RESUMEN
Background/Objectives: Although oxytocin administration is recommended for delayed labor progress, there is no consensus over the preferred optimal dose of oxytocin. We aimed to perform a meta-analysis of pregnancy outcomes comparing high-dose versus low-dose oxytocin regimens for augmentation of delayed labor. Methods: PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane databases were systematically searched for studies comparing high-dose with low-dose oxytocin for labor augmentation from inception up to May 2023. The outcomes assessed were cesarean rate, instrumental delivery rate, postpartum hemorrhage, neonatal death, and uterine tachysystole. Subgroup analysis was performed with randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and propensity-matched studies. Statistical analysis was performed using Rstudio. Heterogeneity was assessed with I2 statistics, and a random-risk effect was used if I2 > 50%. Results: Twenty-one studies met inclusion criteria, and eighteen were RCTs. A total of 14.834 patients were included, of whom 7.921 (53.3%) received high-dose and 6.913 (46.6%) received low-dose oxytocin during labor augmentation. No statistical differences were found in cesarean delivery, neonatal mortality, postpartum hemorrhage and vaginal instrumentation rate. However, uterine tachysystole incidence was significantly higher with high-dose oxytocin (95% Cl, 1.30-1.94, p = 0.3; 0.6; I2 = 9%). Conclusions: Labor augmentation with a low-dose oxytocin regimen is effective as with a high-dose regimen, but with significantly less uterine tachysystole events, which can lead to intrauterine and neonatal complications. Our findings suggest that a low-dose regimen may be safe and effective for labor augmentation in medical practice.
RESUMEN
BACKGROUND: Within the context of uncontrolled blood pressure telemonitoring, the remote tracking of blood pressure and patient data, offers a transformative avenue. We aimed to perform a meta-analysis of the strategic redesign of healthcare services, harnessing information and communication technology (ICT) to enhance hypertension management and blood pressure control in primary care, providing timely interventions, and improving patient outcomes. METHODS: PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane databases were searched for RCTs comparing ICT with usual care in patients with uncontrolled hypertension. A random-effects model was used to calculate the risk ratios (RRs) and mean differences (MDs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs). RESULTS: A total of twenty-eight studies and 13,111 patients were included, of whom 7,312 were randomized to ICT and 5,799 to usual care. Compared with standard care, ICT significantly reduced systolic blood pressure (MD -4.44 mmHg; 95% CI -5.55,-3.33; p<0.01) and diastolic blood pressure (MD -1.08 mmHg; 95% CI -1.71,-0.45; p<0.01). There was no significant difference between groups for adherence (RR 1.16; 95%CI 0.89-1.50; p=0.27). CONCLUSION: In this meta-analysis of RCTs of patients with uncontrolled hypertension, ICT was associated with a reduction in systolic and diastolic blood pressures, compared with usual care.