PURLs

Deliver or wait with late preterm membrane rupture?

Author and Disclosure Information

 

References

WHAT'S NEW?

Largest study to show no increased sepsis with expectant management

Two prior RCTs (the PPROMEXIL trial8 and PPROMEXIL-29), involving a total of 736 women, evaluated expectant management vs induction in the late preterm stage of pregnancy. There was no increased risk of neonatal sepsis with expectant management in either study. However, those studies did not have sufficient power to show a statistically significant change in any of the outcomes.

The PPROMT study is the largest one to show that immediate birth increases the risk of respiratory distress and duration of NICU/special care stay for the baby and increases the risk of cesarean section for the mother. It also showed that the risk of neonatal sepsis was not higher in the expectant management group.

CAVEATS

Findings only apply to singleton pregnancies

Delivery of the infants in the expectant management group was not by specified protocol; each birth was managed according to the policies of the local center and clinician judgment. Because of this, there was variation in fetal and maternal monitoring. The vast majority of women in both groups (92% to 93%) received intrapartum antibiotics. Expectant management should include careful monitoring for infection and hemorrhage and may need to be changed to immediate delivery if one of these occurs.

The study participants all had singleton pregnancies; this recommendation cannot be extended to non-singleton pregnancies. However, a prior cesarean section was not an exclusion criterion for the study, and these recommendations would be valid for that group of women, too.

CHALLENGES TO IMPLEMENTATION

Going against the tide of ACOG

The most recent ACOG guidelines, updated October 2016, recommend induction of labor for women with ruptured membranes in the late preterm stages.5 This may present a challenge to widespread acceptance of expectant management for PPROM.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

The PURLs Surveillance System was supported in part by Grant Number UL1RR024999 from the National Center For Research Resources, a Clinical Translational Science Award to the University of Chicago. The content is solely the responsibility of the authors and does not necessarily represent the official views of the National Center For Research Resources or the National Institutes of Health.

Pages

Copyright © 2016. The Family Physicians Inquiries Network. All rights reserved.

Online-Only Materials

AttachmentSize
PDF icon jfp06511820_methodology.pdf347.23 KB

Recommended Reading

High-risk deliveries much more likely to be C-sections
MDedge Family Medicine
Odanacatib reduced fractures but upped stroke risk
MDedge Family Medicine
Psychological stress did not harm IVF outcomes
MDedge Family Medicine
NAMS hormone therapy guidelines stress individualized treatment
MDedge Family Medicine
Zika increase slows slightly in pregnant women
MDedge Family Medicine
USPSTF gives breastfeeding support a ‘B’ grade
MDedge Family Medicine
Injectable male contraceptive on par with other reversible options
MDedge Family Medicine
Finger length ratio identifies women at increased risk for depression and anxiety
MDedge Family Medicine
FDA finalizes boxed warning for Essure
MDedge Family Medicine
MIs in pregnancy have worse prognosis
MDedge Family Medicine