-
Comparative Study
Atosiban vs. ritodrine as a tocolytic in external cephalic version at term: a prospective cohort study.
- Jorge Burgos, Nekane Eguiguren, Eider Quintana, Patricia Cobos, Maria del Mar Centeno, Rosa Larrieta, and Luis Fernández-Llebrez.
- Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Cruces University Hospital, Baracaldo, Vizcaya, Spain. jburgoss@sego.es
- J Perinat Med. 2010 Jan 1; 38 (1): 23-8.
ObjectiveTo compare the success rate of external cephalic version (ECV) at term using ritodrine or atosiban as a tocolytic agent.Study DesignProspective cohort study with a sample of 236 pregnant women with a breech presentation at term, from November 2006 to March 2008. Data have been analyzed from the moment the cephalic version is performed until the time of delivery.ResultsECV success rate using ritodrine as a tocolytic agent was 56.8% compared to 31.4% with atosiban. Ritodrine increases the version success potential more significantly than atosiban (P<0.05). In both cases, the use of ECV reduced the rate of cesarean sections, although a higher number of versions are required with atosiban [numbers needed to treat (NNT)=9.08] to avoid a cesarean section compared to ritodrine (NNT=3.41).ConclusionsRitodrine seems better than atosiban as tocolytic agent for ECVs.
Notes
Knowledge, pearl, summary or comment to share?You can also include formatting, links, images and footnotes in your notes
- Simple formatting can be added to notes, such as
*italics*
,_underline_
or**bold**
. - Superscript can be denoted by
<sup>text</sup>
and subscript<sub>text</sub>
. - Numbered or bulleted lists can be created using either numbered lines
1. 2. 3.
, hyphens-
or asterisks*
. - Links can be included with:
[my link to pubmed](http://pubmed.com)
- Images can be included with:
![alt text](https://bestmedicaljournal.com/study_graph.jpg "Image Title Text")
- For footnotes use
[^1](This is a footnote.)
inline. - Or use an inline reference
[^1]
to refer to a longer footnote elseweher in the document[^1]: This is a long footnote.
.