Premium
Intrapartum amnioinfusion for meconium‐stained amniotic fluid: a systematic review of randomised controlled trials
Author(s) -
Xu H,
Hofmeyr J,
Roy C,
Fraser WD
Publication year - 2007
Publication title -
bjog: an international journal of obstetrics and gynaecology
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 2.157
H-Index - 164
eISSN - 1471-0528
pISSN - 1470-0328
DOI - 10.1111/j.1471-0528.2007.01262.x
Subject(s) - amnioinfusion , medicine , obstetrics , relative risk , meconium , caesarean section , meconium aspiration syndrome , apgar score , amniotic fluid , oligohydramnios , confidence interval , randomized controlled trial , pregnancy , gestational age , surgery , fetus , genetics , biology
Background Amnioinfusion (AI) is thought to dilute meconium when present in the amniotic fluid and so reduces the risk of meconium aspiration. Objectives To evaluate if AI reduces meconium aspiration syndrome (MAS) and other indicators of morbidity in babies born to women with meconium‐stained amniotic fluid (MSAF). Search strategy PubMed, Medline, EMBASE, and the Cochrane Controlled Trials Register from January 1980 to May 30, 2005, using the keywords ‘amnioinfusion’ and ‘meconium’. Selection criteria Randomised trials comparing AI with no AI for women in labour with MSAF. Trial quality was evaluated using pre‐established criteria. Data collection and analysis The following morbidity indicators were assessed: MAS, 5‐minute Apgar score < 7, arterial cord pH < 7.2, and caesarean section. Studies were stratified according to the level of peripartum surveillance (standard versus limited). Typical relative risks (RRs) with their 95% confidence intervals were calculated for each outcome using a random effects model. Main results In clinical settings with standard peripartum surveillance, we found no evidence that AI reduced the risk of MAS (RR 0.59, 95% CI 0.28–1.25), 5‐minute Apgar score < 7 (RR 0.90, 95% CI 0.58–1.41), or caesarean delivery (RR 0.89, 95% CI 0.73–1.10). In clinical settings with limited peripartum surveillance, AI appeared to reduce the risk of MAS (RR 0.25, 95% CI 0.13–0.47). Conclusion In clinical settings with standard peripartum surveillance, the evidence does not support the use of AI for MSAF. In settings with limited peripartum surveillance, where complications of MSAF are common, AI appears to reduce the risk of MAS. However, this finding requires confirmation by further studies.