Use the Back button in your browser to see the other results of your search or to select another record.
Randomised controlled trial of labouring in water compared with standard of augmentation for management of dystocia in first stage of labour [with consumer summary] |
Cluett ER, Pickering RM, Getliffe K, St George Saunders NJ |
BMJ 2004 Feb 7;328(7435):314 |
clinical trial |
7/10 [Eligibility criteria: Yes; Random allocation: Yes; Concealed allocation: Yes; Baseline comparability: Yes; Blind subjects: No; Blind therapists: No; Blind assessors: No; Adequate follow-up: Yes; Intention-to-treat analysis: Yes; Between-group comparisons: Yes; Point estimates and variability: Yes. Note: Eligibility criteria item does not contribute to total score] *This score has been confirmed* |
OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the impact of labouring in water during first stage of labour on rates of epidural analgesia and operative delivery in nulliparous women with dystocia. DESIGN: Randomised controlled trial. SETTING: University teaching hospital in southern England. PARTICIPANTS: 99 nulliparous women with dystocia (cervical dilation rate < 1 cm/hour in active labour) at low risk of complications. INTERVENTIONS: Immersion in water in birth pool or standard augmentation for dystocia (amniotomy and intravenous oxytocin). MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Primary: epidural analgesia and operative delivery rates. Secondary: augmentation rates with amniotomy and oxytocin, length of labour, maternal and neonatal morbidity including infections, maternal pain score, and maternal satisfaction with care. RESULTS: Women randomised to immersion in water had a lower rate of epidural analgesia than women allocated to augmentation (47% versus 66%, relative risk 0.71 (95% confidence interval 0.49 to 1.01), number needed to treat for benefit (NNT) 5). They showed no difference in rates of operative delivery (49% versus 50%, 0.98 (0.65 to 1.47), NNT 98), but significantly fewer received augmentation (71% versus 96%, 0.74 (0.59 to 0.88), NNT 4) or any form of obstetric intervention (amniotomy, oxytocin, epidural, or operative delivery) (80% versus 98%, 0.81 (0.67 to 0.92), NNT 5). More neonates of women in the water group were admitted to the neonatal unit (6 versus 0, p = 0.013), but there was no difference in Apgar score, infection rates, or umbilical cord pH. CONCLUSIONS: Labouring in water under midwifery care may be an option for slow progress in labour, reducing the need for obstetric intervention, and offering an alternative pain management strategy.
|