Effect of the type of maternal pushing during the second stage of labour on obstetric and neonatal outcome: a multicentre randomised trial-the EOLE study protocol

Chloé Barasinski, Françoise Vendittelli, Chloé Barasinski, Françoise Vendittelli

Abstract

Introduction: The scientific data currently available do not allow any definitive conclusion to be reached about what type of pushing should be recommended to women during the second stage of labour. The objective of this trial is to assess and compare the effectiveness of directed open-glottis pushing versus directed closed-glottis pushing. Secondary objectives are to assess, according to the type of pushing: immediate maternal and neonatal morbidity, intermediate-term maternal pelvic floor morbidity, uncomplicated birth, and women's satisfaction at 4 weeks post partum.

Methods and analysis: This multicentre randomised clinical trial compares directed closed-glottis pushing (Valsalva) versus directed open-glottis pushing during the second stage of labour in 4 hospitals of France. The study population includes pregnant women who received instruction in both types of pushing, have no previous caesarean delivery, are at term and have a vaginal delivery planned. Randomisation takes place during labour once cervical dilation ≥7 cm. The principal end point is assessed by a composite criterion: spontaneous delivery without perineal lesion (no episiotomy or spontaneous second-degree, third-degree or fourth-degree lacerations). We will need to recruit 125 women per group. The primary analysis will be by intention-to-treat analysis, with the principal results reported as crude relative risks (RRs) with their 95% CIs. A multivariate analysis will be performed to take prognostic and confounding factors into account to obtain adjusted RRs.

Ethics and dissemination: This study was approved by a French Institutional Review Board (Comité de Protection des Personnes Sud Est 6:N°AU1168). Results will be reported in peer-reviewed journals and at scientific meetings. This study will make it possible to assess the effectiveness of 2 types of directed pushing used in French practice and to assess their potential maternal, fetal and neonatal effects. Findings from the study will be useful for counselling pregnant women before and during labour.

Trial registration number: Agence national de sécurité du médicament et des produits de santé (ANSM): 150099B-22 and IDRCB: 2014-A01920-47. ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT02474745. Pre-result stage.

Keywords: EPIDEMIOLOGY; NEONATOLOGY; OBSTETRICS.

Conflict of interest statement

Conflicts of Interest: None declared.

Published by the BMJ Publishing Group Limited. For permission to use (where not already granted under a licence) please go to http://www.bmj.com/company/products-services/rights-and-licensing/.

Figures

Figure 1
Figure 1
Schedule of enrolment, interventions and assessments of women in the EOLE study.

References

    1. Calais-Germain B. Le périnée féminin et l'accouchement [The Female Perineum and Childbirth] (in French.). Méolans-Revel: Désiris, 1996.
    1. de Gasquet B. Pour une poussée moins traumatique [For less traumatic pushing]. In: Schaal JP, Riethmuller D, Maillet R et al.. Mécaniques & techniques obstétricales [Obstetrical Mechanics and Techniques ]. 3rd edn (in French). Montpellier: Sauramps Medical, 2007:289–93.
    1. Caldeyro-Barcia R, Giussi G, Storch E et al. . The bearing-down efforts and their effects on fetal heart rate, oxygenation and acid base balance. J Perinat Med 1981;9(Suppl 1):63–7. 10.1515/jpme.1981.9.s1.63
    1. Shafik A, El-Sibai O, Shafik AA et al. . Effect of straining on perineal muscles and their role in perineal support: identification of the straining-perineal reflex. J Surg Res 2003;112:162–7. 10.1016/S0022-4804(03)00125-2
    1. Barnett MM, Humenick SS. Infant outcome in relation to second stage labor pushing method. Birth 1982;9:221–9. 10.1111/j.1523-536X.1982.tb01667.x
    1. Parnell C, Langhoff-Roos J, Iversen R et al. . Pushing method in the expulsive phase of labor. A randomized trial. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand 1993;72:31–5. 10.3109/00016349309013345
    1. Thomson AM. Pushing techniques in the second stage of labour. J Adv Nurs 1993;18:171–7. 10.1046/j.1365-2648.1993.18020171.x
    1. Thomson AM. Maternal behavior during spontaneous and directed pushing in the second stage of labour. J Adv Nurs 1995;22:1027–34. 10.1111/j.1365-2648.1995.tb03101.x
    1. Schaffer JI, Bloom SL, Casey BM et al. . A randomized trial of the effects of coached vs. uncoached maternal pushing during the second stage of labor on postpartum pelvic floor structure and function. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2005;192:1692–6.
    1. Bloom SL, Casey BM, Schaffer JI et al. . A randomized trial of coached versus uncoached maternal pushing during the second stage of labor. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2006;194:10–13. 10.1016/j.ajog.2005.06.022
    1. Yildirim G, Beji NK. Effects of pushing techniques in birth on mother and fetus: a randomized study. Birth 2008;35:25–30. 10.1111/j.1523-536X.2007.00208.x
    1. Jahdi F, Shahnazari M, Kashanian M et al. . A randomized controlled trial comparing the physiological and directed pushing on the duration of the second stage of labor, the mode of delivery and Apgar score. Int J Nurs Midwifery 2011;3:55–9.
    1. Low LK, Miller JM, Guo Y et al. . Spontaneous pushing to prevent postpartum urinary incontinence: a randomized, controlled trial. Int Urogynecol J 2013;24:453–60. 10.1007/s00192-012-1884-y
    1. Prins M, Boxem J, Lucas C et al. . Effect of spontaneous pushing versus Valsalva pushing in the second stage of labour on mother and fetus: a systematic review of randomised trials. BJOG 2011;118:662–70. 10.1111/j.1471-0528.2011.02910.x
    1. Lemos A, Amorim MM, Dornelas de Andrade A et al. . Pushing/bearing down methods for the second stage of labour. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2015;(10):CD009124 10.1002/14651858.CD009124.pub2
    1. Barasinski C, Lemery D, Vendittelli F. Do maternal pushing techniques during labour affect obstetric or neonatal outcomes? Gynecol Obstet Fertil 2016;44:578–83. 10.1016/j.gyobfe.2016.07.004
    1. Bump RC, Mattiasson A, Bø K et al. . The standardization of terminology of female pelvic organ prolapse and pelvic floor dysfunction. Am J Obstet Gynecol 1996;175:10–17. 10.1016/S0002-9378(96)70243-0
    1. Avery K, Donovan J, Peters TJ et al. . ICIQ: a brief and robust measure for evaluating the symptoms and impact of urinary incontinence. Neurourol Urodyn 2004;23:322–30. 10.1002/nau.20041

Source: PubMed

Sponsors and Collaborators

Medical Conditions

Drug Interventions

3
Subscribe