Methods of term labour induction for women with a previous caesarean section

The Hormonal Milieu by Different Labor Induction Methods in Women with Previous Cesarean Section: a Prospective Randomized Controlled Trial

The physiological pattern of hormonal and signaling molecules associated with labor induction is not fully clear. We conducted a preliminary study in order to investigate hormonal changes during labor induction in women with previous cesarean section. Eighty-seven women at term, with previous cesarean section, were randomized to undergo induction of labor by breast stimulation or intracervical balloon and compared with spontaneous labor (controls). Maternal serum levels of oxytocin, prostaglandin F2α, prostaglandin E2, prolactin, estradiol, and cortisol were analyzed at 0, 3, and 6 h post-induction initiation. Fetal umbilical cord hormones were measured. No significant difference was found in the induction-to-delivery time or mode of delivery between the induction groups. Maternal serum oxytocin levels decreased to a lesser extent in the breast stimulation group vs. the control group (p=0.003, p<0.001). In the breast stimulation and control groups, prostaglandin E₂ levels increased as labor progressed (p=0.005, 0.002, respectively). Prostaglandin F2α levels decreased over time in the balloon group (p=0.039), but increased in the control group (p=0.037). Both induction methods had similar outcomes. The hormonal studies ascertained the hypothesized mechanisms, with oxytocin level higher during breast stimulation and lower in balloon induction. These observations could help clinicians determine the appropriate method for cervical ripening in women with previous cesarean section. Larger future studies are needed to examine the effect of these hormonal trends on the rate of successful labor induction and complications, such as uterine rupture, in women with previous uterine scars. ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier NCT04244747.

Methods of term labour induction for women with a previous caesarean section

BACKGROUND

Women with a prior caesarean delivery have an increased risk of uterine rupture and for women subsequently requiring induction of labour it is unclear which method is preferable to avoid adverse outcomes. This is an update of a review that was published in 2013.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the benefits and harms associated with different methods used to induce labour in women who have had a previous caesarean birth.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched Cochrane Pregnancy and Childbirth's Trials Register (31 August 2016) and reference lists of retrieved studies.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing any method of third trimester cervical ripening or labour induction, with placebo/no treatment or other methods in women with prior caesarean section requiring labour induction in a subsequent pregnancy.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently assessed studies for inclusion and trial quality, extracted data, and checked them for accuracy.

MAIN RESULTS

Eight studies (data from 707 women and babies) are included in this updated review. Meta-analysis was not possible because studies compared different methods of labour induction. All included studies had at least one design limitation (i.e. lack of blinding, sample attrition, other bias, or reporting bias). One study stopped prematurely due to safety concerns. Vaginal PGE2 versus intravenous oxytocin (one trial, 42 women): no clear differences for caesarean section (risk ratio (RR) 0.67, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.22 to 2.03, evidence graded low), serious neonatal morbidity or perinatal death (RR 3.00, 95% CI 0.13 to 69.70, evidence graded low), serious maternal morbidity or death (RR 3.00, 95% CI 0.13 to 69.70, evidence graded low). Also no clear differences between groups for the reported secondary outcomes. The GRADE outcomes vaginal delivery not achieved within 24 hours, and uterine hyperstimulation with fetal heart rate changes were not reported. Vaginal misoprostol versus intravenous oxytocin (one trial, 38 women): this trial stopped early because one woman who received misoprostol had a uterine rupture (RR 3.67, 95% CI 0.16 to 84.66) and one had uterine dehiscence. No other outcomes (including GRADE outcomes) were reported. Foley catheter versus intravenous oxytocin (one trial, subgroup of 53 women): no clear difference between groups for vaginal delivery not achieved within 24 hours (RR 1.47, 95% CI 0.89 to 2.44, evidence graded low), uterine hyperstimulation with fetal heart rate changes (RR 3.11, 95% CI 0.13 to 73.09, evidence graded low), and caesarean section (RR 0.93, 95% CI 0.45 to 1.92, evidence graded low). There were also no clear differences between groups for the reported secondary outcomes. The following GRADE outcomes were not reported: serious neonatal morbidity or perinatal death, and serious maternal morbidity or death. Double-balloon catheter versus vaginal PGE2 (one trial, subgroup of 26 women): no clear difference in caesarean section (RR 0.97, 95% CI 0.41 to 2.32, evidence graded very low). Vaginal delivery not achieved within 24 hours, uterine hyperstimulation with fetal heart rate changes, serious neonatal morbidity or perinatal death, and serious maternal morbidity or death were not reported. Oral mifepristone versus Foley catheter (one trial, 107 women): no primary/GRADE outcomes were reported. Fewer women induced with mifepristone required oxytocin augmentation (RR 0.54, 95% CI 0.38 to 0.76). There were slightly fewer cases of uterine rupture among women who received mifepristone, however this was not a clear difference between groups (RR 0.29, 95% CI 0.08 to 1.02). No other secondary outcomes were reported. Vaginal isosorbide mononitrate (IMN) versus Foley catheter (one trial, 80 women): fewer women induced with IMN achieved a vaginal delivery within 24 hours (RR 2.62, 95% CI 1.32 to 5.21, evidence graded low). There was no difference between groups in the number of women who had a caesarean section (RR 1.00, 95% CI 0.39 to 2.59, evidence graded very low). More women induced with IMN required oxytocin augmentation (RR 1.65, 95% CI 1.17 to 2.32). There were no clear differences in the other reported secondary outcomes. The following GRADE outcomes were not reported: uterine hyperstimulation with fetal heart rate changes, serious neonatal morbidity or perinatal death, and serious maternal morbidity or death. 80 mL versus 30 mL Foley catheter (one trial, 154 women): no clear difference between groups for the primary outcomes: vaginal delivery not achieved within 24 hours (RR 1.05, 95% CI 0.91 to 1.20, evidence graded moderate) and caesarean section (RR 1.05, 95% CI 0.89 to 1.24, evidence graded moderate). However, more women induced using a 30 mL Foley catheter required oxytocin augmentation (RR 0.81, 95% CI 0.66 to 0.98). There were no clear differences between groups for other secondary outcomes reported. Several GRADE outcomes were not reported: uterine hyperstimulation with fetal heart rate changes, serious neonatal morbidity or perinatal death, and serious maternal morbidity or death. Vaginal PGE2 pessary versus vaginal PGE2 tablet (one trial, 200 women): no difference between groups for caesarean section (RR 1.09, 95% CI 0.74 to 1.60, evidence graded very low), or any of the reported secondary outcomes. Several GRADE outcomes were not reported: vaginal delivery not achieved within 24 hours, uterine hyperstimulation with fetal heart rate changes, serious neonatal morbidity or perinatal death, and serious maternal morbidity or death.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

RCT evidence on methods of induction of labour for women with a prior caesarean section is inadequate, and studies are underpowered to detect clinically relevant differences for many outcomes. Several studies reported few of our prespecified outcomes and reporting of infant outcomes was especially scarce. The GRADE level for quality of evidence was moderate to very low, due to imprecision and study design limitations.High-quality, adequately-powered RCTs would be the best approach to determine the optimal method for induction of labour in women with a prior caesarean birth. However, such trials are unlikely to be undertaken due to the very large numbers needed to investigate the risk of infrequent but serious adverse outcomes (e.g. uterine rupture). Observational studies (cohort studies), including different methods of cervical ripening, may be the best alternative. Studies could compare methods believed to provide effective induction of labour with low risk of serious harm, and report the outcomes listed in this review.

Double-balloon catheter for induction of labour in women with a previous cesarean section, could it be the best choice?

Introduction

We analysed the efficacy and safety of double-balloon catheter for cervical ripening in women with a previous cesarean section and which were the most important variables associated with an increased risk of repeated cesarean delivery.

Materials and methods

We designed an observational retrospective study of 418 women with unfavourable cervices (Bishop Score <5), a prior cesarean delivery, and induction of labour with a double-balloon catheter. Baseline maternal data and perinatal outcomes were recorded for a descriptive, bivariate, and multivariate analysis. A p value <0.05 was considered statistically significant.

Results

Most women improved their initial Bishop Score (89.5%) although only a 20.8% of them went into spontaneous active labour. Finally, 51.4% of the women achieved a vaginal delivery. Five cases of intrapartum uterine rupture (1.2%) occurred. After multivariate analysis, main risk factors for repeated cesarean section were dystocia in the previous pregnancy (OR 1.744; CI 95% 1.066–2.846), the absence of previous vaginal delivery (OR 2.590; CI 95% 1.066–6.290), suspected fetal macrosomia (OR 2.410; CI 95% 0.959–6.054), and duration of oxytocin induction period (OR 1.005; CI 95% 1.004–1.006). The area under the curve was 0.789 (p < 0.001).

Conclusions

Double-balloon catheter seems to be safe and effective for cervical ripening in women with a previous cesarean delivery and unfavourable cervix. In our study, most women could have a vaginal delivery in spite of their risk factors for cesarean delivery. A multivariate model based on some clinical variables has moderate predictive value for intrapartum cesarean section.

A Retrospective Case-Control Study Evaluating the Role of Mifepristone for Induction of Labor in Women with Previous Cesarean Section

OBJECTIVE

To investigate the role of "mifepristone" for induction of labor (IOL) in pregnant women with prior cesarean section (CS).

METHODS

In this retrospective study, all pregnant women with prior CS who received oral mifepristone (400 mg) for IOL (as per clear obstetric indications) [group 1] were compared with pregnant women with prior CS who had spontaneous onset of labor (SOL) [group 2], with respect to incidence of vaginal delivery, CS, duration of labor, and various maternal and fetal outcomes.

RESULTS

During the study period, 72 women received mifepristone (group 1) for IOL and 346 had SOL (group 2). In group 1 after mifepristone administration, 40 (55.6 %) women had labor onset, and 24 (33.3 %) women had cervical ripening (Bishop Score ≥ 8) within 48 h. There were no statistically significant differences with respect to duration of labor (p value: 0.681), mode of delivery (i.e., normal delivery or CS-p value: 0.076 or 0.120, respectively), or maternal (blood loss or scar dehiscence/rupture uterus), or fetal outcomes (NICU admission) compared to women with previous CS with SOL (group 2). However, the need of oxytocin (p value 0.020) and dose of oxytocin requirement (p value 0.008) were more statistically significant in group 1.

CONCLUSION

Mifepristone may be considered as an agent for IOL in women with prior CS.