醋酸阿托西班治疗晚期流产及早产的疗效观察

目的：探讨醋酸阿托西班治疗晚期流产及早产的疗效。方法：对应用盐酸利托君注射液后子宫收缩不能被抑制或不能耐受药物不良反应的50例患者,改用醋酸阿托西班进行治疗,观察其疗效、药物不良反应及妊娠结局。结果：43例患者宫缩被抑制,7例未被抑制。50例患者均已分娩,其中足月分娩30例,晚期流产或早产20例,新生儿存活32例,死亡18例。妊娠时间延长4 d～12周。结论：醋酸阿托西班能有效抑制宫缩,且无明显不良反应。     

阿托西班与利托君治疗双胎妊娠晚期流产及早产的临床疗效分析

目的:探讨阿托西班与利托君治疗双胎妊娠晚期流产及早产的临床疗效及安全性。方法:回顾分析我院68例24~33周双胎妊娠出现晚期流产及早产征象的孕妇,其中阿托西班组28例,利托君组40例,比较两组抑制宫缩的有效率、母儿不良反应、新生儿结局。结果:(1)阿托西班组与利托君组的延长孕龄48h有效率比较,差异有统计学意义(P0.05),而对延长孕龄7d有效率差异无统计学意义(P0.05)。(2)阿托西班组与利托君组的不良反应发生率比较,差异有统计学意义(P0.05)。(3)阿托西班组与利托君组的新生儿出生体重、降低新生儿窒息率及围生儿死亡率等方面比较,差异均无统计学意义(P0.05)。结论:治疗双胎妊娠晚期流产及早产孕妇在延长孕龄48h上,阿托西班优于利托君,在延长孕龄7d以上两者相当。阿托西班不良反应少且对新生儿结局影响不大。     

两种宫缩抑制剂盐酸利托君与阿托西班治疗先兆早产的临床分析

目的:探讨盐酸利托君与阿托西班两种宫缩抑制剂治疗先兆早产的临床效果。方法:对2018年12月至2020年12月于浙江大学医学院附属妇产科医院诊断为先兆早产，住院并分娩的患者的临床资料进行回顾性分析，根据宫缩抑制剂的使用情况分为盐酸利托君组、阿托西班组以及交替用药组，通过组间比较筛选有统计学意义的结局指标，进行Logistic回归控制混杂因素，分析对比3组患者和其新生儿的临床结局，并用校正OR值进行量化评价。结果:(1)阿托西班组(OR 7.932,95%CI 1.722～36.526)和交替用药组(OR 4.054,95%CI 1.649～9.965)<28孕周早产的风险显著高于盐酸利托君组，差异有统计学意义(P<0.01);(2)与盐酸利托君组比较，阿托西班组(HR 5.942,95%CI 1.736～20.335)及交替用药组(HR 3.030,95%CI 1.565～5.865)的妊娠延长天数明显减少，但阿托西班组药物不良反应发生率低于盐酸利托君组和交替用药组(P<0.01);(3)盐酸利托君组和阿托西班组以及交替用药组在新生儿活产率上比较，差异均无统计学意义(...     

阿托西班、利托君治疗双胎晚期流产和早产的临床分析

目的:探讨阿托西班及利托君在双胎妊娠晚期流产和早产治疗中的临床价值。方法:回顾性分析郑州大学第二附属医院2015年1月—2017年1月收治的85例晚期流产及先兆早产的双胎妊娠孕妇,根据产妇使用宫缩抑制剂的情况分为阿托西班组20例,利托君组25例,利托君联合阿托西班组(联合用药组)40例。观察3组患者的保胎成功率、延长妊娠时间、新生儿情况、产后出血率及药物不良反应。结果:阿托西班组药物起效时间短,与其他两组比较差异有统计学意义(均P0.05)。3组孕妇抑制宫缩总有效率比较差异无统计学意义(χ~2=0.30,P=0.86)。3组新生儿出生体质量、新生儿窒息率比较差异均无统计学意义(均P0.05)。3组患者无一例发生产后出血。白蛋白水平≤30 g/L、血红蛋白水平≤100 g/L、基础心率≥100次/min的患者出现利托君药物不良反应的风险大。结论:针对宫缩强、白蛋白水平≤30 g/L、血红蛋白水平≤100 g/L、基础心率≥100次/min的双胎孕妇可考虑阿托西班作为一线药物治疗。     

阿托西班、利托君治疗双胎晚期流产和早产的临床分析

目的：探讨阿托西班及利托君在双胎妊娠晚期流产和早产治疗中的临床价值。方法：回顾性分析郑州大学第二附属医院2015年1月-2017年1月收治的85例晚期流产及先兆早产的双胎妊娠孕妇,根据产妇使用宫缩抑制剂的情况分为阿托西班组20例,利托君组25例,利托君联合阿托西班组（联合用药组）40例。观察3组患者的保胎成功率、延长妊娠时间、新生儿情况、产后出血率及药物不良反应。结果：阿托西班组药物起效时间短,与其他两组比较差异有统计学意义（均P＜0.05）。3组孕妇抑制宫缩总有效率比较差异无统计学意义（χ2=0.30,P=0.86）。3组新生儿出生体质量、新生儿窒息率比较差异均无统计学意义（均P＞0.05）。3组患者无一例发生产后出血。白蛋白水平≤30 g/L、血红蛋白水平≤100 g/L、基础心率≥100次/min的患者出现利托君药物不良反应的风险大。结论：针对宫缩强、白蛋白水平≤30 g/L、血红蛋白水平≤100 g/L、基础心率≥100次/min的双胎孕妇可考虑阿托西班作为一线药物治疗。     

紧急宫颈环扎术联合不同宫缩抑制剂的效果和安全性评价

目的评价宫颈环扎术后联合不同宫缩抑制剂的效果和安全性。方法回顾性分析2015年1月至2019年12月在首都医科大学附属北京世纪坛医院妇产科行紧急宫颈环扎术,并在术后使用不同宫缩抑制剂的56例单胎妊娠患者,观察药物疗效、不良反应以及妊娠结局。结果紧急宫颈环扎术后使用阿托西班+吲哚美辛栓组的药物起效时间最短,成功率较高(P<0.05);盐酸利托君组药物不良反应较高60.00%,主要为心动过速(P<0.05)。结论紧急宫颈环扎术后联合阿托西班及吲哚美辛栓能延长妊娠时间,药物不良反应发生率较低,值得临床推广。     

早期早产临产不同干预措施的探讨

目的探讨对早期早产临产者实施干预的最佳时机和最佳方法.方法选择2003年1月至2006年3月发生在34周前的早产临产病例73例,宫口开大5 cm以下,接受紧急宫颈环扎术和硫酸镁抑制宫缩者(39例)与接受单纯宫缩抑制剂治疗者(34例)进行对比分析.结果紧急宫颈环扎术联合宫缩抑制剂组的保胎天数、34周后分娩率明显高于单纯镁抑制组(P＜0.01).对早产临产干预结局的影响因素为紧急宫颈环扎术.结论单纯采用硫酸镁抑制宫缩对早产临产者进行干预可以延缓分娩,对于宫颈口扩张在5 cm以下的早产临产者,联合实施紧急宫颈环扎术和使用宫缩抑制剂,可以明显增加34孕周以上的分娩率.     

双胎妊娠结局及分娩时机与分娩方式对新生儿窒息的影响

目的:探讨双胎妊娠结局及不同分娩时机与分娩方式对新生儿窒息的影响。方法:回顾性分析本院462例双胎妊娠孕妇晚期流产及分娩结局资料,以1分钟Apgar评分≤7分为标准诊断新生儿窒息,对比分析不同孕周的晚期流产率,及在不同分娩孕周采用不同分娩方式的新生儿窒息率。结果:(1)双胎妊娠孕妇孕28周前流产42例,主要集中于孕26～27~(+6)周(18例)。(2)孕28周后分娩的活产新生儿共834例,其剖宫产新生儿窒息率(2. 16%)低于阴道分娩(12. 77%)(P0. 05),其中孕28～29~(+6)、孕32～33~(+6)周剖宫产与阴道分娩的新生儿窒息率差异有统计学意义(P0. 05)。新生儿窒息率在孕36～37~(+6)周(0. 44%)明显低于其他孕周(P0. 05)。(3)大胎儿和小胎儿的剖宫产新生儿窒息率均低于阴道分娩(P0. 05),剖宫产中大胎儿新生儿窒息率低于小胎儿(P0. 05)。剖宫产中大胎儿在孕34～35~(+6)周的新生儿窒息率(0)明显低于其他孕周(P0. 05),剖宫产中小胎儿在孕36～37~(+6)周的新生儿窒息率(0)明显低于其他孕周(P0. 05)。结论:双胎妊娠应加强孕期监护,防止晚期流产的发生。双胎妊娠无明显并发症时可尽量延长孕周至36～37~(+6)周,但不宜过迟,采取剖宫产方式可降低新生儿窒息率的发生。     

盐酸利托君与硫酸镁治疗先兆早产的Meta分析

目的:评价盐酸利托君与硫酸镁治疗先兆早产的效果与副反应,以阐明两种药物的临床应用价值。方法:计算机检索相关数据库,收集盐酸利托君与硫酸镁治疗先兆早产的随机对照试验,对符合纳入标准的临床研究进行Meta分析。结果:共纳入34篇文献,盐酸利托君较硫酸镁起效快,延长妊娠时间,增加新生儿体重,但孕妇副反应发生率较高。与硫酸镁组相比,盐酸利托君组显效时间、延长妊娠时间及新生儿出生体重的MD值(95%CI)分别为-1.22(-1.24,-1.20)、0.97(0.87,1.06)、0.39(0.36,0.41),副反应的OR值为2.21(95%CI 1.89,2.59)。结论:盐酸利托君治疗先兆早产的显效时间短、延长妊娠时间较长,且新生儿出生体重等均较硫酸镁好,但其母体发生副反应的风险明显高于硫酸镁。如何安全有效地选择保胎药物还需要进一步分层随机对照研究来证实。     

阿托西班联合利托君治疗高龄先兆早产孕妇的临床效果分析

目的 分析阿托西班联合利托君治疗高龄先兆早产孕妇的临床效果。方法 选取95例高龄先兆早产孕妇,根据双盲法分为对照组（47例）与研究组（48例）。对照组采取利托君治疗,研究组采取阿托西班联合利托君治疗。比较两组相关临床指标与血清相关因子表达水平。结果 研究组孕妇宫缩抑制时间、孕周延长时间长于对照组（P<0.05）,研究组新生儿出生体质量（3.58±0.34）kg高于对照组的（3.12±0.15）kg,Apgar评分（9.79±1.64）分高于对照组的（9.04±1.27）分（P<0.05）。研究组治疗后血清一氧化氮、基质金属蛋白酶抑制剂水平明显高于对照组,前列腺素E2、白细胞介素-8水平明显低于对照组（P<0.05）。结论 阿托西班联合利托君治疗高龄先兆早产孕妇保胎效果显著,可优化妊娠结局。     

Multicentre, parallel group, randomised, single-blind study of the safety and efficacy of atosiban versus ritodrine in the treatment of acute preterm labour in Korean women

OBJECTIVE: To compare the efficacy and safety of atosiban with those of ritodrine in preterm labour. DESIGN: Multicentre, single-blind, randomised, controlled trial. SETTING: Obstetric units in six referral centres in Korea. POPULATION: Women with singleton pregnancies with preterm labour, between 24 and 33 + 6 weeks of gestation. METHODS: One hundred and twenty-eight women were randomised to receive intravenous atosiban (n= 63) or ritodrine (n= 65) and were stratified by gestational age (<28 weeks and >or=28 weeks). Atosiban or ritodrine was administered for up to 48 hours. Progression of labour was assessed by the frequency of contractions and cervical dilatation and effacement. Alternative tocolysis could be given as rescue therapy. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE: Efficacy was assessed as the proportion of women in each group who did not deliver and did not need alternative tocolytic therapy at 48 hours and 7 days after therapy initiation. Safety was assessed as the numbers of maternal adverse events and neonatal morbidity. RESULTS: Tocolytic efficacy after 7 days was significantly better in the atosiban group than in the ritodrine group (60.3 versus 34.9%), but not at 48 hours (68.3 versus 58.7%). Maternal adverse events related to therapy were reported less frequently in the atosiban group (7.9 vs 70.8%; P= 0.0001), resulting in fewer early drug terminations due to adverse events (0 versus 20.0%; P= 0.0001). This, however, was not accompanied by a concurrent improvement in perinatal outcomes. CONCLUSION: The efficacy and safety of atosiban in the treatment of preterm labour were superior to those of ritodrine.     

Double-blind, randomized, controlled trial of atosiban and ritodrine in the treatment of preterm labor: a multicenter effectiveness and safety study

OBJECTIVE: This study was undertaken to compare the efficacy and safety of intravenous administration of atosiban versus ritodrine for the treatment of preterm labor.Study Design: Women with preterm labor and intact membranes diagnosed at 23 to 33 gestational weeks (n = 247) were randomly assigned to treatment arms and received atosiban (6.75 mg intravenous bolus, 300 microg/min for 3 hours, then 100 microg/min intravenously) or ritodrine (0.10-0.35 mg/min intravenously) for as long as 18 hours. Tocolytic effectiveness was assessed in terms of the numbers of women who had not been delivered after 48 hours and after 7 days. Safety was assessed in terms of maternal side effects and neonatal morbidity. Secondary outcomes included mean gestational age at delivery and mean birth weight. An intent-to-treat analysis was performed with the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test. RESULTS: The proportion of women who had not been delivered at 48 hours was 84.9% (n = 107) in the atosiban group and 86.8% (n = 105) in the ritodrine group. At 7 days 92 women had still not been delivered in both the atosiban (73.0%) and ritodrine (76.0%) groups. Neither of these differences was statistically significant. The incidence of maternal cardiovascular side effects was substantially lower in the atosiban group (4.0% vs 84.3%, P <.001). In addition, intravenous therapy was terminated more frequently as a result of maternal adverse events in the ritodrine group (29.8%) than in the atosiban group (0.8%). The overall occurrences of fetal adverse events in the two treatment groups were comparable. Neonatal morbidity was similar between the treatment groups after adjustment for unbalanced enrollment of women with multiple pregnancies and for gestational ages within treatment groups. CONCLUSION: Atosiban was comparable in clinical effectiveness to conventional ritodrine therapy but was better tolerated than ritodrine, with no evidence of significant maternal or fetal adverse events. Neonatal morbidity, which was similar between the two treatment arms, was apparently related to the gestational age of the infant rather than to the exposure to either tocolytic agent.     

Clinical practice evaluation of combination of atosiban, ritodrine and ketoprofen for inhibiting preterm labor

AIM: The aim of this study was to compare the efficacy and tolerability of atosiban vs ritodrine administered as single-drug or as combination therapy with the COX inhibitor ketoprofen in the treatment of preterm labor and to investigate how frequent is the need for combination therapy with ketoprofen. METHODS: Ninety-one women with diagnosis of threatened preterm delivery at 24-33 weeks' gestation were enrolled in an observational case-control study. Forty-seven received IV atosiban (6.75 mg initial dose, 300 microg/min loading dose for 3 hours, 100 microg/min maintenance dose for 48-96 hours) and 44 IV ritodrine (0.05-0.3 mg/min). When response to the first drug in the first 2-4 hours was unsatisfactory, ketoprofen was added (100 mg loading dose IV and 100-150 mg maintenance dose every 12 hours) for a maximum of 48 hours. RESULTS: Ketoprofen was added in 51.1% of the atosiban group and 47.7% of the ritodrine group (P 0.75, not statistically significant). The percentages of women non delivered in the two groups were 85.1% vs 81.8% at 48 hours (P=0.44) and 59.6% vs 54.5% at 7 days (P=0.39). One woman treated with atosiban reported transient dyspnea at the administration of the bolus dose; 20.5% of women who received ritodrine developed tachycardia and 4.5% dyspnea (P=0.001). Neonatal mortality and morbidity were comparable in both groups and unrelated to ketoprofen exposure. CONCLUSION: Atosiban efficacy was comparable to ritodrine, but with a superior safety profile. A large proportion of women in both groups required second-line ketoprofen therapy, with comparable neonatal outcomes.     

An oxytocin receptor antagonist (atosiban) in the treatment of preterm labor: a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial with tocolytic rescue

OBJECTIVES: This study was designed to evaluate the efficacy and safety of the oxytocin receptor antagonist atosiban in the treatment of preterm labor. STUDY DESIGN: A multicenter, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial with tocolytic rescue was designed. Five hundred thirty-one patients were randomized to receive, and 501 received, either intravenous atosiban (n = 246) or placebo (n = 255), followed by subcutaneous maintenance with the assigned agent. Standard tocolytics as rescue tocolysis were permitted after 1 hour of either placebo or atosiban if preterm labor continued. The primary end point was the time from the start of study drug to delivery or therapeutic failure. Secondary end points were the proportion of patients who remained undelivered and did not receive an alternate tocolytic at 24 hours, 48 hours, and 7 days. RESULTS: No significant difference was found in the time from start of treatment to delivery or therapeutic failure between atosiban and placebo (median, 25.6 days vs 21.0 days, respectively; P =.6). The percentages of patients remaining undelivered and not requiring an alternate tocolytic at 24 hours, 48 hours, and 7 days were significantly higher in the atosiban group than in the control group (all P < or =.008). A significant treatment-by-gestational age interaction existed for the 48-hour and 7-day end points. Atosiban was consistently superior to placebo at a gestational age of > or =28 weeks. Fourteen atosiban-treated patients and 5 placebo-treated patients were randomized at <24 weeks; the incidence of fetal-infant deaths was higher for the atosiban group at <24 weeks. Maternal-fetal adverse events were similar except for injection-site reactions, which occurred more often with atosiban. CONCLUSIONS: In this trial the treatment of patients in preterm labor with atosiban resulted in prolongation of pregnancy for up to 7 days for those at a gestational age > or =28 weeks, and this occurred with a low rate of maternal-fetal adverse effects. In addition, at a gestational age > or =28 weeks, the infant morbidity and mortality of atosiban-initiated standard care were similar to those with placebo-initiated standard care. Given that all patients in this study were eligible for tocolysis and that, in practice, nearly all patients who are eligible for a tocolytic receive one, the benefit of using atosiban is the placebo-like maternal-fetal side effect profile. These observations support the use of this oxytocin receptor antagonist in the treatment of patients in preterm labor with intact membranes. Efficacy and infant outcome data at <28 weeks are inconclusive.     

Randomized comparative trial of indomethacin and ritodrine for the long-term treatment of preterm labor

A randomized prospective trial was performed to compare the efficacy and safety of ritodrine and indomethacin in the long-term treatment of preterm labor. Forty patients with intact membranes in preterm labor at 23 to 34 weeks' gestation were randomized to receive either intravenous ritodrine or oral indomethacin as the first-line tocolytic agent. Successful intravenous ritodrine therapy was followed by oral terbutaline therapy, and indomethacin-treated patients continued to receive oral indomethacin. Treatment failures were defined as progressive preterm labor or patient intolerance, and these patients were treated with intravenous magnesium sulfate. Ritodrine and indomethacin were equally successful in delaying preterm birth as defined by interval to delivery, gestational age at delivery, delivery delayed greater than 7 days, attainment of 35 weeks of gestation, percentage of patients who required magnesium sulfate therapy, percentage of patients who were readmitted with premature rupture of membranes, absence of recurrent preterm labor, and infant birth weight. More than 80% of mothers who received ritodrine voiced complaints of beta-sympathomimetic side effects, and one patient discontinued treatment as the result of intolerance. There were minimal patient complaints with indomethacin use. No statistically significant differences were noted in neonatal outcome as defined by Apgar scores, umbilical cord pH, intensive care days, ventilator days, or neonatal deaths. However, three cases of primary pulmonary hypertension were observed in the indomethacin group. We had not previously observed this problem with short-term (24 to 48 hours) indomethacin therapy.     

Atosiban vs ritodrine used prophylactically with cerclage in ICSI pregnancies to prevent pre-term birth in women identified as being at high risk on the basis of transvaginal ultrasound scan.

Our objective was to compare the effectiveness and safety of atosiban and ritodrine, in pregnancies obtained by intracytoplasmic sperm injection (ICSI) undergoing cervical cerclage. Data from a prospective study were compared with those from a retrospective study. Sixteen ICSI pregnant women, 20-24 weeks' gestation and maternal age >18 years, received atosiban (bolus dose 6.75 mg i.v., followed by 300 microg/min i.v. for 3 h and 100 microg/min i.v. for 45 h). Cervical cerclage was performed 3 h after starting atosiban. The control group (group B) of 16 ICSI pregnant women were matched and received ritodrine hydrochloride (100-350 microg/min) for 48 h. Cervical cerclage was performed after 24 h. Pre-term rupture of membranes occurred within 48 h of cervical cerclage in one woman receiving atosiban and in four women receiving ritodrine. There was no significant difference in terms of pregnancies not delivered at 48 h (short-term tocolysis) and at 7 days (long-term tocolysis). However, there was a significantly higher incidence of maternal tachycardia with ritodrine compared with atosiban (p < 0.001). The mean gestational age at delivery was significantly higher for atosiban compared with ritodrine (36 vs 33 weeks; p < 0.001). The neonatal outcome was poorer for ritodrine than atosiban, as there were very low birth weight infants (p = 0.008), resulting in lower Apgar scores (p = 0.005) and there were more neonates requiring a long stay in the neonatal intensive care unit (p = 0.005). We conclude that atosiban is associated with a significantly lower incidence of maternal tachycardia and improved neonatal outcome compared with ritodrine.     

Atosiban versus usual care for the management of preterm labor

OBJECTIVE: To compare the efficacy of atosiban with usual management of threatened preterm labor. METHODS: In this prospective, open-label, randomized controlled trial, women admitted to the hospital in threatened preterm labor (between 24 and 34 weeks' gestation) were randomized to receive atosiban or usual care (beta-agonists, calcium channel blockers, magnesium sulphate, or any other tocolytic, alone or in combination, and/or bed rest). RESULTS: In women randomized to receive atosiban (n=295) or usual care (n=290), significantly more women receiving atosiban remained undelivered at 48 h with no alternative tocolytic compared with usual care (77.6% vs. 56.6%; P<0.001). The proportion of women remaining undelivered after 48 h was comparable between the treatment groups. However, more women in the atosiban group required no additional tocolytics (85.1% vs. 62.8%; P<0.001). Maternal and fetal safety was significantly superior with atosiban. Neonatal safety was comparable. CONCLUSIONS: These findings support the use of atosiban to delay preterm birth and are consistent with previously conducted, randomized, controlled trials. Atosiban was associated with fewer maternal and fetal adverse events compared with other tocolytics, and presented no safety concerns for either the mother or the unborn baby.     

Effectiveness and safety of atosiban versus conventional treatment in the management of preterm labor

ObjectiveTo compare the efficacy of atosiban with conventional treatment of the threatened preterm labor.Materials and methodsAll the data of pregnant women with threatened preterm labor from January 1 to December 31, 2017, who received atosiban were collected. Pregnant women with conventional treatment (including β-agonists, indomethacin, magnesium sulphate and calcium channel blockers, alone or in combination) were used as control.ResultsThe proportion of women not requiring an alternative tocolytic treatment within 48 h and remaining undelivered was significantly higher in atosiban treatment group (89.3%; n = 25/28) compared with conventional treatment (24.2%; n = 8/33) (P < 0.0001). For therapy efficacy, there was also no significant difference between atosiban groups and conventional treatment groups in the low gestational ages. However, for the high gestational ages, atosiban treatment group showed higher efficacy (84%; n = 21/25 vs. 37.5%; n = 3/8) (P < 0.05). Moreover, a significantly higher proportion of women in the atosiban treated group (89.3%; n = 25/28) was observed compared with the conventional treatment groups (51.5%; n = 17/33) who did not receive an alternative tocolytic within 48 h (P < 0.01). Maternal and fetal safety was significantly superior with atosiban treatment.ConclusionsOur results support that atosiban would represent an advance over current tocolytic therapy especially for the high gestational ages.     

Clinical practice evaluation of atosiban in preterm labour management in six European countries

Objective  To evaluate the efficacy and safety of early administration compared with standard administration of atosiban, when predefined eligibility criteria were met.
Design  A prospective, open-label, randomised clinical trial. Women were randomised to receive atosiban either immediately (early) or when specified criteria, in terms of duration/frequency of uterine contraction or status of cervical dilation/effacement, were fulfilled (standard).
Setting  Carried out at 105 centres in six European countries.
Population  Pregnant women admitted to hospital in threatened preterm labour between 24 and 34 weeks of gestation, comprising a subgroup of women enrolled in the Tractocile Efficacy Assessment Survey in Europe (TREASURE) clinical experience review.
Main outcome measures  Efficacy was defined as the successful delay of delivery with no alternative tocolytic agent for 48 hours.
Results  More women in the early group remained undelivered at 48 hours with no alternative tocolytic agent compared with those who received atosiban when specified criteria were fulfilled (88.9 versus 76.1%; P = 0.03). Safety was comparable between the groups. There were no statistical differences in maternal, fetal or neonatal adverse events between the early and standard atosiban arms.
Conclusions  The use of atosiban was effective for the delay of preterm labour and presented no safety concerns irrespective of the time it was administered.     

Maternal and fetal blood flow velocity waveforms in patients with preterm labor: prediction of successful tocolysis

Umbilical and uterine artery velocimetry was performed using continuous-wave Doppler ultrasound (Angioscan III) in 60 patients in preterm labor. Peak-systolic/end-diastolic ratios were calculated according to previously described techniques. All measurements were made before tocolytic therapy was begun: magnesium sulfate (n = 40) or ritodrine (n = 20). The mean gestational age was 33.1 +/- 1.5 weeks (range 29 to 36 weeks). Twelve (20%) patients had elevated (greater than 2.6) pretherapy uterine peak-systolic/end-diastolic ratios, 10 (16.7%) patients had elevated (greater than 3.5) pretherapy umbilical peak-systolic/end-diastolic ratios, and in eight (13.3%) patients both ratios were elevated. In seven (58.4%) of the 12 patients with elevated uterine peak-systolic/end-diastolic ratios, six (60%) of the 10 patients with elevated umbilical peak-systolic/end-diastolic ratios, and five (62.5%) of the eight patients with both ratios elevated tocolytics failed and the women were delivered within 48 hours, compared with seven (14.6%) of 48, eight (16%) of 50, and six (13.0%) of 46 with normal ratios, respectively (p less than 0.05). We conclude that patients in preterm labor with elevated pretherapy uterine and/or umbilical peak-systolic/end-diastolic ratios are more likely to fail tocolysis therapy and be delivered preterm than those with normal ratios. It may therefore be useful to include umbilical and uterine velocimetry in the initial evaluation of preterm labor.