Antispasmodics for labour

Anke C Rohwer, Oswell Khondowe, Taryn Young, Anke C Rohwer, Oswell Khondowe, Taryn Young

Abstract

Background: Prolonged labour can lead to increased maternal and neonatal mortality and morbidity due to increased risks of maternal exhaustion, postpartum haemorrhage and sepsis, fetal distress and asphyxia and requires early detection and appropriate clinical response. The risks for complications of prolonged labour are much greater in poor resource settings. Active management of labour versus physiological, expectant management, has shown to decrease the occurrence of prolonged labour. Administering antispasmodics during labour could also lead to faster and more effective dilatation of the cervix. Interventions to shorten labour, such as antispasmodics, can be used as a preventative or a treatment strategy in order to decrease the incidence of prolonged labour. As the evidence to support this is still largely anecdotal around the world, there is a need to systematically review the available evidence to obtain a valid answer.

Objectives: To assess the effects of antispasmodics on labour in term pregnancies.

Search methods: We searched the Cochrane Pregnancy and Childbirth Group's Trials Register (28 February 2013), the ProQuest dissertation and thesis database, the dissertation database of the University of Stellenbosch and Google Scholar (28 February 2013) and reference lists of articles. We also contacted pharmaceutical companies and experts in the field. We did not apply language restrictions.

Selection criteria: Randomised controlled trials comparing antispasmodics with placebo or no medication in women with term pregnancies.

Data collection and analysis: Two review authors independently screened abstracts and selected studies for inclusion, assessed risk of bias and extracted data. Data were checked for accuracy. We contacted trial authors when data were missing.

Main results: Twenty-one trials (n = 3286) were included in the review. Seventeen trials (n = 2617) were included in the meta-analysis. Antispasmodics used included valethamate bromide, hyoscine butyl-bromide, drotaverine hydrochloride, rociverine and camylofin dihydrochloride. Most studies included antispasmodics as part of their package of active management of labour. Overall, the quality of studies was poor, as only four trials were assessed as low risk of bias. Thirteen trials (n = 1995) reported on the duration of first stage of labour, which was significantly reduced by an average of 74.34 minutes when antispasmodics were administered (mean difference (MD) -74.34 minutes; 95% confidence Interval (CI) -98.76 to -49.93). Seven studies (n = 797) reported on the total duration of labour, which was significantly reduced by an average of 85.51 minutes (MD -85.51 minutes; 95% CI -121.81 to -49.20). Six studies (n = 820) had data for the outcome: rate of cervical dilatation. Administration of antispasmodics significantly increased the rate of cervical dilatation by an average of 0.61 cm/hour (MD 0.61 cm/hour; 95% CI 0.34 to 0.88). Antispasmodics did not affect the duration of second and third stage of labour. The rate of normal vertex deliveries was not affected either. Only one study explored pain relief following administration of antispasmodics and no conclusions can be drawn on this outcome. There was significant heterogeneity for most outcomes and therefore, we undertook random-effects meta-analysis. Subgroup analysis was undertaken to explore heterogeneity, but remained largely unexplained. Maternal and neonatal adverse events were reported inconsistently. The main maternal adverse event reported was tachycardia. No serious neonatal adverse events were reported.

Authors' conclusions: There is low quality evidence that antispasmodics reduce the duration of first stage of labour and increase the cervical dilatation rate. There is very low quality evidence that antispasmodics reduce the total duration of labour. There is moderate quality evidence that antispasmodics do not affect the rate of normal vertex deliveries. There is insufficient evidence to make any conclusions regarding the safety of these drugs for both mother and baby. Large, rigorous randomised controlled trials are needed to evaluate the effect of antispasmodics on prolonged labour and to evaluate their effect on labour in a context of expectant management of labour.

Conflict of interest statement

None known.

Figures

1
1
Study flow diagram ‐ September 2011 search
2
2
Study flow diagram ‐ February 2013 search
3
3
'Risk of bias' graph: review authors' judgements about each risk of bias item presented as percentages across all included studies.
4
4
'Risk of bias' summary: review authors' judgements about each risk of bias item for each included study.
5
5
Funnel plot of comparison: 1 Antispasmodics versus control, outcome: 1.1 Duration of first stage of labour (min).
6
6
Funnel plot of comparison: 1 Antispasmodics versus control, outcome: 1.6 Rate of NVDs.
1.1. Analysis
1.1. Analysis
Comparison 1 Antispasmodics versus control: neurotropic versus musculotropic agents, Outcome 1 Duration of first stage of labour (min).
1.2. Analysis
1.2. Analysis
Comparison 1 Antispasmodics versus control: neurotropic versus musculotropic agents, Outcome 2 Duration of second stage of labour (min).
1.3. Analysis
1.3. Analysis
Comparison 1 Antispasmodics versus control: neurotropic versus musculotropic agents, Outcome 3 Duration of third stage of labour (min).
1.4. Analysis
1.4. Analysis
Comparison 1 Antispasmodics versus control: neurotropic versus musculotropic agents, Outcome 4 Total duration of labour (min).
1.5. Analysis
1.5. Analysis
Comparison 1 Antispasmodics versus control: neurotropic versus musculotropic agents, Outcome 5 Rate of cervical dilatation (cm/h).
1.6. Analysis
1.6. Analysis
Comparison 1 Antispasmodics versus control: neurotropic versus musculotropic agents, Outcome 6 Rate of normal vertex deliveries.
2.1. Analysis
2.1. Analysis
Comparison 2 Antispasmodics versus control: studies including caesarean section versus studies excluding C/S in analysis, Outcome 1 Duration of first stage of labour (min).
2.2. Analysis
2.2. Analysis
Comparison 2 Antispasmodics versus control: studies including caesarean section versus studies excluding C/S in analysis, Outcome 2 Duration of second stage of labour (min).
2.3. Analysis
2.3. Analysis
Comparison 2 Antispasmodics versus control: studies including caesarean section versus studies excluding C/S in analysis, Outcome 3 Duration of third stage of labour (min).
2.4. Analysis
2.4. Analysis
Comparison 2 Antispasmodics versus control: studies including caesarean section versus studies excluding C/S in analysis, Outcome 4 Total duration of labour (min).
2.5. Analysis
2.5. Analysis
Comparison 2 Antispasmodics versus control: studies including caesarean section versus studies excluding C/S in analysis, Outcome 5 Rate of cervical dilatation (cm/h).
3.1. Analysis
3.1. Analysis
Comparison 3 Antispasmodics versus control: intravenous versus intramuscular versus rectal administration, Outcome 1 Duration of first stage of labour (min).
3.2. Analysis
3.2. Analysis
Comparison 3 Antispasmodics versus control: intravenous versus intramuscular versus rectal administration, Outcome 2 Duration of second stage of labour (min).
3.3. Analysis
3.3. Analysis
Comparison 3 Antispasmodics versus control: intravenous versus intramuscular versus rectal administration, Outcome 3 Duration of thrid stage of labour (min).
3.4. Analysis
3.4. Analysis
Comparison 3 Antispasmodics versus control: intravenous versus intramuscular versus rectal administration, Outcome 4 Total duration of labour (min).
3.5. Analysis
3.5. Analysis
Comparison 3 Antispasmodics versus control: intravenous versus intramuscular versus rectal administration, Outcome 5 Rate of cervical dilatation (cm/h).
4.1. Analysis
4.1. Analysis
Comparison 4 Antispasmodics versus control: primigravidas versus primi‐and multigravidas, Outcome 1 Duration of first stage of labour (min).
4.2. Analysis
4.2. Analysis
Comparison 4 Antispasmodics versus control: primigravidas versus primi‐and multigravidas, Outcome 2 Duration of second stage of labour (min).
4.3. Analysis
4.3. Analysis
Comparison 4 Antispasmodics versus control: primigravidas versus primi‐and multigravidas, Outcome 3 Duration of third stage of labour (min).
4.4. Analysis
4.4. Analysis
Comparison 4 Antispasmodics versus control: primigravidas versus primi‐and multigravidas, Outcome 4 Total duration of labour (min).
4.5. Analysis
4.5. Analysis
Comparison 4 Antispasmodics versus control: primigravidas versus primi‐and multigravidas, Outcome 5 Rate of cervical dilatation (cm/h).
5.1. Analysis
5.1. Analysis
Comparison 5 Antispasmodics versus control: spontaneous versus spontaneous and/or induced labour, Outcome 1 Duration of first stage of labour (min).
5.2. Analysis
5.2. Analysis
Comparison 5 Antispasmodics versus control: spontaneous versus spontaneous and/or induced labour, Outcome 2 Duration of second stage of labour (min).
5.3. Analysis
5.3. Analysis
Comparison 5 Antispasmodics versus control: spontaneous versus spontaneous and/or induced labour, Outcome 3 Duration of third stage of labour (min).
5.4. Analysis
5.4. Analysis
Comparison 5 Antispasmodics versus control: spontaneous versus spontaneous and/or induced labour, Outcome 4 Total duration of labour (min).
5.5. Analysis
5.5. Analysis
Comparison 5 Antispasmodics versus control: spontaneous versus spontaneous and/or induced labour, Outcome 5 Rate of cervical dilatation (cm/h).
6.1. Analysis
6.1. Analysis
Comparison 6 Antispasmodics versus control: active versus expectant management of labour, Outcome 1 Duration of first stage of labour (min).
6.2. Analysis
6.2. Analysis
Comparison 6 Antispasmodics versus control: active versus expectant management of labour, Outcome 2 Duration of second stage of labour (min).
6.3. Analysis
6.3. Analysis
Comparison 6 Antispasmodics versus control: active versus expectant management of labour, Outcome 3 Duration of third stage of labour (min).
6.4. Analysis
6.4. Analysis
Comparison 6 Antispasmodics versus control: active versus expectant management of labour, Outcome 4 Total duration of labour (min).
6.5. Analysis
6.5. Analysis
Comparison 6 Antispasmodics versus control: active versus expectant management of labour, Outcome 5 Rate of cervical dilatation (cm/h).
7.1. Analysis
7.1. Analysis
Comparison 7 Antispasmodics versus control: low‐risk versus high‐risk pregnancies, Outcome 1 Duration of first stage of labour (min).
7.2. Analysis
7.2. Analysis
Comparison 7 Antispasmodics versus control: low‐risk versus high‐risk pregnancies, Outcome 2 Duration of second stage of labour (min).
7.3. Analysis
7.3. Analysis
Comparison 7 Antispasmodics versus control: low‐risk versus high‐risk pregnancies, Outcome 3 Duration of third stage of labour (min).
7.4. Analysis
7.4. Analysis
Comparison 7 Antispasmodics versus control: low‐risk versus high‐risk pregnancies, Outcome 4 Rate of cervical dilatation (cm/h).
8.1. Analysis
8.1. Analysis
Comparison 8 Antispasmodics versus control: sensitivity analysis: studies with high risk of bias excluded, Outcome 1 Duration of first stage of labour (min).
8.2. Analysis
8.2. Analysis
Comparison 8 Antispasmodics versus control: sensitivity analysis: studies with high risk of bias excluded, Outcome 2 Duration of second stage of labour (min).
8.3. Analysis
8.3. Analysis
Comparison 8 Antispasmodics versus control: sensitivity analysis: studies with high risk of bias excluded, Outcome 3 Duration of third stage of labour (min).
8.4. Analysis
8.4. Analysis
Comparison 8 Antispasmodics versus control: sensitivity analysis: studies with high risk of bias excluded, Outcome 4 Total duration of labour (min).
8.5. Analysis
8.5. Analysis
Comparison 8 Antispasmodics versus control: sensitivity analysis: studies with high risk of bias excluded, Outcome 5 Rate of cervical dilatation (cm/h).
8.6. Analysis
8.6. Analysis
Comparison 8 Antispasmodics versus control: sensitivity analysis: studies with high risk of bias excluded, Outcome 6 Rate of normal vertex deliveries.
9.1. Analysis
9.1. Analysis
Comparison 9 Antispasmodics versus control: maternal adverse events, Outcome 1 Tachycardia.
9.2. Analysis
9.2. Analysis
Comparison 9 Antispasmodics versus control: maternal adverse events, Outcome 2 Mouth dryness.
9.3. Analysis
9.3. Analysis
Comparison 9 Antispasmodics versus control: maternal adverse events, Outcome 3 Headache.
9.4. Analysis
9.4. Analysis
Comparison 9 Antispasmodics versus control: maternal adverse events, Outcome 4 Nausea.
9.5. Analysis
9.5. Analysis
Comparison 9 Antispasmodics versus control: maternal adverse events, Outcome 5 Vomiting.
9.6. Analysis
9.6. Analysis
Comparison 9 Antispasmodics versus control: maternal adverse events, Outcome 6 Dizziness.
9.7. Analysis
9.7. Analysis
Comparison 9 Antispasmodics versus control: maternal adverse events, Outcome 7 Giddiness.
9.8. Analysis
9.8. Analysis
Comparison 9 Antispasmodics versus control: maternal adverse events, Outcome 8 Cervical laceration.
9.9. Analysis
9.9. Analysis
Comparison 9 Antispasmodics versus control: maternal adverse events, Outcome 9 Flushing of face.
9.10. Analysis
9.10. Analysis
Comparison 9 Antispasmodics versus control: maternal adverse events, Outcome 10 Postpartum haemorrhage.
10.1. Analysis
10.1. Analysis
Comparison 10 Antispasmodics versus control: neonatal adverse events, Outcome 1 Admission to NICU.
10.2. Analysis
10.2. Analysis
Comparison 10 Antispasmodics versus control: neonatal adverse events, Outcome 2 Fetal distress.
10.3. Analysis
10.3. Analysis
Comparison 10 Antispasmodics versus control: neonatal adverse events, Outcome 3 Fetal bradycardia.
10.4. Analysis
10.4. Analysis
Comparison 10 Antispasmodics versus control: neonatal adverse events, Outcome 4 Fetal tachycardia.
10.5. Analysis
10.5. Analysis
Comparison 10 Antispasmodics versus control: neonatal adverse events, Outcome 5 Meconium‐stained liquor.

Source: PubMed

3
Subscribe