4.6 Article

Vaginal progesterone for the prevention of preterm birth in twin gestations: a randomized placebo-controlled double-blind study

期刊

出版社

MOSBY-ELSEVIER
DOI: 10.1016/j.ajog.2015.02.021

关键词

preterm birth; preterm delivery; prevention; progesterone; twin pregnancy

向作者/读者索取更多资源

OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to investigate the use of vaginal progesterone for the prevention of preterm delivery in twin pregnancies. STUDY DESIGN: We conducted a prospective, randomized, doubleblind, placebo-controlled trial that involved 390 naturally conceived twin pregnancies among mothers with no history of preterm delivery who were receiving antenatal care at a single center. Women with twin pregnancies between 18 and 21 weeks and 6 days' gestation were assigned randomly to daily vaginal progesterone (200 mg) or placebo ovules until 34 weeks and 6 days' gestation. The primary outcome was the difference in mean gestational age at delivery; the secondary outcomes were the rate of spontaneous delivery at <34 weeks' gestation and the rate of neonatal composite morbidity and mortality in the treatment and nontreatment groups. RESULTS: The baseline characteristics were similar in both groups. The final analysis included 189 women in the progesterone group and 191 in the placebo group. No difference (P = .095) in the mean gestational age at delivery was observed between progesterone (35.08 +/- 3.19 [SD]) and placebo groups (35.55 +/- 2.85). The incidence of spontaneous delivery at <34 weeks' gestation was 18.5% in the progesterone group and 14.6% in the placebo group (odds ratio, 1.32; 95% confidence interval, 0.24-2.37). No difference in the composite neonatal morbidity and mortality was observed between the progesterone (15.5%) and placebo (15.9%) groups (odds ratio, 1.01; 95% confidence interval, 0.58-1.75). CONCLUSION: In nonselected twin pregnancies, vaginal progesterone administration does not prevent preterm delivery and does not reduce neonatal morbidity and death.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据