Reference Citation Analysis: Find an Article, Find a Category, Find a Journal, Find a Scholar

For: Anabusi S, Mei-Dan E, Hallak M, Walfisch A. Mechanical labor induction in the obese population: a secondary analysis of a prospective randomized trial. Arch Gynecol Obstet 2015;293:75-80. [PMID: 26054823 DOI: 10.1007/s00404-015-3765-3] [Citation(s) in RCA: 7] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.8] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 02/22/2015] [Accepted: 05/26/2015] [Indexed: 10/23/2022]

For:	Anabusi S, Mei-Dan E, Hallak M, Walfisch A. Mechanical labor induction in the obese population: a secondary analysis of a prospective randomized trial. Arch Gynecol Obstet 2015;293:75-80. [PMID: 26054823 DOI: 10.1007/s00404-015-3765-3] [Citation(s) in RCA: 7] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.8] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 02/22/2015] [Accepted: 05/26/2015] [Indexed: 10/23/2022]

Number

Cited by Other Article(s)

Croll DMR, De Vaan MDT, Moes SL, Bloemenkamp KWM, Ten Eikelder MLG, De Heus R, Jozwiak M, Kooiman J, Mol BW, Verhoeven CJM, De Boer MA. Methods of induction of labor in women with obesity: A secondary analysis of two multicenter randomized controlled trials. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand 2024;103:470-478. [PMID: 38183287 PMCID: PMC10867363 DOI: 10.1111/aogs.14737] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 04/17/2023] [Revised: 09/28/2023] [Accepted: 10/02/2023] [Indexed: 01/08/2024]

Abstract

INTRODUCTION

Obesity is an increasing public health concern worldwide and can lead to more complications in pregnancy and childbirth. Women with obesity more often require induction of labor for various indications. The aim of this study is to assess which method of induction of labor is safest and most effective in women with obesity.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

This is a secondary analysis of two randomized controlled trials about induction of labor. Women with a term singleton pregnancy in cephalic presentation, an unfavorable cervix, intact membranes and without a previous cesarean section were randomly allocated to cervical priming with a Foley catheter or vaginal prostaglandin-E2-gel (PROBAAT-I) or a Foley catheter or oral misoprostol (PROBAAT-II). The inclusion and exclusion criteria for the studies were identical. Induction methods were compared in women with obesity (body mass index ≥30.0). Main outcomes were cesarean section and postpartum hemorrhage (blood loss >1000 mL).

RESULTS

A total of 2664 women, were included in the trials, 517 of whom were obese: 254 women with obesity received a Foley catheter, 176 oral misoprostol and 87 prostaglandin E2 (PGE2). A cesarean section was performed in 29.1% of women allocated to Foley vs 22.2% in the misoprostol and 23.0% in the PGE2 groups. Comparisons between groups revealed no statistically significant differences: the relative risk [RR] was 1.31 (95% confidence interval [CI] 0.94-1.84) in the Foley vs misoprostol group and 1.27 (95% CI 0.83-1.95) in the Foley vs PGE2 group. The rates of postpartum hemorrhage were comparable (10.6%, 11.4% and 6.9%, respectively; P = 0.512). In women with obesity, more often a switch to another method occurred in the Foley group, (20.1% vs 6.3% in misoprostol vs 1.1% in the PGE2 group; P < 0.001). The risk of a failed Foley placement was higher in women with obesity than in women without obesity (8.3% vs 3.2%; adjusted odds ratio 3.12, 95% CI 1.65-5.90).

CONCLUSIONS

In women with obesity we found a nonsignificant trend towards an increased rate of cesarean sections in the group induced with a Foley catheter compared to oral misoprostol; however, the study lacked power for this subgroup analysis. The finding of a higher risk of failed placement of a Foley catheter in women with obesity can be used in shared decision making.

Collapse

de Vaan MD, Ten Eikelder ML, Jozwiak M, Palmer KR, Davies-Tuck M, Bloemenkamp KW, Mol BWJ, Boulvain M. Mechanical methods for induction of labour. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2023;3:CD001233. [PMID: 36996264 PMCID: PMC10061553 DOI: 10.1002/14651858.cd001233.pub4] [Citation(s) in RCA: 3] [Impact Index Per Article: 3.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 04/01/2023]

Abstract

BACKGROUND

Mechanical methods were the first methods developed to ripen the cervix and induce labour. During recent decades they have been substituted by pharmacological methods. Potential advantages of mechanical methods, compared with pharmacological methods may include reduction in side effects that could improve neonatal outcomes. This is an update of a review first published in 2001, last updated in 2012.

OBJECTIVES

To determine the effectiveness and safety of mechanical methods for third trimester (> 24 weeks' gestation) induction of labour in comparison with prostaglandin E2 (PGE2) (vaginal and intracervical), low-dose misoprostol (oral and vaginal), amniotomy or oxytocin.

SEARCH METHODS

For this update, we searched Cochrane Pregnancy and Childbirth's Trials Register, ClinicalTrials.gov, the WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP), and reference lists of retrieved studies (9 January 2018). We updated the search in March 2019 and added the search results to the awaiting classification section of the review.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Clinical trials comparing mechanical methods used for third trimester cervical ripening or labour induction with pharmacological methods. Mechanical methods include: (1) the introduction of a catheter through the cervix into the extra-amniotic space with balloon insufflation; (2) introduction of laminaria tents, or their synthetic equivalent (Dilapan), into the cervical canal; (3) use of a catheter to inject fluid into the extra-amniotic space (EASI). This review includes the following comparisons: (1) specific mechanical methods (balloon catheter, laminaria tents or EASI) compared with prostaglandins (different types, different routes) or with oxytocin; (2) single balloon compared to a double balloon; (3) addition of prostaglandins or oxytocin to mechanical methods compared with prostaglandins or oxytocin alone.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently assessed trials for inclusion and assessed risk of bias. Two review authors independently extracted data and assessed the quality of the evidence using the GRADE approach.

MAIN RESULTS

This review includes a total of 112 trials, with 104 studies contributing data (22,055 women; 21 comparisons). Risk of bias of trials varied. Overall, the evidence was graded from very-low to moderate quality. All evidence was downgraded for lack of blinding and, for many comparisons, the effect estimates were too imprecise to make a valid judgement. Balloon versus vaginal PGE2: there may be little or no difference in vaginal deliveries not achieved within 24 hours (risk ratio (RR) 1.01, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.82 to 1.26; 7 studies; 1685 women; low-quality evidence) and there probably is little or no difference in caesarean sections (RR 1.00, 95% CI 0.92 to 1.09; 28 studies; 6619 women; moderate-quality evidence) between induction of labour with a balloon catheter and vaginal PGE2. A balloon catheter probably reduces the risk of uterine hyperstimulation with fetal heart rate (FHR) changes (RR 0.35, 95% CI 0.18 to 0.67; 6 studies; 1966 women; moderate-quality evidence), serious neonatal morbidity or perinatal death (RR 0.48, 95% CI 0.25 to 0.93; 8 studies; 2757 women; moderate-quality evidence) and may slightly reduce the risk of aneonatal intensive care unit (NICU) admission (RR 0.82, 95% CI 0.65 to 1.04; 3647 women; 12 studies; low-quality evidence). It is uncertain whether there is a difference in serious maternal morbidity or death (RR 0.20, 95% CI 0.01 to 4.12; 4 studies; 1481 women) or five-minute Apgar score < 7 (RR 0.74, 95% CI 0.49 to 1.14; 4271 women; 14 studies) because the quality of the evidence was found to be very low and low, respectively. Balloon versus low-dose vaginal misoprostol: it is uncertain whether there is a difference in vaginal deliveries not achieved within 24 hours between induction of labour with a balloon catheter and vaginal misoprostol (RR 1.09, 95% CI 0.85 to 1.39; 340 women; 2 studies; low-quality evidence). A balloon catheter probably reduces the risk of uterine hyperstimulation with FHR changes (RR 0.39, 95% CI 0.18 to 0.85; 1322 women; 8 studies; moderate-quality evidence) but may increase the risk of a caesarean section (RR 1.28, 95% CI 1.02 to 1.60; 1756 women; 12 studies; low-quality evidence). It is uncertain whether there is a difference in serious neonatal morbidity or perinatal death (RR 0.58, 95% CI 0.12 to 2.66; 381 women; 3 studies), serious maternal morbidity or death (no events; 4 studies, 464 women), both very low-quality evidence, and five-minute Apgar score < 7 (RR 1.00, 95% CI 0.50 to 1.97; 941 women; 7 studies) and NICU admissions (RR 1.00, 95% CI 0.61 to 1.63; 1302 women; 9 studies) both low-quality evidence. Balloon versus low-dose oral misoprostol: a balloon catheter probably increases the risk of a vaginal delivery not achieved within 24 hours (RR 1.28, 95% CI 1.13 to 1.46; 782 women, 2 studies, and probably slightly increases the risk of a caesarean section (RR 1.17, 95% CI 1.04 to 1.32; 3178 women; 7 studies; both moderate-quality evidence) when compared to oral misoprostol. It is uncertain whether there is a difference in uterine hyperstimulation with FHR changes (RR 0.81, 95% CI 0.48 to 1.38; 2033 women; 2 studies), serious neonatal morbidity or perinatal death (RR 1.11, 95% CI 0.60 to 2.06; 2627 women; 3 studies), both low-quality evidence, serious maternal morbidity or death (RR 0.50, 95% CI 0.05 to 5.52; 2627 women; 3 studies), very low-quality evidence, five-minute Apgar scores < 7 (RR 0.71, 95% CI 0.38 to 1.32; 2693 women; 4 studies) and NICU admissions (RR 0.82, 95% CI 0.58 to 1.17; 2873 women; 5 studies) both low-quality evidence.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Low- to moderate-quality evidence shows mechanical induction with a balloon is probably as effective as induction of labour with vaginal PGE2. However, a balloon seems to have a more favourable safety profile. More research on this comparison does not seem warranted. Moderate-quality evidence shows a balloon catheter may be slightly less effective as oral misoprostol, but it remains unclear if there is a difference in safety outcomes for the neonate. When compared to low-dose vaginal misoprostol, low-quality evidence shows a balloon may be less effective, but probably has a better safety profile. Future research could be focused more on safety aspects for the neonate and maternal satisfaction.

Collapse

Lauterbach R, Ben Zvi D, Dabaja H, Zidan R, Justman N, Vitner D, Beloosesky R, Ghanem N, Ginsberg Y, Zipori Y, Weiner Z, Khatib N. Vaginal Dinoprostone Insert versus Cervical Ripening Balloon for Term Induction of Labor in Obese Nulliparas-A Randomized Controlled Trial. J Clin Med 2022;11:jcm11082138. [PMID: 35456231 PMCID: PMC9029246 DOI: 10.3390/jcm11082138] [Citation(s) in RCA: 6] [Impact Index Per Article: 3.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 02/13/2022] [Revised: 04/05/2022] [Accepted: 04/07/2022] [Indexed: 01/27/2023] Open

Affiliation(s)

Roy Lauterbach Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Rambam Health Care Campus, Haifa 3109601, Israel; (D.B.Z.); (H.D.); (R.Z.); (N.J.); (D.V.); (R.B.); (N.G.); (Y.G.); (Y.Z.); (Z.W.); (N.K.) Correspondence: ; Tel.: +972-4-7771779; Fax: +972-4-7771778
Dikla Ben Zvi Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Rambam Health Care Campus, Haifa 3109601, Israel; (D.B.Z.); (H.D.); (R.Z.); (N.J.); (D.V.); (R.B.); (N.G.); (Y.G.); (Y.Z.); (Z.W.); (N.K.)
Haneen Dabaja Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Rambam Health Care Campus, Haifa 3109601, Israel; (D.B.Z.); (H.D.); (R.Z.); (N.J.); (D.V.); (R.B.); (N.G.); (Y.G.); (Y.Z.); (Z.W.); (N.K.)
Ragda Zidan Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Rambam Health Care Campus, Haifa 3109601, Israel; (D.B.Z.); (H.D.); (R.Z.); (N.J.); (D.V.); (R.B.); (N.G.); (Y.G.); (Y.Z.); (Z.W.); (N.K.)
Naphtali Justman Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Rambam Health Care Campus, Haifa 3109601, Israel; (D.B.Z.); (H.D.); (R.Z.); (N.J.); (D.V.); (R.B.); (N.G.); (Y.G.); (Y.Z.); (Z.W.); (N.K.)
Dana Vitner Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Rambam Health Care Campus, Haifa 3109601, Israel; (D.B.Z.); (H.D.); (R.Z.); (N.J.); (D.V.); (R.B.); (N.G.); (Y.G.); (Y.Z.); (Z.W.); (N.K.)
Ron Beloosesky Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Rambam Health Care Campus, Haifa 3109601, Israel; (D.B.Z.); (H.D.); (R.Z.); (N.J.); (D.V.); (R.B.); (N.G.); (Y.G.); (Y.Z.); (Z.W.); (N.K.) Bruce Rappaport Faculty of Medicine, Technion-Israel Institute of Technology, Haifa 3200003, Israel
Nadir Ghanem Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Rambam Health Care Campus, Haifa 3109601, Israel; (D.B.Z.); (H.D.); (R.Z.); (N.J.); (D.V.); (R.B.); (N.G.); (Y.G.); (Y.Z.); (Z.W.); (N.K.)
Yuval Ginsberg Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Rambam Health Care Campus, Haifa 3109601, Israel; (D.B.Z.); (H.D.); (R.Z.); (N.J.); (D.V.); (R.B.); (N.G.); (Y.G.); (Y.Z.); (Z.W.); (N.K.) Bruce Rappaport Faculty of Medicine, Technion-Israel Institute of Technology, Haifa 3200003, Israel
Yaniv Zipori Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Rambam Health Care Campus, Haifa 3109601, Israel; (D.B.Z.); (H.D.); (R.Z.); (N.J.); (D.V.); (R.B.); (N.G.); (Y.G.); (Y.Z.); (Z.W.); (N.K.)
Zeev Weiner Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Rambam Health Care Campus, Haifa 3109601, Israel; (D.B.Z.); (H.D.); (R.Z.); (N.J.); (D.V.); (R.B.); (N.G.); (Y.G.); (Y.Z.); (Z.W.); (N.K.) Bruce Rappaport Faculty of Medicine, Technion-Israel Institute of Technology, Haifa 3200003, Israel
Nizar Khatib Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Rambam Health Care Campus, Haifa 3109601, Israel; (D.B.Z.); (H.D.); (R.Z.); (N.J.); (D.V.); (R.B.); (N.G.); (Y.G.); (Y.Z.); (Z.W.); (N.K.) Bruce Rappaport Faculty of Medicine, Technion-Israel Institute of Technology, Haifa 3200003, Israel

Collapse

de Vaan MDT, ten Eikelder MLG, Jozwiak M, Palmer KR, Davies‐Tuck M, Bloemenkamp KWM, Mol BWJ, Boulvain M. Mechanical methods for induction of labour. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2019;10:CD001233. [PMID: 31623014 PMCID: PMC6953206 DOI: 10.1002/14651858.cd001233.pub3] [Citation(s) in RCA: 36] [Impact Index Per Article: 7.2] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 12/16/2022]

Abstract

BACKGROUND

OBJECTIVES

SEARCH METHODS

SELECTION CRITERIA

Clinical trials comparing mechanical methods used for third trimester cervical ripening or labour induction with pharmacological methods.Mechanical methods include: (1) the introduction of a catheter through the cervix into the extra-amniotic space with balloon insufflation; (2) introduction of laminaria tents, or their synthetic equivalent (Dilapan), into the cervical canal; (3) use of a catheter to inject fluid into the extra-amniotic space (EASI).This review includes the following comparisons: (1) specific mechanical methods (balloon catheter, laminaria tents or EASI) compared with prostaglandins (different types, different routes) or with oxytocin; (2) single balloon compared to a double balloon; (3) addition of prostaglandins or oxytocin to mechanical methods compared with prostaglandins or oxytocin alone.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

MAIN RESULTS

This review update includes a total of 113 trials (22,373 women) contributing data to 21 comparisons. Risk of bias of trials varied. Overall, the evidence was graded from very-low to moderate quality. All evidence was downgraded for lack of blinding and, for many comparisons, the effect estimates were too imprecise to make a valid judgement.Balloon versus vaginal PGE2: there may be little or no difference in vaginal deliveries not achieved within 24 hours (average risk ratio (RR) 1.01, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.82 to 1.26; 7 studies; 1685 women; I² = 79%; low-quality evidence) and there probably is little or no difference in caesarean sections (RR 1.00, 95% CI 0.92 to 1.09; 28 studies; 6619 women; moderate-quality evidence) between induction of labour with a balloon catheter and vaginal PGE2. A balloon catheter probably reduces the risk of uterine hyperstimulation with fetal heart rate (FHR) changes (RR 0.35, 95% CI 0.18 to 0.67; 6 studies; 1966 women; moderate-quality evidence), serious neonatal morbidity or perinatal death (RR 0.48, 95% CI 0.25 to 0.93; 8 studies; 2757 women; moderate-quality evidence) and may slightly reduce the risk of aneonatal intensive care unit (NICU) admission (RR 0.82, 95% CI 0.65 to 1.04; 3647 women; 12 studies; low-quality evidence). It is uncertain whether there is a difference in serious maternal morbidity or death (RR 0.20, 95% CI 0.01 to 4.12; 4 studies; 1481 women) or five-minute Apgar score < 7 (RR 0.74, 95% CI 0.49 to 1.14; 4271 women; 14 studies) because the quality of the evidence was found to be very low and low, respectively.Balloon versus low-dose vaginal misoprostol: it is uncertain whether there is a difference in vaginal deliveries not achieved within 24 hours between induction of labour with a balloon catheter and vaginal misoprostol (RR 1.09, 95% CI 0.85 to 1.39; 340 women; 2 studies; low-quality evidence). A balloon catheter probably reduces the risk of uterine hyperstimulation with FHR changes (RR 0.39, 95% CI 0.18 to 0.85; 1322 women; 8 studies; moderate-quality evidence) but may increase the risk of a caesarean section (average RR 1.28, 95% CI 1.02 to 1.60; 1756 women; 12 studies; I² = 45%; low-quality evidence). It is uncertain whether there is a difference in serious neonatal morbidity or perinatal death (RR 0.58, 95% CI 0.12 to 2.66; 381 women; 3 studies), serious maternal morbidity or death (no events; 4 studies, 464 women), both very low-quality evidence, and five-minute Apgar score < 7 (RR 1.00, 95% CI 0.50 to 1.97; 941 women; 7 studies) and NICU admissions (RR 1.00, 95% CI 0.61 to 1.63; 1302 women; 9 studies) both low-quality evidence.Balloon versus low-dose oral misoprostol: a balloon catheter probably increases the risk of a vaginal delivery not achieved within 24 hours (RR 1.28, 95% CI 1.13 to 1.46; 782 women, 2 studies, and probably slightly increases the risk of a caesarean section (RR 1.17, 95% CI 1.04 to 1.32; 3178 women; 7 studies; both moderate-quality evidence) when compared to oral misoprostol. It is uncertain whether there is a difference in uterine hyperstimulation with FHR changes (RR 0.81, 95% CI 0.48 to 1.38; 2033 women; 2 studies), serious neonatal morbidity or perinatal death (RR 1.11, 95% CI 0.60 to 2.06; 2627 women; 3 studies), both low-quality evidence, serious maternal morbidity or death (RR 0.50, 95% CI 0.05 to 5.52; 2627 women; 3 studies), very low-quality evidence, five-minute Apgar scores < 7 (RR 0.71, 95% CI 0.38 to 1.32; 2693 women; 4 studies) and NICU admissions (RR 0.82, 95% CI 0.58 to 1.17; 2873 women; 5 studies) both low-quality evidence.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Low- to moderate-quality evidence shows mechanical induction with a balloon is probably as effective as induction of labour with vaginal PGE2. However, a balloon seems to have a more favourable safety profile. More research on this comparison does not seem warranted.Moderate-quality evidence shows a balloon catheter may be slightly less effective as oral misoprostol, but it remains unclear if there is a difference in safety outcomes for the neonate. When compared to low-dose vaginal misoprostol, low-quality evidence shows a balloon may be less effective, but probably has a better safety profile.Future research could be focused more on safety aspects for the neonate and maternal satisfaction.

Collapse

Kehl S, Born T, Weiss C, Faschingbauer F, Pretscher J, Beckmann MW, Sütterlin M, Dammer U. Induction of labour with sequential double-balloon catheter and oral misoprostol versus oral misoprostol alone in obese women. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol X 2019;3:100034. [PMID: 31403122 PMCID: PMC6687443 DOI: 10.1016/j.eurox.2019.100034] [Citation(s) in RCA: 6] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.2] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 03/06/2019] [Accepted: 04/29/2019] [Indexed: 11/28/2022] Open

Ellis JA, Brown CM, Barger B, Carlson NS. Influence of Maternal Obesity on Labor Induction: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. J Midwifery Womens Health 2019;64:55-67. [PMID: 30648804 DOI: 10.1111/jmwh.12935] [Citation(s) in RCA: 69] [Impact Index Per Article: 13.8] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 11/07/2017] [Revised: 09/27/2018] [Accepted: 09/28/2018] [Indexed: 11/27/2022]

Abstract

INTRODUCTION

Studies have shown that women with obesity have longer labors. The purpose of this systematic review and meta-analysis is to examine existing evidence regarding labor induction in women with obesity, including processes and outcomes. The primary outcome was cesarean birth following labor induction. Secondary outcomes were the timing and dosage of prostaglandins, the success of mechanical cervical ripening methods, and synthetic oxytocin dose and timing.

METHODS

Searches were performed in PubMed, MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, EBSCO, the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, the Database of Abstracts of Effects, Google Scholar, and ClinicalTrials.gov. Searches were limited to studies published in English after 1990. Ten studies published between 2009 and 2017 were included in this review. All were observational studies comparing processes and outcomes of induction of labor in relation to maternal body mass index. The primary outcome was cesarean birth following labor induction. We assessed heterogeneity using Cochran's Q test and tau-squared and I² statistics. We also calculated fixed-effect models to estimate pooled relative risks and weighted mean differences.

RESULTS

Ten cohort studies met inclusion criteria; 8 studies had data available for a meta-analysis of the primary outcome. Cesarean birth was more common among women with obesity compared with women of normal weight following labor induction (Mantel-Haenszel fixed-effect odds ratio, 1.82; 95% CI, 1.55-2.12; P < .001). Maternal obesity was associated with a longer time to birth, higher doses of prostaglandins, less frequent success of cervical ripening methods, and higher dose of synthetic oxytocin, as well as a longer time to birth after oxytocin use.

DISCUSSION

Women with obesity are more likely than women with a normal weight to end labor induction with cesarean birth. Additionally, women with obesity require longer labor inductions involving larger, more frequent applications of both cervical ripening methods and synthetic oxytocin.

Collapse

Rath W, Kehl S. The Renaissance of Transcervical Balloon Catheters for Cervical Ripening and Labour Induction. Geburtshilfe Frauenheilkd 2015;75:1130-1139. [PMID: 26719596 DOI: 10.1055/s-0035-1558094] [Citation(s) in RCA: 22] [Impact Index Per Article: 2.4] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 12/18/2022] Open

Abstract

Due to rising rates of labour induction in industrialised countries, safe and effective methods of induction have once again become a focus of interest and research. Prostaglandins are effective for cervical ripening and induction of uterine contractions. They do, however, cause overstimulation of the uterus in up to 20 % of cases, sometimes causing changes in fetal heart rate. Transcervical balloon catheters provide an alternative to prostaglandins for labour induction and have been used for this purpose for almost 50 years. This induction method has experienced a recent renaissance in clinical practice that is reflected in an annually rising number of publications on its use. Balloon catheters allow gentle ripening of the cervix without causing uterine overstimulation. The two catheters available are the Foley catheter (off-label use) and the double balloon catheter, which is licensed for use in induction of labour. Both are as effective as prostaglandins, and do not increase the risk of infection to mother or child. Catheter induction also requires less monitoring compared to prostaglandins resulting in improved patient satisfaction. Balloon catheters provide a useful and promising option to achieve vaginal delivery despite failed prostaglandin induction. Intravenous oxytocin is nevertheless required in up to 85 % of cases for adequate induction/augmentation of contractions. Balloon catheters, vaginal PGE₂ and misoprostol are equally effective in the context of an unripe/unfavourable cervix, the rate of uterine hyperstimulation being significantly lower, and the need for oxytocin significantly higher for catheters. Balloon catheters are increasingly being used in combination or sequentially with oral/vaginal misoprostol, although there is currently inadequate published data on the subject. International guidelines recommend the use of balloon catheters for labour induction with an unripe cervix (also following previous caesarean section) as an alternative to prostaglandins, particularly when these are not available or are contraindicated.

Collapse