Induction of labour versus expectant management in women with preterm prelabour rupture of membranes between 34 and 37 weeks (the PPROMEXIL-trial)
2007

Induction of Labour vs Expectant Management for Preterm Rupture of Membranes

Sample size: 520 publication null Evidence: moderate

Author Information

Author(s): van der Ham David P, Nijhuis Jan G, Mol Ben Willem J, van Beek Johannes J, Opmeer Brent C, Bijlenga Denise, Groenewout Mariette, Arabin Birgit, Bloemenkamp Kitty WM, van Wijngaarden Wim J, Wouters Maurice GAJ, Pernet Paula JM, Porath Martina M, Molkenboer Jan FM, Derks Jan B, Kars Michael M, Scheepers Hubertina CJ, Weinans Martin JN, Woiski Mallory D, Wildschut Hajo IJ, Willekes Christine

Primary Institution: null

Hypothesis

Does immediate delivery after preterm prelabour rupture of membranes reduce the risk of neonatal sepsis compared to expectant management?

Conclusion

The trial aims to determine if induction of labour is an effective strategy to reduce neonatal sepsis risk.

Supporting Evidence

  • The incidence of neonatal sepsis is 2.5% with immediate delivery compared to 7.5% with expectant management.
  • The study aims to include 520 women to achieve sufficient statistical power.
  • Previous studies showed trends towards better outcomes with induction but lacked statistical significance.

Takeaway

This study is trying to find out if delivering babies right away after their mothers' water breaks is better than waiting, especially to prevent infections.

Methodology

A multicentre prospective randomised controlled trial comparing early delivery with expectant monitoring.

Potential Biases

Potential bias due to non-blinding of participants and healthcare providers.

Limitations

The study may not be able to blind participants or healthcare workers to the treatment allocation.

Participant Demographics

Pregnant women with preterm prelabour rupture of membranes between 34+0 and 37+0 weeks gestation.

Statistical Information

P-Value

0.05

Confidence Interval

null

Statistical Significance

p<0.05

Digital Object Identifier (DOI)

10.1186/1471-2393-7-11

Want to read the original?

Access the complete publication on the publisher's website

View Original Publication