OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the effectiveness of maintenance tocolytic therapy with oral nifedipine on the reduction of adverse neonatal outcomes and the prolongation of pregnancy by performing an individual patient data meta-analysis (IPDMA).

SEARCH STRATEGY: We searched PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane databases for randomised controlled trials of maintenance tocolysis therapy with nifedipine in preterm labour.

SELECTION CRITERIA: We selected trials including pregnant women between 24 and 36(6/7)  weeks of gestation (gestational age, GA) with imminent preterm labour who had not delivered after 48 hours of initial tocolysis, and compared maintenance nifedipine tocolysis with placebo/no treatment.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: The primary outcome was perinatal mortality. Secondary outcome measures were intraventricular haemorrhage (IVH), necrotising enterocolitis (NEC), infant respiratory distress syndrome (IRDS), prolongation of pregnancy, GA at delivery, birthweight, neonatal intensive care unit admission, and number of days on ventilation support. Pre-specified subgroup analyses were performed.

MAIN RESULTS: Six randomised controlled trials were included in this IPDMA, encompassing data from 787 patients (n = 390 for nifedipine; n = 397 for placebo/no treatment). There was no difference between the groups for the incidence of perinatal death (risk ratio, RR 1.36; 95% confidence interval, 95% CI 0.35-5.33), intraventricular haemorrhage (IVH) ≥ grade II (RR 0.65; 95% CI 0.16-2.67), necrotising enterocolitis (NEC) (RR 1.15; 95% CI 0.50-2.65), infant respiratory distress syndrome (IRDS) (RR 0.98; 95% CI 0.51-1.85), and prolongation of pregnancy (hazard ratio, HR 0.74; 95% CI 0.55-1.01).

CONCLUSION: Maintenance tocolysis is not associated with improved perinatal outcome and is therefore not recommended for routine practice.

METHOD: We enrolled 95 women (≥ 36 weeks gestation) on their attendance for planned ECV. All participants received terbutaline tocolysis. Regional anaesthesia was not used. ECV was performed in the standard fashion after the application of the allocated aid. If the first round (maximum of 2 attempts) of ECV failed, crossover to the opposing aid was permitted.

RESULTS: 48 women were randomised to powder and 47 to gel. Self-reported procedure related median [interquartile range] pain scores (using a 10-point visual numerical rating scale VNRS; low score more pain) were 6 [5-9] vs. 8 [7-9] P = 0.03 in favor of gel. ECV was successful in 21/48 (43.8%) vs. 26/47 (55.3%) RR 0.6 95% CI 0.3-1.4 P = 0.3 for powder and gel arms respectively. Crossover to the opposing aid and a second round of ECV was performed in 13/27 (48.1%) following initial failure with powder and 4/21 (19%) after failure with gel (RR 3.9 95% CI 1.0-15 P = 0.07). ECV success rate was 5/13 (38.5%) vs. 1/4 (25%) P = 0.99 after crossover use of gel or powder respectively. Operators reported higher satisfaction score with the use of gel (high score, greater satisfaction) VNRS scores 6 [4.25-8] vs 8 [7-9] P = 0.01.

CONCLUSION: Women find gel use to be associated with less pain. The ECV success rate is not significantly different.