Oral Misoprostol Versus Intravenous Oxytocin in Preventing Blood Loss After Non-Scheduled Cesarean Section
|The safety and scientific validity of this study is the responsibility of the study sponsor and investigators. Listing a study does not mean it has been evaluated by the U.S. Federal Government. Read our disclaimer for details.|
|ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT00107874|
Recruitment Status : Completed
First Posted : April 12, 2005
Last Update Posted : June 24, 2005
Postpartum hemorrhage (PPH) ranks among the leading causes of maternal morbidity and mortality, both in developed and developing countries.
With this trial, we sought to determine the effectiveness of oral misoprostol as an uterotonic drug in comparison with intravenous oxytocin, in patients with a low risk of PPH undergoing non-scheduled Cesarean section.
We therefore compared the intra- and postoperative blood loss, as well as drug related side effects in patients, treated by the same surgical and anesthesiological team in one institution.
|Condition or disease||Intervention/treatment||Phase|
|Postpartum Hemorrhage||Drug: misoprostol||Phase 2|
Postpartum hemorrhage (PPH) is still among the leading causes of maternal morbidity and mortality. The incidence of PPH is reduced by active management of the third stage of labor which includes the use of uterotonics for pharmacological prophylaxis. However, there is an on-going debate about the optimal drug selection since uterotonics such as oxytocin and methylergometrine are liable for specific side effects and complications when administered within a dose range needed to be effective for PPH. In the search for an alternative to these conventional standard uterotonics, misoprostol (prostaglandin E1) has turned out to be an effective therapeutic option and has been implemented in actual treatment regimens. The objective of this study was to compare the effectiveness of oral applicated misoprostol versus intravenous oxytocin in reducing blood loss in low risk obstetric patients undergoing non-scheduled cesarean section (CS) under spinal anesthesia.
In this prospective, double blind study, parturients undergoing CS were randomized to receive either a) oral misoprostol and an infusion of normal saline supplemented with placebo, or b) an oral placebo and an infusion of normal saline, supplemented with oxytocin subsequently to intravenous oxytocin after cord clamping in both groups.
The primary outcomes were the amount of intra- and postoperative blood loss and the occurrence of drug-related side effects.
|Study Type :||Interventional (Clinical Trial)|
|Enrollment :||56 participants|
|Intervention Model:||Parallel Assignment|
|Official Title:||Oral Misoprostol as a Second-Line Alternative to Intravenous Oxytocin in Preventing Postoperative Blood Loss After Non-Scheduled Cesarean Section: a Randomized, Double-Blind, Placebo-Controlled Trial|
|Study Start Date :||January 1999|
|Study Completion Date :||February 2002|
- Reduction of postpartum hemorrhage
- Blood loss
- medicamentous side effects
- efficacy of medicaments
To learn more about this study, you or your doctor may contact the study research staff using the contact information provided by the sponsor.
Please refer to this study by its ClinicalTrials.gov identifier (NCT number): NCT00107874
|Women’s University Hospital, Basel|
|Basel, Switzerland, 4031|
|Study Chair:||Irène Hösli||Women’s University Hospital, Basel, Switzerland|