Tom 7, Nr 3 (2022)
Artykuł przeglądowy
Opublikowany online: 2022-11-16
Wyświetlenia strony 831
Wyświetlenia/pobrania artykułu 197
Pobierz cytowanie

Eksport do Mediów Społecznościowych

Eksport do Mediów Społecznościowych

Porównanie polskich i niemieckich wytycznych dotyczących indukcji porodu

Karolina Gasz1, Maciej Lebiedziński2, Christiane Richter-Ehrenstein2, Hubert Huras3, Sebastian Kwiatkowski41
Ginekologia i Perinatologia Praktyczna 2022;7(3):136-147.

Streszczenie

Indukcja porodu to obecnie jedna z najczęściej wykonywanych procedur w opiece położniczej. Odsetek porodów indukowanych wzrósł znacząco w ostatnich dekadach, zarówno w Polsce, jak i na świecie. Statystyki te różnią się między poszczególnymi państwami i ośrodkami, co może wynikać między innymi z rozbieżności w wytycznych publikowanych przez międzynarodowe towarzystwa ginekologiczne.

W niniejszym opracowaniu przedstawiono i porównano nowe wytyczne Niemieckiego Towarzystwa Ginekologów i położników (Deutsche Gesellschaft für Gynäkologie und Geburtshilfe; dalej DGGG) opublikowane w marcu 2021 roku we współpracy z Austriackim (Österreichische Gesellschaft für Gynäkologie und Geburtshilfe; dalej OEGGG) i Szwajcarskim (Schweizerische Gesellschaft für Gynäkologie und Geburtshilfe; dalej SGGG) Towarzystwem Ginekologów i Położników oraz zaktualizowane w 2021 roku wytyczne Polskiego Towarzystwa Ginekologów i Położników (PTGiP).

W większości wskazań wytyczne obu towarzystw są zgodne. Rekomendacje odbiegają od siebie znacząco w kwestii niektórych wskazań i przeciwskazań, indukcji porodu na życzenie, stanu po cięciu cesarskim oraz użyciu mizoprostolu. W naszej opinii różnice w prezentowanych rekomendacjach wynikają głównie z uwarunkowań lokalnych oraz braku wystarczających danych z wysokiej jakości badań.

Z uwagi na trudny charakter badań na kobietach ciężarnych, potrzebna jest wieloośrodkowa, międzynarodowa współpraca.

Artykuł dostępny w formacie PDF

Dodaj do koszyka: 49,00 PLN

Posiadasz dostęp do tego artykułu?

Referencje

  1. Declercq E, Belanoff C, Iverson R. Maternal perceptions of the experience of attempted labor induction and medically elective inductions: analysis of survey results from listening to mothers in California. BMC Pregnancy Childbirth. 2020; 20(1): 458.
  2. Coates D, Makris A, Catling C, et al. A systematic scoping review of clinical indications for induction of labour. PLoS One. 2020; 15(1): e0228196.
  3. Coates D, Homer C, Wilson A, et al. Induction of labour indications and timing: A systematic analysis of clinical guidelines. Women Birth. 2020; 33(3): 219–230.
  4. DGGG O, SGGG. Geburtseinleitung 2021. https://www.awmf.org/uploads/tx_szleitlinien/015-088ladd_S2k_Geburtseinleitung_2021-04.pdf.
  5. Bomba-Opo D, Huras H, Laudański P, et al. Rekomendacje Polskiego Towarzystwa Ginekologów i Położników dotyczące indukcji porodu. Ginekologia i Perinatologia Praktyczna. 2020; 5(4): 86–89.
  6. Bręborowicz GH. Położnictwo i ginekologia. Położnictwo i ginekologia. Wydawnictwo Lekarskie PZWL, Warszawa 2015: 114–115.
  7. Zeitlin J, Blondel B, Alexander S, et al. PERISTAT Group. Variation in rates of postterm birth in Europe: reality or artefact? BJOG. 2007; 114(9): 1097–1103.
  8. Euro-Peristat project. European Perinatal Health Report. Coreindicators of the health and care of pregnant women and babies in Europe in 2015. https://www.europeristat.com/index.php/reports/european-perinatal-health-report-2015.html; 2015 (18.08.2021).
  9. Wood S, Cooper S, Ross S. Does induction of labour increase the risk of caesarean section? A systematic review and meta-analysis of trials in women with intact membranes. BJOG. 2014; 121(6): 674–85; discussion 685.
  10. Sotiriadis A, Petousis S, Thilaganathan B, et al. Maternal and perinatal outcomes after elective induction of labor at 39 weeks in uncomplicated singleton pregnancy: a meta-analysis. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2019; 53(1): 26–35.
  11. Grobman WA, Rice MM, Reddy UM, et al. Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development Maternal–Fetal Medicine Units Network. Labor Induction versus Expectant Management in Low-Risk Nulliparous Women. N Engl J Med. 2018; 379(6): 513–523.
  12. Caughey AB, Robinson JN, Norwitz ER. Contemporary diagnosis and management of preterm premature rupture of membranes. Rev Obstet Gynecol. 2008; 1(1): 11–22.
  13. Quist-Nelson J, de Ruigh AA, Seidler AL, et al. Preterm Premature Rupture of Membranes Meta-analysis (PPROMM) Collaboration. Immediate Delivery Compared With Expectant Management in Late Preterm Prelabor Rupture of Membranes: An Individual Participant Data Meta-analysis. Obstet Gynecol. 2018; 131(2): 269–279.
  14. Seaward PG, Hannah ME, Myhr TL, et al. International Multicentre Term Prelabor Rupture of Membranes Study: evaluation of predictors of clinical chorioamnionitis and postpartum fever in patients with prelabor rupture of membranes at term. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 1997; 177(5): 1024–1029.
  15. Middleton P, Shepherd E, Flenady V, et al. Planned early birth versus expectant management (waiting) for prelabour rupture of membranes at term (37 weeks or more). Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2017; 1: CD005302.
  16. Eades CE, Cameron DM, Evans JMM. Prevalence of gestational diabetes mellitus in Europe: A meta-analysis. Diabetes Res Clin Pract. 2017; 129: 173–181.
  17. Wierzba W, Śliwczyński A, Karnafel W, et al. Gestational diabetes mellitus/hyperglycaemia during pregnancy in Poland in the years 2010-2012 based on the data from the National Health Fund. Ginekol Pol. 2017; 88(5): 244–248.
  18. Naveiro-Fuentes M, Puertas Prieto A, Ruíz RS, et al. Perinatal outcomes with isolated oligohydramnios at term pregnancy. J Perinat Med. 2016; 44(7): 793–798.
  19. Moore TR. Clinical assessment of amniotic fluid. Clin Obstet Gynecol. 1997; 40(2): 303–313.
  20. Kehl S, Dötsch J, Hecher K, et al. Intrauterine Growth Restriction. Guideline of the German Society of Gynecology and Obstetrics (S2k-Level, AWMF Registry No. 015/080, October 2016). Geburtshilfe Frauenheilkd. 2017; 77(11): 1157–1173.
  21. Kwiatkowski S, Torbe A, Borowski D, et al. Polish Society of Gynecologists and Obstetricians Recommendations on diagnosis and management of fetal growth restriction. Ginekol Pol. 2020; 91(10): 634–643.
  22. Gao XX, Ye MY, Liu Y, et al. Prevalence and risk factors of intrahepatic cholestasis of pregnancy in a Chinese population. Sci Rep. 2020; 10(1): 16307.
  23. Regitz-Zagrosek V, Lundqvist CB, Borghi C, et al. ESC Guidelines on the management of cardiovascular diseases during pregnancy: The Task Force on the Management of Cardiovascular Diseases during Pregnancy of the European Society of Cardiology (ESC). European Heart Journal. 2011; 32(24): 3147–3197.
  24. Lewandowska M. The Role of Maternal Weight in the Hierarchy of Macrosomia Predictors; Overall Effect of Analysis of Three Prediction Indicators. Nutrients. 2021; 13(3).
  25. Magro-Malosso ER, Saccone G, Chen M, et al. Induction of labour for suspected macrosomia at term in non-diabetic women: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. BJOG. 2017; 124(3): 414–421.
  26. Norwitz ER. Induction of labour for fetal macrosomia: do we finally have an answer? BJOG. 2017; 124(3): 422.
  27. Saccone G, Della Corte L, Maruotti GM, et al. Induction of labor at full-term in pregnant women with uncomplicated singleton pregnancy: A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized trials. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand. 2019; 98(8): 958–966.
  28. Guise JM, Denman MA, Emeis C, et al. Vaginal birth after cesarean: new insights on maternal and neonatal outcomes. Obstet Gynecol. 2010; 115(6): 1267–1278.
  29. Hammad IA, Chauhan SP, Magann EF, et al. Peripartum complications with cesarean delivery: a review of Maternal-Fetal Medicine Units Network publications. J Matern Fetal Neonatal Med. 2014; 27(5): 463–474.
  30. Rossi AC, Prefumo F. Pregnancy outcomes of induced labor in women with previous cesarean section: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Arch Gynecol Obstet. 2015; 291(2): 273–280.
  31. Landon MB, Hauth JC, Leveno KJ, et al. National Institute of Child Health and Human Development Maternal-Fetal Medicine Units Network. Maternal and perinatal outcomes associated with a trial of labor after prior cesarean delivery. N Engl J Med. 2004; 351(25): 2581–2589.
  32. Breathnach FM, McAuliffe FM, Geary M, et al. Perinatal Ireland Research Consortium. Optimum timing for planned delivery of uncomplicated monochorionic and dichorionic twin pregnancies. Obstet Gynecol. 2012; 119(1): 50–59.
  33. Gaillard T, Girault A, Alexander S, et al. Is induction of labor a reasonable option for breech presentation? Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand. 2019; 98(7): 885–893.
  34. Lassiter JR, Holliday N, Lewis DF, et al. Induction of labor with an unfavorable cervix: how does BMI affect success? (‡). J Matern Fetal Neonatal Med. 2016; 29(18): 3000–3002.
  35. Suidan RS, Rondon KC, Apuzzio JJ, et al. Labor outcomes of obese patients undergoing induction of labor with misoprostol compared to dinoprostone. Am J Perinatol. 2015; 30(2): 187–192.
  36. Kehl S, Born T, Weiss C, et al. Induction of labour with sequential double-balloon catheter and oral misoprostol versus oral misoprostol alone in obese women. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol X. 2019; 3: 100034.
  37. Walker KF, Malin G, Wilson P, et al. Induction of labour versus expectant management at term by subgroups of maternal age: an individual patient data meta-analysis. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol. 2016; 197: 1–5.
  38. Walker KF, Bugg GJ, Macpherson M, et al. 35/39 Trial Group. Induction of labour at term for women over 35 years old: a survey of the views of women and obstetricians. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol. 2012; 162(2): 144–148.
  39. Saad AF, Gupta J, Hruban L, et al. Predictors of vaginal delivery after cervical ripening using a synthetic osmotic dilator. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol. 2020; 246: 160–164.
  40. Gupta J, Chodankar R, Baev O, et al. Synthetic osmotic dilators in the induction of labour-An international multicentre observational study. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol. 2018; 229: 70–75.
  41. Diedrich JT, Drey EA, Newmann SJ. Society of Family Planning clinical recommendations: Cervical preparation for dilation and evacuation at 20-24 weeks' gestation. Contraception. 2020; 101(5): 286–292.
  42. Austin SC, Sanchez-Ramos L, Adair CD. Labor induction with intravaginal misoprostol compared with the dinoprostone vaginal insert: a systematic review and metaanalysis. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2010; 202(6): 624.e1–624.e9.
  43. Chen W, Xue J, Wen SWu, et al. A systematic review and network meta-analysis comparing the use of Foley catheters, misoprostol, and dinoprostone for cervical ripening in the induction of labour. BJOG. 2016; 123(3): 346–354.
  44. Budden A, Chen LJY, Henry A. High-dose versus low-dose oxytocin infusion regimens for induction of labour at term. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2014(10): CD009701.
  45. Finucane EM, Murphy DJ, Biesty LM, et al. Membrane sweeping for induction of labour. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2020; 2: CD000451.
  46. Avdiyovski H, Haith-Cooper M, Scally A. Membrane sweeping at term to promote spontaneous labour and reduce the likelihood of a formal induction of labour for postmaturity: a systematic review and meta-analysis. J Obstet Gynaecol. 2019; 39(1): 54–62.
  47. Bricker L, Luckas M. Amniotomy alone for induction of labour. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2000(4): CD002862.
  48. Battarbee AN, Palatnik A, Peress DA, et al. Association of Early Amniotomy After Foley Balloon Catheter Ripening and Duration of Nulliparous Labor Induction. Obstet Gynecol. 2016; 128(3): 592–597.
  49. Howarth GR, Botha DJ. Amniotomy plus intravenous oxytocin for induction of labour. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2001(3): CD003250.
  50. Hodnett ED, Hannah ME, Weston JA, et al. Induction of labor compared with expectant management for prelabor rupture of the membranes at term. TERMPROM Study Group. N Engl J Med. 1996; 334(16): 1005–1010.
  51. Horenstein J, Phelan J. Previous cesarean section: The risks and benefits of oxytocin usage in a trial of labor. American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology. 1985; 151(5): 564–569.
  52. Flamm BL, Goings JR, Fuelberth NJ, et al. Oxytocin during labor after previous cesarean section: results of a multicenter study. Obstet Gynecol. 1987; 70(5): 709–712.
  53. Lydon-Rochelle M, Holt VL, Easterling TR, et al. Risk of uterine rupture during labor among women with a prior cesarean delivery. N Engl J Med. 2001; 345(1): 3–8.



Ginekologia i Perinatologia Praktyczna