A randomised controlled trial of amniotomy and immediate oxytocin infusion versus amniotomy and delayed oxytocin infusion for induction of labour at term

ISRCTN ISRCTN35919840
DOI https://doi.org/10.1186/ISRCTN35919840
Secondary identifying numbers N0270181703
Submission date
28/09/2007
Registration date
28/09/2007
Last edited
28/09/2011
Recruitment status
No longer recruiting
Overall study status
Completed
Condition category
Pregnancy and Childbirth
Prospectively registered
Protocol
Statistical analysis plan
Results
Individual participant data

Plain English summary of protocol

Not provided at time of registration

Contact information

Mr Dan Selo-Ojeme
Scientific

Consultant Obstretrician and Gynaecologist
Chase Farm Hospital
The Ridgeway
Enfield
EN2 8JL
United Kingdom

Phone +44 02083751250
Email dan.selo-ojeme@bcf.nhs.uk

Study information

Study designRandomised controlled trial
Primary study designInterventional
Secondary study designRandomised controlled trial
Study setting(s)Hospital
Study typeTreatment
Participant information sheet Not available in web format, please use the contact details below to request a patient information sheet
Scientific title
Study objectivesThe aim of this study is to compare the efficacy of amniotomy (breaking baby's bag of waters) and immediate syntocinon (oxytocin) infusion with amniotomy and delayed syntocinon infusion in induction of labour at term.
Ethics approval(s)Added 8 September 2008: Barnet, Enfield & Haringey Local Ethics Committee (UK), 20/01/2006, Ref Number 05/Q0509/65.
Health condition(s) or problem(s) studiedPregnancy and Childbirth: Labour induction
InterventionAmniotomy and immediate oxytocin infusion versus amniotomy and delayed oxytocin
Intervention typeDrug
Pharmaceutical study type(s)
PhaseNot Specified
Drug / device / biological / vaccine name(s)oxytocin
Primary outcome measureThe proportion of women in active labour after 4 hours and over the course of time
Secondary outcome measuresAdded 8 September 2008:
1. Mode of delivery
2. Need for epidural analgesia
3. Incidence of uterine hyperstimulation
4. Abnormal fetal heart recordings (by CTG)
5. 5-minute Apgar score < 7
6. Umbilical arterial cord pH < 7.2
7. Admission to neonatal intensive care unit
8. Women’s satisfaction
Overall study start date09/01/2005
Completion date03/01/2006

Eligibility

Participant type(s)Patient
Age groupAdult
SexFemale
Target number of participants112
Key inclusion criteriaWomen that will be invited to take part in the study will be drawn from the antenatal clinic. These women will be identified during routine antenatal clinic sessions. They will be women in their first pregnancy who have past their delivery dates and are thus planned for routine induction of labour. Interested patients will be given the patient information leaflet to take home.
Key exclusion criteriaAdded 8 September 2008:

Women who decline to participate or with:
1. Preterm pregnancies
2. Multiple pregnancies
3. Regular uterine contractions (≥1 in 10 minutes)
4. Abnormal pre-induction fetal heart rate trace
5. Rupture of membranes
6. Significant fetal or maternal medical condition
7. Previous uterine surgery
Date of first enrolment09/01/2005
Date of final enrolment03/01/2006

Locations

Countries of recruitment

  • England
  • United Kingdom

Study participating centre

Consultant Obstretrician and Gynaecologist
Enfield
EN2 8JL
United Kingdom

Sponsor information

Record Provided by the NHSTCT Register - 2007 Update - Department of Health
Government

The Department of Health, Richmond House, 79 Whitehall
London
SW1A 2NL
United Kingdom

Phone +44 (0)20 7307 2622
Email dhmail@doh.gsi.org.uk
Website http://www.dh.gov.uk/Home/fs/en

Funders

Funder type

Government

Barnet and Chase Farm Hospitals NHS Trust (UK)

No information available

Results and Publications

Intention to publish date
Individual participant data (IPD) Intention to shareNo
IPD sharing plan summaryNot provided at time of registration
Publication and dissemination planNot provided at time of registration
IPD sharing plan

Study outputs

Output type Details Date created Date added Peer reviewed? Patient-facing?
Results article results 01/06/2009 Yes No