Effectiveness and safety of atosiban versus conventional treatment in the management of preterm labor

Objective: To compare the efficacy of atosiban with conventional treatment of the threatened preterm labor. Materials and methods: All the data of pregnant women with threatened preterm labor from January 1 to December 31, 2017, who received atosiban were collected. Pregnant women with conventional...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Main Authors: Yan Yu (Author), Zhi Yang (Author), Liya Wu (Author), Yuanfang Zhu (Author), Fang Guo (Author)
Format: Book
Published: Elsevier, 2020-09-01T00:00:00Z.
Subjects:
Online Access:Connect to this object online.
Tags: Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!

MARC

LEADER 00000 am a22000003u 4500
001 doaj_ba48bc30fb904cc3bba19b09f60e7a03
042 |a dc 
100 1 0 |a Yan Yu  |e author 
700 1 0 |a Zhi Yang  |e author 
700 1 0 |a Liya Wu  |e author 
700 1 0 |a Yuanfang Zhu  |e author 
700 1 0 |a Fang Guo  |e author 
245 0 0 |a Effectiveness and safety of atosiban versus conventional treatment in the management of preterm labor 
260 |b Elsevier,   |c 2020-09-01T00:00:00Z. 
500 |a 1028-4559 
500 |a 10.1016/j.tjog.2020.07.010 
520 |a Objective: To compare the efficacy of atosiban with conventional treatment of the threatened preterm labor. Materials and methods: All the data of pregnant women with threatened preterm labor from January 1 to December 31, 2017, who received atosiban were collected. Pregnant women with conventional treatment (including β-agonists, indomethacin, magnesium sulphate and calcium channel blockers, alone or in combination) were used as control. Results: The proportion of women not requiring an alternative tocolytic treatment within 48 h and remaining undelivered was significantly higher in atosiban treatment group (89.3%; n = 25/28) compared with conventional treatment (24.2%; n = 8/33) (P < 0.0001). For therapy efficacy, there was also no significant difference between atosiban groups and conventional treatment groups in the low gestational ages. However, for the high gestational ages, atosiban treatment group showed higher efficacy (84%; n = 21/25 vs. 37.5%; n = 3/8) (P < 0.05). Moreover, a significantly higher proportion of women in the atosiban treated group (89.3%; n = 25/28) was observed compared with the conventional treatment groups (51.5%; n = 17/33) who did not receive an alternative tocolytic within 48 h (P < 0.01). Maternal and fetal safety was significantly superior with atosiban treatment. Conclusions: Our results support that atosiban would represent an advance over current tocolytic therapy especially for the high gestational ages. 
546 |a EN 
690 |a Atosiban 
690 |a Delivery 
690 |a Preterm labor 
690 |a Side effect 
690 |a Tocolytic 
690 |a Gynecology and obstetrics 
690 |a RG1-991 
655 7 |a article  |2 local 
786 0 |n Taiwanese Journal of Obstetrics & Gynecology, Vol 59, Iss 5, Pp 682-685 (2020) 
787 0 |n http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1028455920301649 
787 0 |n https://doaj.org/toc/1028-4559 
856 4 1 |u https://doaj.org/article/ba48bc30fb904cc3bba19b09f60e7a03  |z Connect to this object online.