Upright versus lying down position in second stage of labour in nulliparous women with low dose epidural: BUMPES randomised controlled trial

Epidural and Position Trial Collaborative Group, Epidural and Position Trial Collaborative Group

Abstract

Objective To determine whether being upright in the second stage of labour in nulliparous women with a low dose epidural increases the chance of spontaneous vaginal birth compared with lying down.Design Multicentre pragmatic individually randomised controlled trial.Setting 41 UK hospital labour wards.Participants 3093 nulliparous women aged 16 or older, at term with a singleton cephalic presentation and in the second stage of labour with epidural analgesia.Interventions Women were allocated to an upright or lying down position, using a secure web based randomisation service, stratified by centre, with no masking of participants or clinicians to the trial interventions.Main outcome measures The primary outcome was spontaneous vaginal birth. Women were analysed in the groups into which they were randomly allocated, regardless of position recorded at any time during the second stage of labour (excluding women with no valid consent, who withdrew, or who did not reach second stage before delivery). Secondary outcomes included mode of birth, perineal trauma, infant Apgar score <4 at five minutes, admission to a neonatal unit, and longer term included maternal physical and psychological health, incontinence, and infant gross developmental delay. Results Between 4 October 2010 and 31 January 2014, 3236 women were randomised and 3093 (95.6%) included in the primary analysis (1556 in the upright group and 1537 in the lying down group). Significantly fewer spontaneous vaginal births occurred in women in the upright group: 35.2% (548/1556) compared with 41.1% (632/1537) in the lying down group (adjusted risk ratio 0.86, 95% confidence interval 0.78 to 0.94). This represents a 5.9% absolute increase in the chance of spontaneous vaginal birth in the lying down group (number needed to treat 17, 95% confidence interval 11 to 40). No evidence of differences was found for most of the secondary maternal, neonatal, or longer term outcomes including instrumental vaginal delivery (adjusted risk ratio 1.08, 99% confidence interval 0.99 to 1.18), obstetric anal sphincter injury (1.27, 0.88 to 1.84), infant Apgar score <4 at five minutes (0.66, 0.06 to 6.88), and maternal faecal incontinence at one year (1.18, 0.61 to 2.28).Conclusions Evidence shows that lying down in the second stage of labour results in more spontaneous vaginal births in nulliparous women with epidural analgesia, with no apparent disadvantages in relation to short or longer term outcomes for mother or baby.Trial registration Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN35706297.

Conflict of interest statement

Competing interests: All authors have completed the ICMJE uniform disclosure form at www.icmje.org/coi_disclosure.pdf and declare: support from the NIHR HTA programme for the submitted work; no financial relationships with any organisations that might have an interest in the submitted work in the previous three years; no other relationships or activities that could appear to have influenced the submitted work.

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

Figures

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/instance/5646262/bin/bird039017.f1.jpg
Fig 1 Flow of participants through trial
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/instance/5646262/bin/bird039017.f2.jpg
Fig 2 Proportion of time spent in allocated position during stages of labour
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/instance/5646262/bin/bird039017.f3.jpg
Fig 3 Forest plot showing results of subgroup analyses for spontaneous vaginal birth. *All models adjust for centre as a random effect. †Diagnosis of delay before study entry requiring syntocinon

References

    1. Khor LJ, Jeskins G, Cooper GM, Paterson-Brown S. National obstetric anaesthetic practice in the UK 1997/1998. Anaesthesia 2000;55:1168-72. 10.1046/j.1365-2044.2000.01720.x .
    1. Redshaw M, Henderson J. Safely delivered: a national survey of women’s experience of maternity care. 2014.
    1. Anim-Somuah M, Smyth RMD, Jones L. Epidural versus non-epidural or no analgesia in labour. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2011;(12):CD000331 10.1002/14651858.CD000331.pub3. .
    1. Comparative Obstetric Mobile Epidural Trial (COMET) Study Group UK. Effect of low-dose mobile versus traditional epidural techniques on mode of delivery: a randomised controlled trial. Lancet 2001;358:19-23. 10.1016/S0140-6736(00)05251-X .
    1. Liu EH, Sia AT. Rates of caesarean section and instrumental vaginal delivery in nulliparous women after low concentration epidural infusions or opioid analgesia: systematic review. BMJ 2004;328:1410 10.1136/bmj.38097.590810.7C .
    1. Gupta JK, Hofmeyr GJ, Shehmar M. Position in the second stage of labour for women without epidural anaesthesia. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2012;(5):CD002006 10.1002/14651858.CD002006.pub3. .
    1. Kibuka M, Thornton JG. Position in the second stage of labour for women with epidural anaesthesia. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2017;2:CD008070 10.1002/14651858.CD008070.pub3. .
    1. Roberts CL, Algert CS, Cameron CA, Torvaldsen S. A meta-analysis of upright positions in the second stage to reduce instrumental deliveries in women with epidural analgesia. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand 2005;84:794-8. 10.1111/j.0001-6349.2005.00786.x .
    1. Downe S, Gerrett D, Renfrew MJ. A prospective randomised trial on the effect of position in the passive second stage of labour on birth outcome in nulliparous women using epidural analgesia. Midwifery 2004;20:157-68. 10.1016/S0266-6138(03)00052-4 .
    1. accessed 07.06.16
    1. Brooks R. EuroQol: the current state of play. Health Policy 1996;37:53-72. 10.1016/0168-8510(96)00822-6 .
    1. Jenkinson C, Layte R. Development and testing of the UK SF-12 (short form health survey). J Health Serv Res Policy 1997;2:14-8..
    1. Pocock SJ, McMurray JJV, Collier TJ. Statistical Controversies in Reporting of Clinical Trials: Part 2 of a 4-Part Series on Statistics for Clinical Trials. J Am Coll Cardiol 2015;66:2648-62. 10.1016/j.jacc.2015.10.023 .
    1. Pocock SJ. When (not) to stop a clinical trial for benefit. JAMA 2005;294:2228-30. 10.1001/jama.294.17.2228 .
    1. Health and Social Care Information Centre. NHS Maternity Statistics - England, 2013-14 . Accessed 16.03.2016
    1. National Collaborating Centre for Women’s and Children’s Health (UK). Intrapartum care for healthy women and babies. London: RCOG Press; 2014 Dec. (NICE Clinical Guidelines, No 190.) 2007.
    1. Elvander C, Ahlberg M, Thies-Lagergren L, Cnattingius S, Stephansson O. Birth position and obstetric anal sphincter injury: a population-based study of 113 000 spontaneous births. BMC Pregnancy Childbirth 2015;15:252 10.1186/s12884-015-0689-7. .
    1. Fitzpatrick M, Behan M, O’Connell PR, O’Herlihy C. Randomised clinical trial to assess anal sphincter function following forceps or vacuum assisted vaginal delivery. BJOG 2003;110:424-9. 10.1046/j.1471-0528.2003.02173.x .
    1. MacLennan AH, Taylor AW, Wilson DH, Wilson D. The prevalence of pelvic floor disorders and their relationship to gender, age, parity and mode of delivery. BJOG 2000;107:1460-70. 10.1111/j.1471-0528.2000.tb11669.x .
    1. MacArthur C, Glazener C, Lancashire R, Herbison P, Wilson D, Grant A. Faecal incontinence and mode of first and subsequent delivery: a six-year longitudinal study. BJOG 2005;112:1075-82. 10.1111/j.1471-0528.2005.00721.x .
    1. MacArthur C, Wilson D, Herbison P, et al. ProLong study group. Faecal incontinence persisting after childbirth: a 12 year longitudinal study. BJOG 2013;120:169-78, discussion 178-9. 10.1111/1471-0528.12039 .

Source: PubMed

3
Abonneren