1
|
Zhao G, Song G, Liu J. Outpatient cervical ripening with balloon catheters: A Bayesian network meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. Int J Gynaecol Obstet 2024; 166:607-616. [PMID: 38321823 DOI: 10.1002/ijgo.15409] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 10/27/2023] [Revised: 01/07/2024] [Accepted: 01/25/2024] [Indexed: 02/08/2024]
Abstract
BACKGROUND One in four labors are induced. The process of cervical ripening can be lengthy and pre-labor hospitalization is required. Outpatient cervical ripening can be an attractive alternative. OBJECTIVES To evaluate the efficacy and safety of outpatient cervical ripening with a balloon catheter compared with inpatient balloon catheter or prostaglandin E2 (PGE2). SEARCH STRATEGY The PubMed, MEDLINE, Embase, ClinicalTrials.gov, and Cochrane Library databases were searched from their inception to October 15, 2022. SELECTION CRITERIA Randomized controlled trials comparing the outpatient balloon catheter with inpatient balloon catheter or inpatient PGE2 for term cervical ripening. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS Bayesian network meta-analysis was performed. The primary outcome was the cesarean delivery rate. The secondary outcomes included instrumental delivery, the time from intervention-to-birth, oxytocin augmentation, total hospital duration, and maternal/neonatal adverse events. MAIN RESULTS Twenty-nine randomized controlled trials with a total of 6004 participants were identified. No difference in the cesarean delivery rate was revealed among the three interventions. Compared with inpatient balloon catheter, outpatient balloon catheter had shorter total hospital duration (mean difference -8.58, 95% confidence interval -17.02 to -1.10). No differences were revealed in the time from intervention-to-birth, instrumental delivery, postpartum hemorrhage, 5-min Apgar score less than 7, umbilical cord arterial pH less than 7.1, and neonatal intensive care unit admission among the three interventions. CONCLUSIONS Outpatient balloon catheter in low-risk term pregnancies is an available option that could be considered for cervical ripening. The safety and effectiveness are comparable to inpatient cervical ripening methods.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Ge Zhao
- Department of Obstetrics, The First Hospital of China Medical University, Shenyang, China
| | - Guang Song
- Department of Ultrasound, Shengjing Hospital of China Medical University, Shenyang, China
| | - Jing Liu
- Department of Obstetrics, The First Hospital of China Medical University, Shenyang, China
| |
Collapse
|
2
|
Khan H, Buaki-Sogo MA, Barlow P, Vardanyan R, Zatorska A, Miller G, Arjomandi Rad A, Malawana J, Shah NM. Efficacy of pharmacological and mechanical cervical priming methods for induction of labour and their applicability for outpatient management: A systematic review of randomised controlled trials. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol 2023; 287:80-92. [PMID: 37300982 DOI: 10.1016/j.ejogrb.2023.05.037] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 03/14/2023] [Revised: 05/24/2023] [Accepted: 05/27/2023] [Indexed: 06/12/2023]
Abstract
BACKGROUND A systematic review to determine the efficacy and safety of prostaglandins (PG) and Foley catheter (FC) for cervical priming in the outpatient setting. Various methods are available to achieve cervical ripening prior to induction of labour (IOL). In this systematic review, we will report the literature to date, and investigate the efficacy and safety of using the Foley catheter balloon or prostaglandins for cervical ripening, comparing both methods with each other, and discuss the implications of these findings for midwifery led units. METHODS English peer-reviewed journals were systematically searched in the databases PubMed, MEDLINE, EMCARE, EMBASE and CINAHL, for studies investigating cervical ripening using the FC or PGs. Additional randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and non-RCTs were identified by a manual search. Search terms included: cervix dilatation effacement, cervix ripening, outpatient, ambulatory care, obstetric patients, pharmacological preparations, and Foley catheter. Only RCTs of FC versus PG or either intervention versus placebo or intervention in the in-patient Vs. outpatient setting were included. 15 RCTs were included. RESULTS The results of this review show that both FC and PG analogues are equally effective cervical ripening agents. When compared to FC, PGs lead to a reduced requirement for oxytocin augmentation and a shorter intervention to delivery interval. However, PG use is also associated with an increased risk of hyperstimulation, cardiotocographic monitoring abnormalities and negative neonatal outcomes. CONCLUSIONS FC cervical ripening is an effective method of outpatient cervical priming, which is safe, acceptable, and cost-effective and thus has a potential role in both resource-rich and resource-poor countries. With appropriate dosing, some PG analogues also appear to offer similar outcomes.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Hiba Khan
- School of Medicine, University of Central Lancashire, 135A Adelphi St, Preston PR1 7BH, UK.
| | | | - Philip Barlow
- Chelsea and Westminster campus library, Imperial College London, Chelsea and Westminster Hospital, London SW10 9NH, UK
| | - Robert Vardanyan
- Department of Surgery and Cancer, Imperial College London, London, UK
| | - Anna Zatorska
- Department of Internal Medicine, York NHS Trust, York, UK
| | - George Miller
- School of Medicine, University of Central Lancashire, 135A Adelphi St, Preston PR1 7BH, UK
| | | | - Johann Malawana
- School of Medicine, University of Central Lancashire, 135A Adelphi St, Preston PR1 7BH, UK
| | - Nishel M Shah
- Department of Metabolism, Digestion and Reproduction, Imperial College London, Chelsea and Westminster Hospital, London SW10 9NH, UK
| |
Collapse
|
3
|
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
Affiliation(s)
- Marieke Dt de Vaan
- Department of Obstetrics, Jeroen Bosch Hospital, 's-Hertogenbosch, Netherlands
- Department of Health Care Studies, Rotterdam University of Applied Sciences, Rotterdam, Netherlands
| | - Mieke Lg Ten Eikelder
- Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, Royal Cornwall Hospital NHS Trust, Truro, UK
| | | | - Kirsten R Palmer
- Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, Monash Health and Monash University, Clayton, Australia
| | | | - Kitty Wm Bloemenkamp
- Department of Obstetrics, Division Women and Baby, Birth Centre Wilhelmina's Children Hospital, University Medical Center Utrecht, Utrecht, Netherlands
| | - Ben Willem J Mol
- Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, Monash University, Clayton, Australia
| | - Michel Boulvain
- Hôpital Erasme, Université Libre de Bruxelles, Brussels, Belgium
- UZ Brussel, VUB, Brussels, Belgium
| |
Collapse
|
4
|
[Retrospective comparison of effectiveness of balloon catheter versus dinoprostone for cervical ripening]. ACTA ACUST UNITED AC 2021; 49:660-664. [PMID: 33636411 DOI: 10.1016/j.gofs.2021.02.005] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 11/02/2020] [Indexed: 11/24/2022]
Abstract
OBJECTIVE To compare the effectiveness and the safety of cervical ripening between two methods: the Cook double balloon catheter and the dinoprostone pessary (Propess 10mg). METHODS We performed a retrospective comparative study in a French maternity. We analyzed 404 women with induction of labour after 37 gestational weeks, with singleton cephalic live fetus, unscarred uterus, unruptured membranes, and Bishop score<6. The primary endpoint was the time between the start of the ripening and the delivery. Secondary endpoints include effectiveness and safety outcomes of the methods. RESULTS Compared to dinoprostone pessary, the balloon catheter was associated with a longer time to delivery (34.4±16.5 vs 25.5±15.3h; P<0.001). This difference is found in both primiparous and multiparous women. Balloon catheter is also associated with a smaller improvement of the Bishop score (2.5±2.1 vs 4.2±2.9 Bishop's points; P<0.001) and more failure to achieve delivery in 24h (32.3% vs 56.7%; P<0.001). There was no difference in mother and fetal safety. CONCLUSION In this retrospective study, cervical ripening using balloon catheter seems to lengthen the induction of labour. No difference in safety outcomes with dinoprostone was found.
Collapse
|
5
|
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 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 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
Affiliation(s)
- Marieke DT de Vaan
- Jeroen Bosch HospitalDepartment of ObstetricsHenri Dunantstraat 1's‐HertogenboschNetherlands5223 GZ
- Rotterdam University of Applied SciencesDepartment of Health Care StudiesRotterdamNetherlands
| | - Mieke LG ten Eikelder
- Royal Cornwall Hospital NHS TrustDepartment of Obstetrics and GynaecologyPrincess Alexandra Wing, TreliskeTruroUK
| | - Marta Jozwiak
- Erasmus Medical CenterDr Molewaterplein 40RotterdamNetherlands3015 GD
| | - Kirsten R Palmer
- Monash Health and Monash UniversityDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynaecology246 Clayton RoadClaytonVictoriaAustralia3168
| | | | - Kitty WM Bloemenkamp
- Birth Centre Wilhelmina’s Children Hospital, University Medical Center UtrechtDepartment of Obstetrics, Division Women and BabyUtrechtNetherlands
| | - Ben Willem J Mol
- Monash UniversityDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynaecology246 Clayton RoadClaytonVictoriaAustralia3168
| | - Michel Boulvain
- University of Geneva/GHOL‐Nyon HospitalDepartment of Gynecology and ObstetricsNYONSwitzerland
| | | |
Collapse
|
6
|
Zhu L, Zhang C, Cao F, Liu Q, Gu X, Xu J, Li J. Intracervical Foley catheter balloon versus dinoprostone insert for induction cervical ripening: A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. Medicine (Baltimore) 2018; 97:e13251. [PMID: 30508911 PMCID: PMC6283136 DOI: 10.1097/md.0000000000013251] [Citation(s) in RCA: 15] [Impact Index Per Article: 2.5] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 10/07/2017] [Accepted: 10/22/2018] [Indexed: 11/25/2022] Open
Abstract
BACKGROUND Successful labor induction depends on the cervical status at the time of induction. Currently, both a Foley catheter and a dinoprostone insert are used for effective cervical ripening. This study compared the efficacy and safety of the intracervical Foley catheter and dinoprostone insert for cervical ripening to achieve successful labor induction. METHODS PubMed, Embase, and the Cochrane Library were searched from January 2000 to February 2017 for relevant articles. Only published randomized, controlled trials comparing the dinoprostone insert with the Foley catheter were included. RESULTS Eight trials including 1191 women who received the intracervical Foley catheter balloon and 1199 who received the dinoprostone insert were used for this study. There was no significant difference between the 2 groups regarding the induction-to-delivery (I-D) interval in a random effect model (mean difference, 0.71 hours; 95% confidence interval [CI], -2.50 to 3.91; P = .67). The highly significant heterogeneity (I = 97%) could be explained by the subgroup analysis of the type of Foley catheter and balloon volume. There was no significant difference between the 2 methods regarding the cesarean delivery rate (relative risk, 0.91; 95% CI, 0.78-1.07; P = .24), Apgar score, or side effects, including maternal infection rate, postpartum hemorrhage, and hyperstimulation. No obvious publication bias was found. CONCLUSIONS According to the cesarean delivery rate, the intracervical Foley catheter balloon was as efficient as the dinoprostone insert. A moderate balloon volume (30 mL) and higher dose of dinoprostone (≥6 mg) were related to shorter I-D intervals. Additionally, there was no significant difference between the two methods regarding maternal or neonatal safety.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Lixia Zhu
- Obstetrics and Gynecology Department, First Peoples Hospital of Kunshan
| | - Cong Zhang
- Pharmacy Department, Traditional Chinese Medicine Hospital of Kunshan
| | - Fang Cao
- Department of General Surgery, First Peoples Hospital of Kunshan
| | - Qin Liu
- Obstetrics and Gynecology Department, First Peoples Hospital of Kunshan
| | - Xing Gu
- Obstetrics and Gynecology Department, First Peoples Hospital of Kunshan
| | - Jianhao Xu
- Clinical Medicine College, Soochow University, Suzhou Jiangsu, China
| | - Jianqing Li
- Clinical Medicine College, Soochow University, Suzhou Jiangsu, China
| |
Collapse
|
7
|
Bertholdt C, Morel O, Dap M, Choserot M, Minebois H. Labor induction in indicated moderate to late preterm birth. J Matern Fetal Neonatal Med 2018; 33:157-161. [PMID: 29886774 DOI: 10.1080/14767058.2018.1487942] [Citation(s) in RCA: 3] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.5] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 01/13/2023]
Abstract
Introduction: The primary objective of this study was to evaluate the success of labor induction for indicated moderate and late preterm birth. As secondary objectives, the mode of delivery was assessed.Material and methods: This is an observational study conducted in a tertiary care unit between 2013 and 2015. All patients who underwent labor induction for indicated preterm birth between 32+0 and 36+6 weeks of gestation (as premature rupture of membranes, preeclampsia, intrauterine growth restriction, fetomaternal alloimmunization, or intrahepatic cholestasis) were included. The main outcome was the success of labor induction defined by repeated uterine contractions associated with cervical dilation >3 cm. The secondary outcomes were mode of delivery and neonatal outcomes.Results: Among 824 women who gave birth during the study period, 105 (12.7%) underwent induction of labor for indicated preterm birth. Labor induction was successful in 90.5% of cases (95/105), and 72.4% of the women (76/105) delivered vaginally. The success rate did not differ significantly in cases of moderate (32+0 to 33+6 weeks), compared with late (34+0 to 36+6 weeks) preterm birth (87.5 versus 90.7%, p = .56). The vaginal delivery rate was significantly lower in moderate compared to late preterm birth (37.5 versus 75.3%, p = .03).Conclusion: The success of labor induction and consecutive vaginal delivery were high in case of moderate and late preterm birth. Labor induction can be considered as an effective option for medical indications.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
| | - Olivier Morel
- Obstetric Department, CHRU de Nancy, Nancy, France.,Unité INSERM U1254, Les-Nancy, France
| | - Matthieu Dap
- Obstetric Department, CHRU de Nancy, Nancy, France
| | - Marion Choserot
- Obstetric Department, CHRU de Nancy, Nancy, France.,Clinique Arc en ciel, Service de gynécologie obstétrique, Epinal, France
| | | |
Collapse
|
8
|
Alfirevic Z, Keeney E, Dowswell T, Welton NJ, Medley N, Dias S, Jones LV, Gyte G, Caldwell DM. Which method is best for the induction of labour? A systematic review, network meta-analysis and cost-effectiveness analysis. Health Technol Assess 2018; 20:1-584. [PMID: 27587290 DOI: 10.3310/hta20650] [Citation(s) in RCA: 69] [Impact Index Per Article: 11.5] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 12/25/2022] Open
Abstract
BACKGROUND More than 150,000 pregnant women in England and Wales have their labour induced each year. Multiple pharmacological, mechanical and complementary methods are available to induce labour. OBJECTIVE To assess the relative effectiveness, safety and cost-effectiveness of labour induction methods and, data permitting, effects in different clinical subgroups. METHODS We carried out a systematic review using Cochrane methods. The Cochrane Pregnancy and Childbirth Group's Trials Register was searched (March 2014). This contains over 22,000 reports of controlled trials (published from 1923 onwards) retrieved from weekly searches of OVID MEDLINE (1966 to current); Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (The Cochrane Library); EMBASE (1982 to current); Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (1984 to current); ClinicalTrials.gov; the World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Portal; and hand-searching of relevant conference proceedings and journals. We included randomised controlled trials examining interventions to induce labour compared with placebo, no treatment or other interventions in women eligible for third-trimester induction. We included outcomes relating to efficacy, safety and acceptability to women. In addition, for the economic analysis we searched the Database of Abstracts of Reviews of Effects, and Economic Evaluations Databases, NHS Economic Evaluation Database and the Health Technology Assessment database. We carried out a network meta-analysis (NMA) using all of the available evidence, both direct and indirect, to produce estimates of the relative effects of each treatment compared with others in a network. We developed a de novo decision tree model to estimate the cost-effectiveness of various methods. The costs included were the intervention and other hospital costs incurred (price year 2012-13). We reviewed the literature to identify preference-based utilities for the health-related outcomes in the model. We calculated incremental cost-effectiveness ratios, expected costs, utilities and net benefit. We represent uncertainty in the optimal intervention using cost-effectiveness acceptability curves. RESULTS We identified 1190 studies; 611 were eligible for inclusion. The interventions most likely to achieve vaginal delivery (VD) within 24 hours were intravenous oxytocin with amniotomy [posterior rank 2; 95% credible intervals (CrIs) 1 to 9] and higher-dose (≥ 50 µg) vaginal misoprostol (rank 3; 95% CrI 1 to 6). Compared with placebo, several treatments reduced the odds of caesarean section, but we observed considerable uncertainty in treatment rankings. For uterine hyperstimulation, double-balloon catheter had the highest probability of being among the best three treatments, whereas vaginal misoprostol (≥ 50 µg) was most likely to increase the odds of excessive uterine activity. For other safety outcomes there were insufficient data or there was too much uncertainty to identify which treatments performed 'best'. Few studies collected information on women's views. Owing to incomplete reporting of the VD within 24 hours outcome, the cost-effectiveness analysis could compare only 20 interventions. The analysis suggested that most interventions have similar utility and differ mainly in cost. With a caveat of considerable uncertainty, titrated (low-dose) misoprostol solution and buccal/sublingual misoprostol had the highest likelihood of being cost-effective. LIMITATIONS There was considerable uncertainty in findings and there were insufficient data for some planned subgroup analyses. CONCLUSIONS Overall, misoprostol and oxytocin with amniotomy (for women with favourable cervix) is more successful than other agents in achieving VD within 24 hours. The ranking according to safety of different methods was less clear. The cost-effectiveness analysis suggested that titrated (low-dose) oral misoprostol solution resulted in the highest utility, whereas buccal/sublingual misoprostol had the lowest cost. There was a high degree of uncertainty as to the most cost-effective intervention. FUTURE WORK Future trials should be powered to detect a method that is more cost-effective than misoprostol solution and report outcomes included in this NMA. STUDY REGISTRATION This study is registered as PROSPERO CRD42013005116. FUNDING The National Institute for Health Research Health Technology Assessment programme.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Zarko Alfirevic
- Centre for Women's Health Research, University of Liverpool and Liverpool Women's Hospital, Liverpool, UK
| | - Edna Keeney
- School of Social and Community Medicine, University of Bristol, Bristol, UK
| | - Therese Dowswell
- Centre for Women's Health Research, University of Liverpool and Liverpool Women's Hospital, Liverpool, UK
| | - Nicky J Welton
- School of Social and Community Medicine, University of Bristol, Bristol, UK
| | - Nancy Medley
- Centre for Women's Health Research, University of Liverpool and Liverpool Women's Hospital, Liverpool, UK
| | - Sofia Dias
- School of Social and Community Medicine, University of Bristol, Bristol, UK
| | - Leanne V Jones
- Centre for Women's Health Research, University of Liverpool and Liverpool Women's Hospital, Liverpool, UK
| | - Gillian Gyte
- Centre for Women's Health Research, University of Liverpool and Liverpool Women's Hospital, Liverpool, UK
| | - Deborah M Caldwell
- School of Social and Community Medicine, University of Bristol, Bristol, UK
| |
Collapse
|
9
|
Patabendige M, Jayawardane A. Foley catheter for cervical priming in induction of labour at University Obstetrics Unit, Colombo, Sri Lanka: a clinical audit with a patient satisfaction survey. BMC Res Notes 2017; 10:155. [PMID: 28403891 PMCID: PMC5389149 DOI: 10.1186/s13104-017-2478-z] [Citation(s) in RCA: 6] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.9] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 12/25/2015] [Accepted: 04/04/2017] [Indexed: 11/10/2022] Open
Abstract
BACKGROUND Intracervical insertion of a Foley catheter (FC) has shown to be a safe, effective and relatively feasible mechanical method of cervical priming in induction of labour (IOL). We evaluated indications, effectiveness, patient acceptability and outcomes of FC use in IOL adhering to the ward protocol in our unit. METHODS A clinical audit with a patient satisfaction survey conducted between July and September 2013 in University Obstetric Unit, Colombo, Sri Lanka. Patients selected for IOL for obstetric reasons were primed with Foley as per ward protocol. All had singleton pregnancies with cephalic presentation, intact membranes and period of gestation of 37 weeks or above. Women with a history of more than one caesarean section or uterine surgery, low-lying placenta and fetal growth restriction were excluded. Subjects who had a Modified Bishop Score (MBS) of less than 3, a 16Fr FC was inserted into cervical canal. Catheter was left undisturbed until spontaneous expulsion or no longer than 48 h. In women with MBS of less than 6 at 48 h after FC insertion, 3 mg prostaglandin E2 vaginal tablet was used subsequently. Artificial membrane rupture with or without oxytocin was used if MBS of 6 or more and in women not in labour 24 h after prostaglandins. Patient satisfaction for Foley insertion was assessed with regards to the degree of comfort using a validated visual analogue scale (0-10). RESULTS There were a total of 910 deliveries during the study period. Fifty-six women were primed with FC. Thirty-two (57%) were nulliparous. During induction of labour, 53(95%) reported mild or no discomfort. MBS of 6 or more was achieved in 36/56 (64%) Foley insertions. Twenty needed further intervention with prostaglandins. FC only group had 5 caesarean sections and 31 vaginal deliveries and Foley/prostaglandin group had 7 caesarean sections and 13 vaginal deliveries. Of the 24 women who were induced due to completion of 41 weeks of gestation with otherwise uncomplicated pregnancies, 17 had MBS >6 post priming with Foley and 20 (83%) delivered vaginally. Subjects who had Foley only had a lesser chance of having a caesarean delivery compared to subjects who had Foley followed by prostaglandin (relative risk = 0.40, 95% CI = 0.15-1.09, P = 0.09). DISCUSSION FC is a good choice for pre-induction cervical priming with high patient comfort. FC becomes more important in IOL cost reduction in our setting. FC alone seems to be an effective for IOL in women who have completed 41 weeks of gestation with otherwise uncomplicated pregnancies.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- M. Patabendige
- University Obstetrics Unit, De Soysa Hospital for Women, Colombo-08, Colombo, Sri Lanka
| | - A. Jayawardane
- Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, Faculty of Medicine, University of Colombo, Kinsey Road, Colombo, Sri Lanka
| |
Collapse
|
10
|
Jozwiak M, Bloemenkamp KWM, Kelly AJ, Mol BWJ, Irion O, Boulvain M. Mechanical methods for induction of labour. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2012:CD001233. [PMID: 22419277 DOI: 10.1002/14651858.cd001233.pub2] [Citation(s) in RCA: 146] [Impact Index Per Article: 12.2] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 11/07/2022]
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 simplicity of preservation, lower cost and reduction of the side effects. OBJECTIVES To determine the effects of mechanical methods for third trimester cervical ripening or induction of labour in comparison with placebo/no treatment, prostaglandins (vaginal and intracervical prostaglandin E2 (PGE2), misoprostol) and oxytocin. SEARCH METHODS We searched the Cochrane Pregnancy and Childbirth Group's Trials Register (30 April 2011) and bibliographies of relevant papers. We updated this search on 16 January 2012 and added the 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 methods listed above it on a predefined list of methods of labour. A comparison with amniotomy will be added, should this comparison be made in future trials.Different types of intervention have been considered as mechanical methods: (1) introduction of laminaria tents, or their synthetic equivalent (Dilapan), into the cervical canal; (2) the introduction of a catheter through the cervix into the extra-amniotic space, with or without traction; (3) use of a catheter to inject fluidsin the extra-amniotic spaceIn addition, we made other comparisons: (1) specific mechanical methods (balloon catheter and laminaria tents) compared with any prostaglandins or with oxytocin; (2) addition of prostaglandins or oxytocin to mechanical methods compared with prostaglandins alone. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS Two review authors independently assessed trials for inclusion and assessed risk of bias. Two review authors independently extracted data. MAIN RESULTS For this update we have included a further 27 studies. The review includes 71 randomised controlled trials (total of 9722 women), ranging from 39 to 588 women per study. Most studies reported on caesarean section, all other outcomes are based on substantially fewer women. Four additional studies are ongoing.Mechanical methods versus no treatment: one study (48 woman) reported on women who did not achieve vaginal delivery within 24 hours (risk ratio (RR) 0.90; 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.64 to 1.26). The risk of caesarean section was similar between groups (six studies; 416 women, RR 1.00; 95% CI 0.76 to 1.30). There were no cases of severe neonatal and maternal morbidity.Mechanical methods versus vaginal PGE2 (17 studies;1894 woman): The proportion of women who did not achieve vaginal delivery within 24 hours was not significantly different (three studies; 586 women RR 1.72; 95% CI 0.90 to 3.27); however, for the subgroup of multiparous women the risk of not achieving delivery within 24 hours was higher (one study; 147 women RR 4.38, 95% CI 1.74 to 10.98), with no increase in caesarean sections (RR 1.19, 95% CI 0.62-2.29). Compared with intracervical PGE2 (14 studies;1784 women and misoprostol there was no significant difference in the proportion of women not achieving vaginal delivery within 24 hours.Mechanical methods reduced the risk of hyperstimulation with fetal heart rate changes when compared with vaginal prostaglandins: vaginal PGE2 (eight studies; 1203 women, RR 0.16; 95% CI 0.06 to 0.39) and misoprostol (3% versus 9%) (nine studies; 1615 women, RR 0.37; 95% CI 0.25 to 0.54). Risk of caesarean section between mechanical methods and prostaglandins was comparable. Serious neonatal and maternal morbidity were infrequently reported and did not differ between the groups.Mechanical methods compared with induction with oxytocin (reduced the risk of caesarean section (five studies; 398 women, RR 0.62; 95% CI 0.42 to 0.90). The likelihood of vaginal delivery within 24 hours was not reported. Hyperstimulation with fetal heart rate changes was reported in one study (200 participants), and did not differ. There were no reported cases of severe maternal or neonatal morbidity. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS Induction of labour using mechanical methods results in similar caesarean section rates as prostaglandins, for a lower risk of hyperstimulation. Mechanical methods do not increase the overall number of women not delivered within 24 hours, however the proportion of multiparous women who did not achieve vaginal delivery within 24 hours was higher when compared with vaginal PGE2. Compared with oxytocin, mechanical methods reduce the risk of caesarean section.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Marta Jozwiak
- Department ofObstetrics andGynaecology,GroeneHartHospital,Gouda,Netherlands
| | | | | | | | | | | |
Collapse
|