Meta-analysis of Foley catheter plus misoprostol versus misoprostol alone for cervical ripening

Obesity at term: What to consider? How to deliver?

Obesity presents significant challenges during pregnancy, increasing the risk of complications and adverse outcomes for both mother and baby. With the rising prevalence of obesity among pregnant women, questions arise regarding optimal management, including timing of delivery and choice of delivery mode. Labour induction in obese women may require a combination of mechanical and pharmacological methods due to increased risk of failed induction. Caesarean section in obese women presents unique challenges, requiring comprehensive perioperative planning and specialized care to optimize outcomes. However, specific guidelines tailored to obese patients undergoing caesarean sections are lacking. Postpartum care should include vigilant monitoring for complications. Addressing obesity in pregnancy necessitates a multidisciplinary approach and specialized care to ensure the best outcomes.

Single-balloon catheter with concomitant vaginal misoprostol is the most effective strategy for labor induction: a meta-review with network meta-analysis

OBJECTIVE

Several systematic reviews and meta-analyses have been conducted to summarize the evidence for the efficacy of various labor induction agents. However, the most effective agents or strategies have not been conclusively determined. We aimed to perform a meta-review and network meta-analysis of published systematic reviews to determine the efficacy and safety of currently employed pharmacologic, mechanical, and combined methods of labor induction.

DATA SOURCES

With the assistance of an experienced medical librarian, we performed a systematic search of the literature using PubMed, EMBASE, and the Cochrane Central Register of Control Trials. We systematically searched electronic databases from inception to May 31, 2021.

STUDY ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA

We considered systematic reviews and meta-analyses of randomized controlled trials comparing different agents or methods for inpatient labor induction.

METHODS

We conducted a frequentist random-effects network meta-analysis employing data from randomized controlled trials of published systematic reviews. We performed direct pairwise meta-analyses to compare the efficacy of the various labor induction agents and placebo or no treatment. We performed ranking to determine the best treatment using the surface under the cumulative ranking curve. The main outcomes assessed were cesarean delivery, vaginal delivery within 24 hours, operative vaginal delivery, hyperstimulation, neonatal intensive care unit admissions, and Apgar scores of <7 at 5 minutes of birth.

RESULTS

We included 11 systematic reviews and extracted data from 207 randomized controlled trials with a total of 40,854 participants. When assessing the efficacy of all agents and methods, the combination of a single-balloon catheter with misoprostol was the most effective in reducing the odds of cesarean delivery and vaginal birth >24 hours (surface under the cumulative ranking curve of 0.9 for each). Among the pharmacologic agents, low-dose vaginal misoprostol was the most effective in reducing the odds of cesarean delivery, whereas high-dose vaginal misoprostol was the most effective in achieving vaginal delivery within 24 hours (surface under the cumulative ranking curve of 0.9 for each). Single-balloon catheter (surface under the cumulative ranking curve of 0.8) and double-balloon catheter (surface under the cumulative ranking curve of 0.9) were the most effective in reducing the odds of operative vaginal delivery and hyperstimulation. Buccal or sublingual misoprostol (surface under the cumulative ranking curve of 0.9) and the combination of single-balloon catheter and misoprostol (surface under the cumulative ranking curve of 0.9) most effectively reduced the odds of abnormal Apgar scores and neonatal intensive care unit admissions.

CONCLUSION

The combination of a single-balloon catheter with misoprostol was the most effective method in reducing the odds for cesarean delivery and prolonged time to vaginal delivery. This method was associated with a reduction in admissions to the neonatal intensive care unit.

Methods for the induction of labor: efficacy and safety

This review assessed the efficacy and safety of pharmacologic agents (prostaglandins, oxytocin, mifepristone, hyaluronidase, and nitric oxide donors) and mechanical methods (single- and double-balloon catheters, laminaria, membrane stripping, and amniotomy) and those generally considered under the rubric of complementary medicine (castor oil, nipple stimulation, sexual intercourse, herbal medicine, and acupuncture). A substantial body of published reports, including 2 large network meta-analyses, support the safety and efficacy of misoprostol (PGE1) when used for cervical ripening and labor induction. Misoprostol administered vaginally at doses of 50 μg has the highest probability of achieving vaginal delivery within 24 hours. Regardless of dosing, route, and schedule of administration, when used for cervical ripening and labor induction, prostaglandin E2 seems to have similar efficacy in decreasing cesarean delivery rates. Globally, although oxytocin represents the most widely used pharmacologic agent for labor induction, its effectiveness is highly dependent on parity and cervical status. Oxytocin is more effective than expectant management in inducing labor, and the efficacy of oxytocin is enhanced when combined with amniotomy. However, prostaglandins administered vaginally or intracervically are more effective in inducing labor than oxytocin. A single 200-mg oral tablet of mifepristone seems to represent the lowest effective dose for cervical ripening. The bulk of the literature assessing relaxin suggests this agent has limited benefit when used for this indication. Although intracervical injection of hyaluronidase may cause cervical ripening, the need for intracervical administration has limited the use of this agent. Concerning the vaginal administration of nitric oxide donors, including isosorbide mononitrate, isosorbide, nitroglycerin, and sodium nitroprusside, the higher incidence of side effects with these agents has limited their use. A synthetic hygroscopic cervical dilator has been found to be effective for preinduction cervical ripening. Although a pharmacologic agent may be administered after the use of the synthetic hygroscopic dilator, in an attempt to reduce the interval to vaginal delivery, concomitant use of mechanical and pharmacologic methods is being explored. Combining the use of a single-balloon catheter with dinoprostone, misoprostol, or oxytocin enhances the efficacy of these pharmacologic agents in cervical ripening and labor induction. The efficacy of single- and double-balloon catheters in cervical ripening and labor induction seems similar. To date, the combination of misoprostol with an intracervical catheter seems to be the best approach when balancing delivery times with safety. Although complementary methods are occasionally used by patients, given the lack of data documenting their efficacy and safety, these methods are rarely used in hospital settings.

Expediting labor induction in severe pre-eclampsia by earlier initiation of oxytocin after cervical ripening: A randomized study from India

OBJECTIVE

To observe whether induction of labor (IoL) among women with severe pre-eclampsia (PE) can be expedited by initiating oxytocin early (after 6 h) than after 12 h following cervical ripening with a combined method.

METHODS

Women with severe PE and Bishop's < 6 (n = 96) were randomized into two groups. All women received cervical ripening with a combined method (intracervical Foley's plus dinoprostone gel 0.5 mg) following which Group 1 women received oxytocin after 6 h (with Foley's in-situ) and Group 2 after 12 h (after removing Foley's) RESULTS: Majority were nulliparous (63% in group 1 and 77% in group 2) and the mean gestation was similar (35.3 ± 2.98 weeks in group 1 and 35.5 ± 3.09 in group 2). Nearly half the women had partial HELLP/ HELLP (47.9% and 54.1%; in groups 1 and 2, respectively). The induction-delivery interval (IDI) was significantly reduced in group 1 (16 h 6 min vs 22 h 6 min in group 2; p = 0.001). The cesarean section (CS) rate was 37.5% in group 1 and 31.3% in group 2 (p = 0.525), but the study was underpowered to assess this outcome. The neonatal outcome was similar, 92/96 neonates were discharged after a hospital stay of 3-52 days. There were 4 neonatal deaths (1 in group 1 and 3 in group 2) of extreme or very preterm neonates (27-30 + 6 wks) with birth weight of 735-965 gm.

CONCLUSION

Among women with severe PE undergoing IoL, initiating oxytocin 6 h after cervical ripening with a combined method reduced the IDI significantly as compared to initiating it after 12 h, with a similar CS rate and neonatal outcome.

Evidence-Based Approaches to Labor Induction

Importance

The induction rate continues to increase in the United States placing pressure on the health care system with increasing cost and time spent on labor and delivery. Most labor induction regimens have evaluated uncomplicated singleton-term gestations. Unfortunately, the optimal labor regimens of medically complicated pregnancies have not been well described.

Objective

The aim of this study was to review the current available evidence regarding the various labor induction regimens and understand the evidence that exists for induction regimens in complicated pregnancies.

Evidence Acquisition

Data were acquired by a literature search on PubMed, ClinicalTrials.gov, the Cochrane Review database, the most recent American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists practice bulletin on labor induction, and a review of the most recent edition on widely used obstetric texts for key words related to labor induction.

Results

Many heterogeneous clinical trials exist examining various labor induction regimens such as prostaglandin only, oxytocin only, or a combination of mechanical dilation with prostaglandins or oxytocin. Several Cochrane systematic reviews have been performed, which suggest a combination of prostaglandins and mechanical dilation results in an improved time to delivery when compared with single-use methods. Evaluating pregnancies complicated by maternal or fetal conditions, there exist retrospective cohorts describing significantly different labor outcomes. Although a few of these populations have planned or active clinical trials, most do not have an optimal labor induction regimen described.

Conclusions and Relevance

Most induction trials are significantly heterogeneous and limited to uncomplicated pregnancies. A combination of prostaglandins and mechanical dilation may result in improved outcomes. Complicated pregnancies have significantly different labor outcomes; however, almost none have well-described labor induction regimens.

Comparison of intracervical Foley catheter combined with a single dose of vaginal misoprostol tablet or intracervical dinoprostone gel for cervical ripening: a randomised study

We compared two combined methods for cervical ripening before induction of labour (IOL) Women (n = 150) were randomised into Foley's-misoprostol (n = 75) and Foley's-dinoprostone (n = 75) groups. A single dose of vaginal misoprostol tablet (25 µg) or intracervical dinoprostone gel (0.5 mg) were used alongwith intracervical Foley's. The primary outcome was induction-delivery interval (IDI) and secondary outcomes were change in Bishop's score, oxytocin requirement, caesarean section (CS) rate, chorioamnionitis and neonatal outcome. The mean parity, gestation and indications for IOL were similar in the two groups. The IDI (19 h 37 min and 19 h 20 min; p = .683), cervical ripening time, oxytocin requirement, CS rate (18.7 and 25.4%, p = .322) and neonatal outcome were similar. Hyperstimulation developed in 2.7% women with Foley's-misoprostol and in 1.3% with Foley's-dinoprostone (p = .55). No woman had chorioamnionitis. Thus, these two combined methods of cervical ripening and IOL were observed to be similarly efficacious. A low incidence of hyperstimulation and no chorioamnionitis may be attributed to using a single dose of prostaglandins. Misoprostol may be substituted for dinoprostone in resource limited countries.Impact statementWhat is already known on this subject? Combined methods for cervical ripening (intracervical Foley's plus prostaglandins) before induction of labour (IOL) may be similarly or more efficacious than individual methods. Most studies comparing various combined methods have used repeated doses of prostaglandins. A combined method using repetitive doses of prostaglandins may increase the risk of hyperstimulation and also of infection consequent to repeated vaginal examination to administer prostaglandins. These two concerns may be offset by combining a single dose of prostaglandin with intracervical Foley's catheter.What do the results of this study add? Two combined methods for cervical ripening using a single dose of vaginal misoprostol (25 µg) or intracervical dinoprostone gel (0.5 mg) co-administered with intracervical Foley's catheter were found to be similarly efficacious. The IDI (19 h 37 min and 19 h 20 min; p = .683), cervical ripening time, oxytocin requirement, CS rate (18.7 and 25.4%, p = .322) and neonatal outcome were similar. The incidence of hyperstimulation was low (2.7 and 1.3% with Foley's-misoprostol and Foley's-dinoprostone, respectively) and no woman had chorioamnionitis.What are the implications of these findings for clinical practice and/or further research? Combined methods for cervical ripening using a single dose of prostaglandins (misoprostol or dinoprostone) were observed to be similarly efficacious. Misoprostol is a cheaper alternative to dinoprostone and may be utilised in resource limited countries. These methods may be compared with each other in more number of women in order to identify which combined method is more efficient and safe. Clinical Trials Registry of India: CTRI/2017/12/010738.

Foley catheter and controlled release dinoprostone versus foley catheter labor induction in nulliparas: a randomized trial

PURPOSE

To evaluate Foley catheter and controlled release dinoprostone insert compared to foley catheter alone on induction to delivery interval and maternal satisfaction.

METHODS

A randomized trial was conducted in a university hospital in Malaysia from December 2018 to May 2019. Term nulliparas with unfavorable cervix (Bishop score ≤ 5) scheduled for labor induction were randomized to Foley catheter and controlled release dinoprostone insert simultaneously or Foley catheter alone. Primary outcomes were induction to delivery interval (hours) and maternal satisfaction on birth experience (assessed by 11-point Visual Numerical Rating Scale VNRS 0-10, higher score more satisfied).

RESULTS

Induction to vaginal delivery intervals was mean ± standard deviation 22.5 ± 10.4 vs. 35.1 ± 14.9 h, P =  < 0.001 but maternal satisfaction on birth experience was not significantly different median[interquartile range] VNRS 8[7-9] vs. 8[7-9], P = 0.12 for Foley catheter-controlled-release dinoprostone and Foley catheter alone arms, respectively. Cesarean delivery rates were 35/102(34.3%) vs. 50/101(49.5%), P = 0.02 RR 0.7 95% CI 0.5-0.9 NNTb 6.3 95% CI 3.5-39.4, pain score at 6 h after catheter insertion 5[2-8] vs. 1[1-3], P < 0.001, Bishop score at trial devices removal 9[9-10] vs. 8[7-9], P = 0.001, requirement for oxytocin induction or augmentation 39/102(38.2%) vs. 76/101(75.2%) NNTb 3 95% CI 2.0-4.1, P < 0.001 and amniotomy rates 73/99(73.7%) vs. 81/95(85.3%), P = 0.052 RR 0.9 85% CI 0.8-1.0 in Foley catheter-controlled-release dinoprostone and Foley catheter alone arms respectively.

CONCLUSION

In nulliparas with unripe cervixes at term, combined Foley catheter and controlled release dinoprostone vaginal insert compared to Foley catheter alone reduces the induction to vaginal delivery interval and cesarean delivery rate but satisfaction was not significantly increased.

CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION

ISRCTN2282883, 03/12/2018, "prospectively registered" ( https://doi.org/10.1186/ISRCTN12282883 ).

Controlled Release Dinoprostone Insert and Foley Compared to Foley Alone: A Randomized Pilot Trial

OBJECTIVE

The aim of study is to compare, in a pilot study, combined dinoprostone vaginal insert and Foley catheter (DVI + Foley) with Foley alone (Foley) for cervical ripening and labor induction at term.

STUDY DESIGN

In this open-label pilot randomized controlled trial, women not in labor, with intact membranes, no prior uterine incision, an unfavorable cervix, gestational age ≥37 weeks, and a live, nonanomalous singleton fetus in cephalic presentation were randomly assigned, stratified by parity, to DVI + Foley or Foley. Oxytocin was used in both groups after cervical ripening. Primary outcome was time to vaginal delivery.

RESULTS

From April 2017 to January 2018, 100 women were randomized. Median (25-75th percentile) time to vaginal delivery for nulliparous women was 21.2 (16.6-38.0) hours with DVI + Foley (n = 26) compared with 31.3 (23.3-46.9) hours with Foley (n = 24) (Wilcoxon p = 0.05). Median time to vaginal delivery for parous women was 17.1 (13.6-21.9) hours with DVI + Foley (n = 25) compared with 14.8 (12.7-19.5) hours with Foley (n = 25) (Wilcoxon p = 0.21). Results were also analyzed to consider the competing risk of cesarean using cumulative incidence functions.

CONCLUSION

Compared with Foley alone, combined use of the dinoprostone vaginal insert and Foley for cervical ripening may shorten time to vaginal delivery for nulliparous but not parous women.

Labour Induction with Misoprostol in German Obstetric Clinics: What Are the Facts on Such Use?

Subject While the synthetic prostaglandin E1 analogue misoprostol is the most effect labour induction agent, its use is off-label for the most part. For this reason, and in view of its potential adverse effects and varying approaches to its administration, the drug has recently once again become a focus of critical attention. The objective of this survey was thus to establish a record of labour induction with misoprostol in German clinics and determine the impact of the negative reporting on everyday obstetric practice. Material and Methods In this cross-sectional study, 635 obstetrics and gynaecology departments in Germany were requested by email to participate in our survey in February/March 2020. Online responses to 19 questions were requested regarding the clinic, use of misoprostol before and after the critical reporting, use of misoprostol (sourcing, method of administration, dosage, monitoring) and other labour induction methods. Results A total of 262 (41.3%) of the clinics solicited for the survey completed the questionnaire. There were no differences regarding the care level (Perinatal Centre Level I, Perinatal Centre Level II, Clinic with Perinatal Focus or Obstetric/Private Clinic; p = 0.2104) or birth counts (p = 0.1845). In most cases, misoprostol was prepared in the clinic's own pharmacy (54%) or imported from another country (46%) and administered orally in tablet form (95%). Misoprostol dosage levels varied (25 µg [48%], 50 µg [83%], 75 µg [6%], 100 µg [47%] and > 100 µg [5%]). Most of the clinics used premanufactured tablets/capsules (59%), although Cytotec tablets were also divided (35%) or dissolved in water (5%). Misoprostol administration intervals were mainly every 4 hours (64%) or every 6 hours (30%). CTG checks were run in most cases before and after administration of a dose of misoprostol (78% and 76%) and before and after administration of a dose of prostaglandin E2 (both 88%). Presence of contractions led to no misoprostol (59%) or no prostaglandin E2 (64%) being administered in most cases. The critical reporting resulted in discontinuation of use of misoprostol in 17% of the clinics - mainly smaller obstetric/private clinics with fewer than 1000 births. Labour cocktails were used mainly in obstetric and private clinics (61%). Conclusion Misoprostol is an established agent for labour induction in German clinics. The dosing schemes used vary. Improvements of currently common management practices are required, especially in the area of labour induction (CTG checks before and after administration of labour-inducing medication, no administration of prostaglandin if contractions are ongoing). The discussion of use of misoprostol in the media resulted in stoppage of its use mainly in smaller clinics.

Vaginal misoprostol versus intracervical Foley catheter for cervical ripening in postdate primigravid women: a randomized clinical trial

BACKGROUND

Being one of the most common indications of labor induction, postdate pregnancy can lead to serious maternal and fetal complications. In this study we aimed to compare vaginal misoprostol with intracervical Foley catheter (FC) for cervical ripening in postdate primigravid women.

METHODS

This randomized clinical trial included 120 primigravid women aged 18-35 years with singleton,  postdate pregnancies, and Bishop score ≤ 4. Participants were randomized into two equal groups. The first group received 25 µg vaginal misoprostol and the second group had an 18 Fr FC inserted into their cervical canal. Labor induction was performed using oxytocin in both groups if progression of labor or true contractions did not occur within 6 h of the interventions. In case of nonreassuring fetal heart rate, fetal distress, placental abruption, or prolonged labor, C-section was performed.

RESULTS

The frequency of normal vaginal delivery, Cesarean section, meconium-stained amniotic fluid, and neonatal intensive care unit admission did not differ significantly between groups. Placental abruption and uterine tachysystole occurred more frequently in the misoprostol group (15.0 vs. 1.7%, P = 0.008 and 21.7 vs. 0.0%, P < 0.001, respectively). A significantly higher number of women in the FC group required oxytocin (73.3 vs. 41.7%, P < 0.001). Duration of labor was significantly higher in the FC group (P = 0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

Due to the lower rate of placental abruption and uterine tachysystole observed with FC, it appears to be superior to vaginal misoprostol for cervical ripening in postdate primigravid women; however, its longer labor duration and higher oxytocin requirement should be taken into consideration.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

Iranian Registry of Clinical Trials, IRCT20181218042033N4 . Registered 19/04/2020. Retrospectively registered, https://www.irct.ir/trial/47037.

Foley Bulb Added to an Oral Misoprostol Induction Protocol: A Cluster Randomized Trial

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate whether the induction of labor in term gravid women with cervical dilation 2 cm or less and intact membranes by using oral misoprostol preceded by transcervical Foley bulb placement results in a significantly increased vaginal delivery rate compared with the use of oral misoprostol alone.

METHODS

We randomized the induction method by week of admission to labor and delivery, with each week group described as a cluster in a block randomized design. Women with gestational age of 37 weeks or greater, cervical dilation 2 cm or less, intact membranes, and indication for labor induction were included. Study arms were either 100 micrograms of oral misoprostol after transcervical Foley bulb placement or 100 micrograms of oral misoprostol alone. The primary outcome was vaginal delivery with the first induction attempt. Secondary outcomes included time to delivery, clinical chorioamnionitis (maternal temperature of 38°C or greater during labor with or without fundal tenderness, without other identified cause), cesarean delivery indication, and adverse outcomes. We estimated that a sample size of 1,077 per arm was needed to detect a 5% increase in vaginal delivery rate with a type I error of 5% and power of 80%, accounting for interim analysis and cluster size of 30 inductions per week. This was a pragmatic trial, and analysis was by intention-to-treat.

RESULTS

From January 1, 2018, to May 13, 2019, 1,117 women (34 clusters) were assigned to oral misoprostol plus Foley and 1,110 women (34 clusters) to oral misoprostol alone. Demographic characteristics were similar. Vaginal delivery at the first induction occurred in 78% of the misoprostol plus Foley arm and in 77% of the misoprostol arm (relative risk [RR] 1.00; 95% CI 0.96-1.05; adjusted relative risk [aRR], 1.00; 95% CI 0.95-1.05). Clinical chorioamnionitis occurred in 18% of the misoprostol plus Foley arm and in 14% of the misoprostol arm (RR 1.30; 95% CI 1.07-1.58; aRR 1.30; 95% CI 1.08-1.56). There were no differences in neonatal outcomes.

CONCLUSION

Induction of labor in gravid women at term with intact membranes by using oral misoprostol plus Foley bulb did not result in a higher vaginal delivery rate, but it did result in more clinical chorioamnionitis compared with the use of oral misoprostol alone.

CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION

ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT03407625.

Combination of Foley and prostaglandins versus Foley and oxytocin for cervical ripening: a network meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Trial and meta-analysis data revealed a reduction in time to delivery for Foley and prostaglandins or Foley and oxytocin vs Foley alone. However, there are limited data for the comparison of the 2 combination methods against each other.

OBJECTIVE

This study aimed to determine whether Foley and prostaglandins or Foley and oxytocin decrease the time to vaginal delivery using a network meta-analysis.

STUDY DESIGN

A network meta-analysis (PROSPERO CRD42018081948) was performed comparing Foley and prostaglandins (prostaglandin E1 or prostaglandin E2) vs Foley and oxytocin for cervical ripening. Foley alone and prostaglandins alone were used as nodes for indirect comparison. Database searches were performed from inception to March 2020 with data abstracted from published manuscripts. Eligibility criteria included randomized trials comparing Foley and oxytocin with Foley and prostaglandins (misoprostol or dinoprostone). Trials that compared Foley catheter or prostaglandins with a combination of Foley and prostaglandins or Foley and concurrent oxytocin were also included. Nulliparous and multiparous women were analyzed together. Foley catheters of any catheter material or size and >24 weeks' gestational age with a live fetus were included. Quasi-randomized, cohorts, and other combination methods for cervical ripening were not included. Prostaglandin E1 and prostaglandin E2 combined methods were analyzed separately in a planned subanalysis. The primary outcome was the mean time from induction to vaginal delivery in hours. Secondary outcomes included time from induction to delivery, delivery within 24 hours, cesarean delivery, chorioamnionitis, endometritis, epidural use, tachysystole, postpartum hemorrhage, meconium, neonatal intensive care unit admission, and 5-minute appearance, pulse, grimace, activity, and respiration score of <7. Data were analyzed as a network meta-analysis using multivariate meta-regression.

RESULTS

A total of 30 randomized controlled trials with a total of 6465 women were considered eligible for inclusion in this network meta-analysis. When compared with Foley alone, the use of Foley-oxytocin reduced the time to vaginal delivery by 4.2 hours (mean duration, -4.2 hours; 95% confidence interval, -6.5 to -1.9). Foley-prostaglandins reduced the time to vaginal delivery compared with Foley but did not meet statistical significance (mean duration, -2.9 hours; 95% confidence interval, -5.7 to 0.0; P=.05). When compared head-to-head, there was no difference in the time to vaginal delivery between Foley-prostaglandins and Foley-oxytocin (mean duration, 1.3 hours; 95% confidence interval, -2.0 to 4.7). There was no difference in the rate of cesarean delivery, chorioamnionitis, epidural, tachysystole, postpartum hemorrhage, meconium, neonatal intensive care unit admissions, or 5-minute appearance, pulse, grimace, activity, and respiration score of <7 for Foley-prostaglandins vs Foley-oxytocin, although the rate of endometritis was high for Foley-prostaglandins. In the subanalysis by prostaglandin type, there was no difference in the time to vaginal delivery for Foley-misoprostol vs Foley-dinoprostone vs Foley-oxytocin. However, Foley-dinoprostone had a definite trend toward longer time to all deliveries compared with that of both Foley-misoprostol and Foley-oxytocin (P=.05).

CONCLUSION

Time to vaginal delivery was similar when comparing Foley with combined misoprostol, combined dinoprostone, and combined oxytocin. Dinoprostone comparisons are limited by small sample size but suggest longer time to delivery compared with Foley and misoprostol or oxytocin. No significant differences were observed in maternal or neonatal adverse events except for endometritis, but this was limited by the sample size, varied reporting of studies used in the indirect comparisons, and definitions of infectious morbidity use in the studies.

Induction of labor in continuing pregnancies

This chapter aims to provide an evidence-based approach to cervical-ripening methods and induction of labor in high-, middle-, and low-income countries. We will review the epidemiology of induction and will also review pharmacological and mechanical methods of cervical-ripening as well as oxytocin for induction. Lastly, we will review current guidelines of when to determine an induction to be failed.

Intracervical Foley Catheter Plus Intravaginal Misoprostol vs Intravaginal Misoprostol Alone for Cervical Ripening: A Meta-Analysis

Currently, there is no meta-analysis comparing intravaginal misoprostol plus intracervical Foley catheter versus intravaginal misoprostol alone for term pregnancy without identifying risk factors. Therefore, the purpose of this study is to conduct a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized control trials (RCTs) comparing concurrent intravaginal misoprostol and intracervical Foley catheter versus intravaginal misoprostol alone for cervical ripening. We systematically searched Embase, Pubmed, and Cochrane Collaboration databases for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing intracervical Foley catheter plus intravaginal misoprostol and intravaginal misoprostol alone using the search terms "Foley", "misoprostol", "cervical ripening", and "induction" up to 29 January 2019. Data were extracted and analyzed by two independent reviewers including study characteristics, induction time, cesarean section (C/S), clinical suspicion of chorioamnionitis, uterine tachysystole, meconium stain, and neonatal intensive care unit (NICU) admissions. Data was pooled using random effects modeling and calculated with risk ratio (RR) and 95% confidence interval (CI). Pooled analysis from eight studies, including 1110 women, showed that labor induction using a combination of intracervical Foley catheter and intravaginal misoprostol decreased induction time by 2.71 h (95% CI -4.33 to -1.08, p = 0.001), as well as the risk of uterine tachysystole and meconium staining (RR 0.54, 95% CI 0.30-0.99 and RR 0.48, 95% CI 0.32-0.73, respectively) significantly compared to those using intravaginal misoprostol alone. However, there was no difference in C/S rate (RR 0.93, 95% CI 0.78-1.11) or clinical suspicion of chorioamnionitis rate (RR 1.22, CI 0.58-2.57) between the two groups. Labor induction with a combination of intracervical Foley catheter and intravaginal misoprostol may be a better choice based on advantages in shortening induction time and reducing the risk of uterine tachysystole and meconium staining compared to intravaginal misoprostol alone.

A comparison between induction of labor with 3 methods of titrated oral misoprostol, constant dose of oral misoprostol and Foley catheter with extra amniotic saline infusion (EASI), in women with unfavorable cervix

Background: Different methods of cervical ripening and induction of labor have been used in the cases of unfavorable cervix with different levels of success, but no method has been found to be the best option. The purpose of the present study was to find the effects and side effects of three different methods of cervical ripening and induction of labor. These three methods were oral titrated misoprostol, constant dose of oral misoprostol and Foley catheter with extra-amniotic saline infusion.

Methods: This clinical trial was performed on women with unfavorable cervix who had been admitted in Akbarabadi Teaching Hospital for induction of labor and had bishop score of less than six; between March 2014- March 2015. The eligible women were assigned into three groups. In titrated oral misoprostol group (n=33), titrated solution of misoprostol, and in oral misoprostol group (n=33), 50µg oral misoprostol every four hours and in Foley catheter group (n=50), Foley catheter with extra-amniotic saline infusion were administered. The main outcome was the number of vaginal deliveries during the first 24 hours. In addition, number of cesarean deliveries and adverse effects were compared between the three groups. The obtained data were analyzed using SPSS 18 software. Data analysis was performed according to the intention to treat principle. Chi-square test, Fisher Exact test, Student ttest, and Mann-Whitney U test, were used for comparing data. P-value≤0.05 was considered statistically significant.

Results: The three groups did not have any significant difference according to maternal age, gestational age at the time of admission, gravidity, parity, and primary Bishop Score. There was no significant difference between the three groups for the main outcome, which was vaginal delivery during the first 24 hours (p=0.887). There was no significant difference between the three groups according to hypertonicity, uterine hyperstimulation, meconium passage, non-reassuring fetal heart rate, neonatal Apgar score in minutes one and 5, and mean duration of beginning the intervention up to delivery. However, uterine tachysystole and NICU admission were more in the group to whom the titrated solution of misoprostol was administered (p=0.002 and p=0.037 respectively). The number of cesarean deliveries due to failure to progress was higher in the EASI group. However, EASI group showed the least number of none-reassuring fetal heart rate between the three groups. Meconium passage was more in the titrated misoprostol group, but the difference was not significant.

Conclusion: All three methods are appropriate methods for induction of labor in the cases of unfavorable cervix; and choosing each method depends on the expertise of labor staff, accessibility to the medications, cost, and taking care for monitoring the patients and adverse effects.

Misoprostol combined with cervical single or double balloon catheters versus misoprostol alone for labor induction of singleton pregnancies: a meta-analysis of randomized trials

Objective: To compare the effect of misoprostol combined with a cervical single or double-balloon catheter versus misoprostol alone for labor induction of singleton pregnancies with an unfavorable cervix.Methods: Systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) regarding the comparison of two schemes for labor induction of singleton cephalic pregnancies with a Bishop score ≤7 and no contraindication for vaginal delivery. Six research databases were searched for articles published in all languages up to 10 May 2018 comparing misoprostol (oral or vaginal) in combination with a cervical placed single or double balloon catheter versus misoprostol treatment alone. Random effects models and inverse variance were used for meta-analyses. Summary measures were mean differences (MDs) and risk ratios (RRs) with 95% confidence interval (CI). Risk of bias was evaluated with the Cochrane tool and publication bias was assessed with Begg's and Egger's tests.Results: Fifteen RCTs reported predefined outcomes. Pooled analyses showed that the combined treatment (misoprostol + catheter) was associated with a shorter induction to delivery time interval (MD = -1.99 hours; 95% CI: -3.42, -0.56); in addition to fewer uterine hyperstimulations (RR = 0.39; 95% CI: 0.23, 0.67) and Neonatal Intensive Care Unit (NICU) admissions (RR = 0.75; 95% CI: 0.58, 0.97) as compared to misoprostol alone. There were no significant differences in RRs for tachysystole, chorioamnionitis, cesarean delivery rate, birthweight, and Apgar score at 5 minutes.Conclusion: The combined use of misoprostol and a cervical balloon catheter reduces the intervention to delivery time interval and number of NICU admissions in women induced with an unfavorable cervix.

Comparative outcome of induced labor by intracervical Foley catheter with misoprostol versus misoprostol alone

Aim: To evaluate the comparative outcome of induced labor by intracervical Foley catheter with misoprostol versus misoprostol alone. Materials & methods: A total of 1306 women were enrolled over 4 years, induced with either intracervical Foley with misoprostol or misoprostol alone and compared in terms of induction-delivery interval, mode of delivery, the presence of uterine tachysystole, postpartum hemorrhage and perinatal outcome. Results: Induction to delivery interval, the duration between induction to active labor was significantly reduced, deliveries within 24 h were significantly higher and the number of misoprostol doses used was significantly less in Foley with misoprostol group. Conclusion: The outcome of combination of intracervical Foley catheter and misoprostol is superior for labor induction, without affecting maternal or perinatal outcome.

Single versus double-balloon catheters for the induction of labor of singleton pregnancies: a meta-analysis of randomized and quasi-randomized controlled trials

OBJECTIVE

To compare the efficacy of single- versus double-balloon catheter (SBC vs. DBC) for cervical ripening and labor induction with an unfavorable cervix.

METHODS

Systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) or quasi-RCTs (qRCT) regarding the use of SBC or DBC for labor induction of live singleton cephalic pregnancies (≥ 35 weeks) of any parity with an unripe cervix (Bishop score ≤ 6). Nine research databases were searched for original articles published in all languages up to November 2017 comparing both devices for labor induction. Five RCTs and one qRCT were included. Primary outcome measures were time from intervention (device placement) to birth time, vaginal delivery and cesarean section rates, and maternal satisfaction with the procedure. Risk of bias was evaluated with the Cochrane tool. Random effects models were used to combine data for meta-analyses. Summary measures were reported as mean differences and risk ratios (RR) with 95% confidence intervals.

RESULTS

Regardless of parity, pooled analyses of the six trials (n = 1060 women) found that mean intervention to birth time, vaginal delivery and cesarean section rates, and maternal satisfaction to the procedure were similar for both studied groups (SBC vs. DBC).

CONCLUSION

Measured primary outcome measures were similar regardless of the type of device used for labor induction of singleton pregnancies.

A comparison of misoprostol vaginal insert and misoprostol vaginal tablets for induction of labor in nulliparous women: a retrospective cohort study

Background

Since Misoprostol Vaginal Insert (MVI - Misodel ®) was approved for labor induction in Europe in 2013, to date, no study has been published comparing MVI to Misoprostol vaginal tablets (MVT). The aim of this study, performed as part of a quality improvement project, was to compare the efficacy and safety of 200 μg MVI versus 25 μg MVT for labor induction in nulliparous women.

Methods

This retrospective cohort study included 171 nulliparous singleton term deliveries induced with MVI (n = 85) versus MVT (n = 86) at Oslo University Hospital Rikshospitalet, Norway, from November 2014 to December 2015. Primary outcomes were time from drug administration to delivery in hours and minutes and the rate of cesarean section (CS). Results were adjusted for Bishop Score and pre-induction with balloon catheter.

Results

Median time from drug administration to delivery was shorter in the MVI group compared to the MVT group (15 h 43 min versus 19 h 37 min, p = 0.011). Adjusted for confounding factors, mean difference was 6 h 3 min (p = 0.002). The risk of CS was 67% lower in the MVI group compared to the MVT group (11.8% versus 23.3%, OR = 0.33; adjusted 95% CI 0.13–0.81). Adverse neonatal outcomes did not differ between the groups.

Conclusions

In a setting of routine obstetric care, MVI seems to be a more efficient labor induction agent than MVT, and with a lower CS rate and no increase in adverse infant outcomes.