Obstetrics & Gynecology Track the topics, authors and articles important to you
HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
 QUICK SEARCH:   [advanced]


     


Obstetrics & Gynecology 2005;106:980-985
© 2005 by The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists
This Article
Right arrow Full Text
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Sciscione, A.
Right arrow Articles by Vakili, B.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Sciscione, A.
Right arrow Articles by Vakili, B.

ORIGINAL RESEARCH

Fetal Fibronectin as a Predictor of Vaginal Birth in Nulliparas Undergoing Preinduction Cervical Ripening

Anthony Sciscione, DO2, Matthew K. Hoffman, MD1, Samantha DeLuca, DO, MPH2, Anne O’Shea, RN2, Jenny Benson, RN2, Marjorie Pollock, MSN, CRNP2 and Babak Vakili, MD2

From the Departments of Obstetrics and Gynecology, 1Drexel University College of Medicine, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania; and 2Christiana Care Health System, Newark, Delaware.

OBJECTIVE: We sought to evaluate whether the presence of a positive fetal fibronectin (≥ 50 ng/mL) in nulliparous women undergoing preinduction cervical ripening with the intracervical Foley catheter predicted vaginal birth.

METHODS: This was a prospective blinded observational trial of nulliparous women undergoing preinduction cervical ripening. We excluded women who had a contraindication to vaginal birth. Cervical and vaginal fetal fibronectin specimens were obtained before preinduction cervical ripening with an intracervical Foley catheter. The managing obstetrician was blinded to these results.

RESULTS: A total of 241 women met the inclusion criteria, of which 54.4% delivered vaginally. There was no difference in the rate of vaginal delivery among women with either a positive cervical fetal fibronectin (positive fetal fibronectin 55.8% compared with negative fetal fibronectin 53.3%, P = .70) or positive vaginal fetal fibronectin (positive fetal fibronectin 57.6% compared with negative fetal fibronectin 53.3%, P = .56). Women with a positive cervical fetal fibronectin did have a shorter duration of cervical ripening (fetal fibronectin–positive 229 ± 220 minutes compared with fetal fibronectin–negative 379 ± 193 minutes, P < .05), duration of oxytocin (fetal fibronectin–positive 655 ± 555 minutes compared with fetal fibronectin–negative 731.5 ± 342 minutes, P < .025) and required lower maximal doses of oxytocin (fetal fibronectin–positive 18.4 mIU/min compared with fetal fibronectin–negative 21.8 mIU/min, P = .005). Women with a positive vaginal fetal fibronectin demonstrated only a shorter duration of cervical ripening compared with their fetal fibronectin negative counterparts (fetal fibronectin–positive 300 ± 216 minutes compared with fetal fibronectin–negative 345 ± 201 minutes, P < .05).

CONCLUSION: Fetal fibronectin does not predict vaginal delivery in nulliparous women requiring preinduction cervical ripening.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: II-2







HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
Copyright © 2005 by the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists.