Induction of labour: a randomised clinical trial of amniotomy versus amniotomy with oxytocin infusion. A randomised controlled trial of early versus delayed use of amniotomy and oxytocin infusion in nulliparous labour. A randomised controlled trial of an oral solution of prostaglandin E2 and oral oxytocin used immediately after low amniotomy for induction of labour in the presence of a favourable cervix. Induction of labour: a comparison of a single prostaglandin E2 vaginal tablet with amniotomy and intravenous oxytocin. Comparison of intravenous oxytocin and prostaglandin E2 for induction of labour using automatic and non-automatic infusion techniques. [Comparison between prostaglandin E2 gel and oxytocin in medically indicated labor induction]. Induction of labor with and without primary amniotomy. A randomized study of prostaglandin E2 tablets and intravenous oxytocin. [Artificial induction of labor at term for medical reasons. Comparison of 2 technics for labor induction, oxytocin + early artificial rupture of the membranes versus prostaglandin E2 vaginal gel. Open randomized controlled study]. A comparative trial of labor induction with misoprostol versus oxytocin. A randomized comparison of vaginal prostaglandin E2 with oxytocin plus amniotomy for induction of labour in women with intermediately ripe cervices.
To compare two methods of induction of labour-amniotomy with oxytocin infusion versus amniotomy alone.
                Prospective randomised clinical trial.
                The department of obstetrics in a Swedish central hospital.
                One hundred and ninety-six pregnant women with indication for induction of labour at term and a favourable cervix (modified Bishop score > or = 6).
                The women were randomised to amniotomy followed by oxytocin infusion after 1 h (group A, n = 98) or amniotomy alone (group B, n = 98). If labour had not ensued on the following morning, after approximately 24 h, the women in group B were given an oxytocin infusion.
                Induction-delivery interval, duration of labour, time spent in delivery ward, oxytocin use, maternal and neonatal clinical outcome.
                Amniotomy combined with early oxytocin infusion resulted in shorter induction-delivery interval (median 6.0 h; 95% confidence interval (CI) 5.0 to 6.5 h) than amniotomy alone (median 9.0 h; 95% CI 7.5 to 10.0 h). This was due to a shorter latent period in the former group (median 2.3 h; 95% CI 2.0 to 3.0 h) compared to the latter (median 4.3 h; 95% CI 3.0 to 5.5 h). The duration of labour stages 1 and 2 were similar in both groups. The time spent in the delivery ward was slightly reduced for women managed by amniotomy alone (median 5.0 h; 95% CI 4.5 to 6.0 h) compared with those managed by the combination of amniotomy and oxytocin infusion (median 6.0 h; 95% CI 5.0 to 6.5 h). Eighty-seven percent in group A and 32% in group B were given oxytocin, and the total oxytocin infusion time was nearly five times longer in group A. No other important effect on maternal or fetal outcomes was demonstrated.
                With regard to safety the results do not warrant recommending either type of labour induction. The minor differences observed between the induction groups justify an individual management policy, with attention paid to both the indication for induction of labour and the woman's choice. To compare routine amniotomy and early intravenous oxytocin (active management of labour) with a more selective use of amniotomy and oxytocin in women in true labour who received comparable continuous supportive midwifery care.
                Randomised controlled trial of nulliparous clinic patients in spontaneous labour at term.
                Labour and delivery ward of a university teaching hospital.
                Three hundred and six parturients: 152 received active management of labour; 154 were more selectively managed.
                1. Active management: early amniotomy, early use of oxytocin. 2. Selective intervention management: no routine amniotomy and more selective use of oxytocin.
                Use of oxytocin and amniotomy. Labour duration, mode of delivery.
                Maternal characteristics were comparable in both groups. Amniotomy was more often performed (91% versus 57%, P <0.01) and oxytocin more often used (53% versus 27%, P < 0.01) in the active management group. The first stage of labour, however, was only shortened by half an hour in the active management group (254 min versus 283 min, P = 0.087). Caesarean section rate (3.9% versus 2.6%), spontaneous vaginal delivery rate (78% versus 79%) and neonatal outcome were not significantly different between groups.
                Within a set-up of strict labour diagnosis and supportive midwifery care, routine amniotomy and early use of oxytocin offered no advantage over a more selective use of amniotomy and oxytocin in terms of mode of delivery and labour duration. A randomised controlled trial was carried out in 50 primigravidae and 50 multigravidae to compare the effectiveness in induction of labour after low amniotomy of prostaglandin E2, given as an oral solution, and oxytocin, given as buccal tablets. The results showed that in dosages recommended by the manufacturers, both oxytocic preparations were almost equally effective. With oral oxytocin, once labour had been established and dosage was left to the discretion of the staff, there appeared to be a potentially dangerous tendency to continue giving large doses despite adequate uterine contractions. The authors comment that this was probably the reason why oxytocin-treated multigravidae having normal deliveries within 24 hours had labours significantly shorter on average than those of other successfully induced patients. In a randomized controlled study of 100 women of low parity and favourable induction features, induction of labour by means of a single vaginal tablet containing 3 mg of prostaglandin E2 (PGE2) was compared with the conventional method of amniotomy and intravenous oxytocin. Four of the patients (8%) who received the prostaglandin tablet required additional intravenous oxytocin to achieve delivery. The prostaglandin group had a longer mean overall induction-delivery interval but a shorter amniotomy-delivery interval than the oxytocin group. One patient in the PGE2 group and two in the oxytocin group required caesarean section. The PGE2 treated patients expressed a higher level of satisfaction with their method of induction, they required less analgesia, had less blood loss at delivery and their babies had a lower incidence of neonatal jaundice. A double blind trial of prostaglandin E2 and oxytocin given by intravenous infusion after amniotomy for induction of labour in 100 primigravidae with unfavourable induction features is reported. No clear-cut advantage of either drug emerged although PGE2 was perhaps superior when the cervix was highly unfavourable. Prostaglandin E2 appeared to produce less deleterious effects on the fetus but was associated with a higher incidence of maternal side effects. The automatic Cardiff Infusion apparatus was found to be a safe means of PGE2 infusion and to have advantages over the use of non-automatic techniques both for PGE2 and for oxytocin infusion. The use of prostaglandins (PG) increasingly replaces the "classical" method of induction of labour by means of oxytocin and amniotomy, the last-named method being associated, especially in women with an unripe cervix, with side effects like prolonged labour and a higher rate of obstetric surgery. In this study the point of interest was whether prostaglandins offer any advantages over the classical method in respect of efficacy and maternal and foetal tolerance. 99 patients subdivided into primiparae and multiparae were randomly assigned to group A or B. In group A labour was induced with 1 mg resp. 2 mg PGE2 intravaginally at an interval of 6 hours. In group B the method of induction consisted of intravenous oxytocin and amniotomy. The success rate of induction was almost equal in both groups. However, in those patients where PGE2 induction did not succeed and who could not be delivered within 12 hours the cervical score was significantly improved in comparison to the oxytocin group. Based on the experience reported in the literature, one might speculate that an increased dosage could still improve the results of vaginally administered PGE2 gel. A comparative study of labor induction has been performed on 471 consecutive patients. Primary amniotomy was performed in 227 cases, and 103 of these patients were stimulated, 57 patients with PGE2 tablets and 46 with oxytocin. In the remaining 124 cases labor was induced within 4 hours without medical stimulation. Primary amniotomy was omitted in 244 cases, as the head was not engaged and the cervix was unripe. After random allocation to the treatment groups 125 patients received PGE2 tablets (ProstinR), and 119 patients received oxytocin intravenously. After 2 days of stimulation without primary amniotomy, delivery was induced in 83 per cent of the patients receiving PGE2 and in 84 per cent of the patients receiving oxytocin. All patients on whom primary amniotomy had been performed were delivered on the first day. There was no difference in the success rate between PGE2 and oxytocin treatments in patients with the same Bishop score. The performance of amniotomy at the beginning of induction led to a significantly lower total dose as well as a lower maximal dose of PGE2 and oxytocin. There was no difference in the duration of active labor in patients receiving PGE2 or oxytocin. There were no differences in the incidence of fetal distress and low Apgar scores between the different groups. No serious side effects occurred. Vomiting and diarrhea in 14 patients (8 per cent) receiving PGE2 was in contrast to 3 patients with these symptoms (2 per cent) in the oxytocin group. Oral administration of PGE2 is a convenient, effective and safe alternative to oxytocin for the induction of labor; however, PGE2 was not found superior to oxytocin in cases with a low Bishop score. Labor induction for medical reasons is a situation rather well-controlled by the combination: "oxytocin-amniotomy" when the cervix is favorably open. However, new induction techniques are currently under study, especially vaginal administration of PGE2 which presents the advantage of being simple to administer and better accepted by the patients. This study compared the classical technique, oxytocin perfusion and early artificial rupture of the membranes, with the vaginal administration of PGE2 gel (first dose: 1 mg, second dose 1 or 2 mg, six hours later). The success rate of both techniques is comparable, approximately 70 p. cent. Also, the times between amniotomy and delivery are identical, approximately 5 hours. On the contrary, the lapses of time between the onset of the induction and the delivery, vary significantly, being always longer in the PGE2 group. However, the dose of vaginal PGE2 gel as well as the time of artificial membrane rupture could be modified in order to decrease the delay of the effect. To determine the efficacy and safety of intravaginal misoprostol compared with intravenous oxytocin in cervical ripening and labor induction.
                The study was carried out at the Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology at the Hospital Loayza, Lima, Peru. The sample included 123 pregnant women with any indication for labor induction. The study was prospective and randomized. We compared the effect of 50 micrograms of intravaginal misoprostol administered every 4 h up to 600 micrograms with that observed using the standard protocol of oxytocin by continuous infusion.
                57 patients with misoprostol (group 1) and 63 with oxytocin (group 2) were enrolled. Delivery occurred in 45 patients (78.9%) in group 1 and in 37 (58.7%) in group 2 (P < 0.017). Complications including tachysystole, uterine hypertony and hyperstimulation were higher in group 1, 21.1% than in group 2, 7.9% (P < 0.04). The incidence of cesarean section in both groups was similar to the overall incidence in our center. No differences were observed between groups in perinatal and postpartum adverse outcomes. The interval from start of induction to vaginal delivery was significantly shorter in the oxytocin group (8.4 +/- 4.1 vs. 11.3 +/- 6.9 h, P < 0.005).
                Intravaginal administration of misoprostol is a safe and effective alternative for cervical ripening and labor induction. Maternal and neonatal complications did not increase significantly. To compare the effects of oxytocin and amniotomy or vaginal prostaglandin E2 (PGE2) for induction of labour.
                We conducted a randomized clinical trial. Eligible for the trial were women with normal pregnancy, parity 0-3, with intact membranes, >40 weeks of gestation documented by ultrasound examination before 20 weeks gestation, observed in a network of 13 general and teaching hospitals in Italy. Inclusion criteria were cervical Bishop's score 5-7, less than six uterine contractions per hour, single pregnancy, cephalic presentation, no history of cesarean section and uterine surgery. Eligible women were randomly assigned by phone to oxytocin plus amniotomy (163 women) or vaginal PGE2 2 mg, two doses at 6-h intervals (157 women).
                Overall, 50 women (15.6%) delivered by cesarean section, 22 (13.5%) randomized to oxytocin, and 28 (17.8%) randomized to PGE2 (not significant). Twelve hours after randomization, induction had failed in 26 women of the 163 randomized to oxytocin plus amniotomy (21.6%) and 34 out of the 157 randomized to PGE2 (15.9%): the difference was not significant. Neonatal outcome was similar in the two groups.
                This study did not find marked differences in labour and neonatal outcome between women randomized to oxytocin plus amniotomy or vaginal PGE2. A shorter induction delivery interval in the group receiving amniotomy and oxytocin after PGE2 priming was observed.
Data on the effectiveness and safety of amniotomy and intravenous oxytocin are lacking. No recommendations for clinical practice can be made on the basis of this review. Amniotomy and intravenous oxytocin is a combination of two methods of induction of labour and both methods are utilised in clinical practice. If their use is to be continued it is important to compare the effectiveness and safety of these methods, and to define under which clinical circumstances one may be preferable to another.
[Note: The three citations in the awaiting classification section of the review may alter the conclusions of the review once assessed.]