Objective To compare the effect of induction of labour with a policy of expectant monitoring for intrauterine growth restriction near term. Design Multicentre randomised equivalence trial (the... Show moreObjective To compare the effect of induction of labour with a policy of expectant monitoring for intrauterine growth restriction near term. Design Multicentre randomised equivalence trial (the Disproportionate Intrauterine Growth Intervention Trial At Term (DIGITAT)). Setting Eight academic and 44 non-academic hospitals in the Netherlands between November 2004 and November 2008. Participants Pregnant women who had a singleton pregnancy beyond 36+0 weeks' gestation with suspected intrauterine growth restriction. Interventions Induction of labour or expectant monitoring. Main outcome measures The primary outcome was a composite measure of adverse neonatal outcome, defined as death before hospital discharge, five minute Apgar score of less than 7, umbilical artery pH of less than 7.05, or admission to the intensive care unit. Operative delivery (vaginal instrumental delivery or caesarean section) was a secondary outcome. Analysis was by intention to treat, with confidence intervals calculated for the differences in percentages or means. Results 321 pregnant women were randomly allocated to induction and 329 to expectant monitoring. Induction group infants were delivered 10 days earlier (mean difference -9.9 days, 95% CI -11.3 to -8.6) and weighed 130 g less (mean difference -130 g, 95% CI -188 g to -71 g) than babies in the expectant monitoring group. A total of 17 (5.3%) infants in the induction group experienced the composite adverse neonatal outcome, compared with 20 (61%) in the expectant monitoring group (difference -0.8%, 95% CI -4.3% to 3.2%). Caesarean sections were performed on 45 (14.0%) mothers in the induction group and 45 (13.7%) in the expectant monitoring group (difference 0.3%, 95% CI -5.0% to 5.6%). Conclusions In women with suspected intrauterine growth restriction at term, we found no important differences in adverse outcomes between induction of labour and expectant monitoring. Patients who are keen on non-intervention can safely choose expectant management with intensive maternal and fetal monitoring; however, it is rational to choose induction to prevent possible neonatal morbidity and stillbirth. Show less
Zwart, J.J.; Jonkers, M.D.; Richters, A.; Ory, F.; Bloemenkamp, K.W.; Duvekot, J.J.; Roosmalen, J. van 2010
BACKGROUND: There are concerns about ethnic disparity in outcome of obstetric health care in high-income countries. Our aim was to assess these differences in a large cohort of women having... Show moreBACKGROUND: There are concerns about ethnic disparity in outcome of obstetric health care in high-income countries. Our aim was to assess these differences in a large cohort of women having experienced severe acute maternal morbidity (SAMM) during pregnancy, delivery and puerperium. METHODS: All women experiencing SAMM were prospectively collected in a nationwide population-based design from August 2004 to August 2006. Women delivering in the same period served as reference cohort. Population-based risks were calculated by ethnicity and by type of morbidity. Additionally, non-Western and Western women having experienced SAMM were compared in multivariable logistic regression analysis. RESULTS: All 98 Dutch maternity units participated. There were 371 021 deliveries during the study period. A total of 2506 women with SAMM were included, 21.1% of whom were non-Western immigrants. Non-Western immigrants showed a 1.3-fold [95% confidence interval (CI) 1.2-1.5] increased risk to develop SAMM. Large differences were observed among different ethnic minority groups, ranging from a non-increased risk for Moroccan and Turkish women to a 3.5-fold (95% CI 2.8-4.3) increased risk for sub-Saharan African women. Low socio-economic status, unemployment, single household, high parity and prior caesarean were independent explanatory factors for SAMM, although they did not fully explain the differences. Immigration-related characteristics differed by ethnic background. CONCLUSIONS: Non-Western immigrants have an increased risk of developing SAMM as compared to Western women. Risks varied largely by ethnic origin. Immigration-related characteristics might partly explain the increased risk. The results suggest that there are opportunities for quality improvement by targeting specific disadvantaged groups. Show less
