Successful magnesium sulfate tocolysis: Is “weaning” the drug necessary?

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: Magnesium sulfate is the most commonly used tocolytic agent for preterm labor. A common clinical practice is to slowly discontinue the drug (wean) after successful tocolysis. Our objective was to determine the necessity of this practice. STUDY DESIGN: A prospective, randomized clinical trial was performed from June 1993 to July 1996. After successful magnesium sulfate tocolysis, patients with preterm labor were randomized to two groups: stopping the drug abruptly (no weaning) or gradually weaning the drug (approximately 1 gm every 4 hours). Preterm labor was defined as documented cervical change with regular uterine contractions or regular uterine contractions with a cervix of 2 cm and 75% effacement. The primary outcome variable was the necessity to reinstitute magnesium sulfate therapy within 24 hours of discontinuation of successful tocolysis. RESULTS: One hundred forty-one patients completed the study. No patient in the no-wean group required retocolysis within 24 hours of magnesium discontinuation. However, eight patients in the wean group required retocolysis within 24 hours of magnesium discontinuation ( p = 0.01). Significantly more patients in the wean group had retocolysis during pregnancy (3 vs 12, p = 0.03). Patients in the wean group were also in the labor and delivery unit longer and, as would be anticipated, received magnesium sulfate significantly longer. No differences in the neonatal outcomes were noted between the two groups. Seventy-seven percent of the patients in the study were delivered prematurely. CONCLUSION: This study demonstrated an increased need for retocolysis in the group weaned from magnesium sulfate. We also found that patients in the wean group had an increased labor and delivery time and a longer administration time of magnesium sulfate. Thus weaning magnesium sulfate increases health care cost. The practice of weaning magnesium sulfate does not appear beneficial. (Am J Obstet Gynecol 1997;177:742-5.)