 1.16, 95% CI 1.08 to 1.24, four trials, 2691 babies, evidence graded moderate).In assessing secondary maternal outcomes, we found that early birth was associated with a decreased rate of chorioamnionitis (RR 0.50, 95% CI 0.26 to 0.95, eight trials, 1358 women, evidence graded moderate), and an increased rate of endometritis (RR 1.61, 95% CI 1.00 to 2.59, seven trials, 2980 women). As expected due to the intervention, women randomised to early birth had a higher chance of having an induction of labour (RR 2.18, 95% CI 2.01 to 2.36, four trials, 2691 women). Women randomised to early birth had a decreased total length of hospitalisation (MD -1.75 days, 95% CI -2.45 to -1.05, six trials, 2848 women, evidence graded moderate).Subgroup analyses indicated improved maternal and infant outcomes in expectant management in pregnancies greater than 34 weeks' gestation, specifically relating to RDS and maternal infections. The use of prophylactic antibiotics were shown to be effective in reducing maternal infections in women randomised to expectant management.Overall, we assessed all 12 studies as being at low or unclear risk of bias. Some studies lacked an adequate description of methods and the risk of bias could only be assessed as unclear. In five of the studies there were one and/or two domains where the risk of bias was judged as high. GRADE profiling showed the quality of evidence across all critical outcomes to be moderate to high.