实用医学杂志 ›› 2021, Vol. 37 ›› Issue (17): 2257-2261.doi: 10.3969/j.issn.1006⁃5725.2021.17.018

• 药物与临床 • 上一篇    下一篇

COOK宫颈扩张球囊和欣普孕妇引产中的应用对比贝生在妊娠期高血压

江梅花, 陈先侠   

  1. 安徽医科大学附属妇幼保健院(合肥 230000)

  • 出版日期:2021-09-10 发布日期:2021-09-10
  • 通讯作者: 陈先侠 E⁃mail:chenxx391@sohu.com
  • 基金资助:

    安徽省 2018 年度重点研究与开发计划项目(编号:1804h08020295)


Effect of COOK ripening balloon vs. simpubexon on labor induction of pregnant women with gestational hypertension

JIANG Meihua,CHEN Xianxia.   

  1. Maternal and Child Health Care HospitalAnhui Medical Universi⁃ tyHefei 230000China
  • Online:2021-09-10 Published:2021-09-10
  • Contact: CHEN Xianxia E⁃mail:chenxx391@sohu.com

摘要:

目的 探讨COOK子宫颈扩张球囊(COOK cervical ripening balloon,CCRB)和欣普贝生(地诺前 列酮)在孕晚期妊娠期高血压孕妇中引产的安全性、有效性。方法 回顾分析 2018 9 月至 2020 9 安徽省妇幼保健院收治的有引产指证且宫颈 Bishop 评分< 6 分的足月妊娠期高血压孕妇,CCRB 104 例, 欣普贝生组 64 例。比较两种方法的促宫颈成熟效果、引产效果、引产过程中血压波动情况以及不良母婴 并发症等情况。结果 欣普贝生促宫颈成熟效果优于 CCRB。欣普贝生组引产前宫颈 Bishop 评分低于 CCRB组(P < 0.05),但两组引产后宫颈Bishop评分及促宫颈成熟的总有效率差异无统计学意义(P > 0.05); 欣普贝生组干预至12 h内阴道分娩率高于CCRB组(P < 0.05);欣普贝生组临产后血压波动最大值明显高于 CCRB 组(P < 0.05),但两组不良分娩并发症及新生儿窒息发生率差异无统计学意义(P > 0.05)。欣普贝生较 CCRB 易引起宫缩过强或过频不良反应(P < 0.05)。结论 对于足月妊娠期高血压孕妇,使用欣普贝生和 CCRB 引产均展现了安全和高效的性能,当宫颈 Bishop 评分较低时,欣普贝生促宫颈成熟较 CCRB 更加有 效,但易引起子宫过度刺激和较大血压波动,须严密监护下使用

关键词:

COOK , 宫颈扩张球囊,  , 欣普贝生,  , 妊娠期高血压,  , 促宫颈成熟效果

Abstract:

Objective To explore the safety and effectiveness of Cook cervical ripening balloon(CCRB and Simpubexant(dinoprostone)in inducing labor in pregnant women with hypertension in the third trimester. Methods A retrospective analysis was conducted to research into the data of full⁃term pregnant women with hypertension during pregnancy who were admitted to Anhui Maternity and Child Health Hospital from September 2018 to September 2020 with indications of labor induction and with a cervical Bishop score of < 6 points 104 cases were enrolled in the CCRB group and another 64 cases in the Simpubesheng group. The effects of promoted cervical ripening,the effect of labor induction,the fluctuation of blood pressure during labor induction,and the adverse maternal and infant complications of the two methods were compared. Results Simpubesheng was more effective in promoting cervical ripening than CCRB. The Bishop score of the cervix before the induction of labor in the Simpbe⁃ son group was significantly lower than that of the CCRB group(P < 0.05),but there was no significant difference between the two groups in the Bishop score of the cervix and the total effective rate of cervical ripening after induction of labor(P > 0.05). T The rate of vaginal delivery within 12 hours of intervention was significantly higher than that in the CCRB group(P < 0.05). The maximum blood pressure fluctuation in the Simpubeson group was significantly higher than that in the CCRB group(P < 0.05),but the two groups had adverse delivery complications and neonatal asphyxia. There was no statistical difference in incidence(P > 0.05). Compared with CCRB,Simpubexen was more likely to cause side effects of excessive or frequent uterine contractions(P < 0.05). Conclusion For pregnant women with hypertension during full⁃term pregnancy,Simpubexen and CCRB both is safe and effective in labor induction. When the cervical Bishop score is low,Simpubexen is more effective than CCRB in promoting cervical ripening,but it is easier. It can cause excessive uterine stimulation and large blood pressure fluctuations,so it must be used under close supervision.

Key words:

COOK cervical ripening balloon, simpubesheng, gestational hypertension, cervical ripening effect