Intra-vaginal prostaglandin E2 versus double-balloon catheter for labor induction in term oligohydramnios

Vaginal dinoprostone versus Foley catheter for induction of labor at term with an unfavorable cervix: an open-label randomized controlled trial

BACKGROUND

Induction of labor with mechanical methods or pharmacological agents is used in about 20-30% of all pregnant women. We specialized in comparing the effectiveness and safety of dinoprostone versus transcervical Foley catheter for induction of labor in term pregnant women with an unfavorable cervix with adequate samples.

OBJECTIVE

To compare the effectiveness and safety of dinoprostone versus transcervical Foley catheter for induction of labor in term pregnant women with an unfavorable cervix.

STUDY DESIGN

This is a parallel, open-label randomized controlled trial in two maternal centers in Shanghai, China between October 2019 and July 2022. Women with a singleton pregnancy in cephalic presentation at term and an unfavorable cervix (Bishop score < 6) scheduled for induction of labor were eligible. 1,860 women were randomly allocated to cervical ripening with either a dinoprostone vaginal insert (10mg) or a 60cc Foley catheter for up to 24 hours. The primary outcomes were vaginal delivery rate and time to vaginal delivery. Secondary outcomes included time to delivery and maternal and neonatal morbidity. Analysis was done from an intention-to-treat perspective. The trial was registered with the China trial registry (CTR2000038435).

RESULTS

The vaginal birth rates were 72.8% (677/930) vs. 69.9% (650/930) in vaginal dinoprostone and Foley catheter, respectively (aRR 1.04, 95% CI 0.98 to 1.10, risk difference: 0.03). Time to vaginal delivery was not significantly different between the two groups (sub-distribution hazard ratio 1.11, 95% CI 0.99-1.24). Vaginal dinoprostone was more likely complicated with hyperstimulation with fetal heart rate changes (5.8% vs. 2.8%, aRR 2.09, 95% CI 1.32-3.31) and placenta abruption (0.9% vs. 0.1%, aRR: 8.04, 95% CI 1.01-64.15), while Foley catheter was more likely complicated with suspected intrapartum infection (5.1% vs. 8.2 %, aRR: 0.62, 95% CI 0.44-0.88) and postpartum infection (1.4% vs. 3.7%, aRR: 0.38, 95% CI 0.20-0.72). The composite of poor neonatal outcomes was not significantly different between the two groups (4.5% vs. 3.8%, aRR 1.21, 95% CI 0.78 to 1.88), while more neonatal asphyxia occurred in the dinoprostone group (1.2% vs. 0.2%, aRR 5.39, 95% CI 1.22 to 23.92). In a subgroup analysis, vaginal dinoprostone decreased vaginal birth rate slightly in multiparous women (90.6% vs. 97.0%, aRR 0.93, 95% CI 0.88 to 0.99).

CONCLUSIONS

In term pregnant women with an unfavorable cervix, induction of labor with vaginal dinoprostone or Foley catheter has similar effectiveness. Foley catheter leads to better safety for neonates, while it may result in a higher risk of maternal infection. Furthermore, Foley catheter should be preferred in multiparous women.

Outpatient cervical ripening with balloon catheters: A Bayesian network meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

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.

[Prostaglandins or cervical balloon for the induction of labor for cervical ripening: A literature review]

OBJECTIVE

Induction of labor in France concerns one birth out of four with 70% of induction starting by cervical ripening, either with a pharmacological (prostaglandins) or a mechanical (balloon) method. This review aims to compare these two methods within current knowledge, using the PRISMA methodology.

METHODS

Trials comparing these two methods, published or unpublished up to July 2023, in French or English were searched for in the PubMed, Cochrane Library and ClinicalTrial.govs datasets. Fifty articles including 10,689 women were selected. The outcomes of interest were those from the Core Outcome Set for trails on Induction of Labour (COSIOL) list: mode of delivery, time from induction-to-birth, maternal and neonatal morbidity, and maternal satisfaction.

RESULT

No differences were observed between the two methods for the mode of delivery or neonatal and maternal morbidity. The time from induction-to-birth was longer for mechanical methods. Those were also associated with a greater need for oxytocin, less uterine hyperstimulation and less instrumental deliveries. Maternal satisfaction was assessed in only nine trials using various scales which made the interpretation of maternal satisfaction.

CONCLUSION

The efficacy of these two induction methods is similar for vaginal delivery, but it remains to be seen which one best meets women's satisfaction criteria.

Mechanical methods for induction of labour

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.

Safety and efficacy of double-balloon catheter for cervical ripening: a Bayesian network meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

BACKGROUND

Various methods are used for cervical ripening during the induction of labor. Mechanical and pharmacological methods are commonly used for cervical ripening. A double-balloon catheter was specifically developed to ripen the cervix and induce labor; however, the efficacy of the double-balloon catheter in cervical ripening compared to other methods is unknown.

METHODS

We searched five databases and performed a Bayesian network meta-analysis. Six interventions (double-balloon catheter, Foley catheter, oral misoprostol, vaginal misoprostol, dinoprostone, and double-balloon catheter combined with oral misoprostol) were included in the search. The primary outcomes were cesarean delivery rate and time from intervention-to-birth. The secondary outcomes were as follows: Bishop score increment; achieving a vaginal delivery within 24 h; uterine hyperstimulation with fetal heart rate changes; need for oxytocin augmentation; instrumental delivery; meconium staining; chorioamnionitis; postpartum hemorrhage; low Apgar score; neonatal intensive care unit admission; and arterial pH.

RESULTS

Forty-eight randomized controlled trials involving 11,482 pregnant women were identified. The cesarean delivery rates of the cervical ripening with a double-balloon catheter and oral misoprostol, oral misoprostol, and vaginal misoprostol were significantly lower than cervical ripening with a Foley catheter (OR = 0.48, 95% CI: 0.23-0.96; OR = 0.74, 95% CI: 0.58-0.93; and OR = 0.79, 95% CI: 0.64-0.97, respectively; all P < 0.05). The time from intervention-to-birth of vaginal misoprostol was significantly shorter than the other five cervical ripening methods. Vaginal misoprostol and oral misoprostol increased the risk of uterine hyperstimulation with fetal heart rate changes compared to a Foley catheter. A double-balloon catheter with or without oral misoprostol had similar outcomes, including uterine hyperstimulation with fetal heart rate changes compared to a Foley catheter.

CONCLUSION

Double-balloon catheter did not show superiority when compared with other single method in primary and secondary outcomes of labor induction. The combination of double-balloon catheter with oral misoprostol was significantly reduced the rate of cesarean section compared to Foley catheter without increased risk of uterine hyperstimulation with fetal heart rate changes, which was shown in oral or vaginal misoprostol.

Outpatient Induction of Labor - Are Balloon Catheters an Appropriate Method?

As the number of labor inductions in high-income countries has steadily risen, hospital costs and the additional burden on obstetric staff have also increased. Outpatient induction of labor is therefore becoming increasingly important. It has been estimated that 20 - 50% of all pregnant women requiring induction would be eligible for outpatient induction. The use of balloon catheters in patients with an unripe cervix has been shown to be an effective and safe method of cervical priming. Balloon catheters are as effective as the vaginal administration of prostaglandin E 2 or oral misoprostol. The advantage of using a balloon catheter is that it avoids uterine hyperstimulation and monitoring is less expensive. This makes balloon catheters a suitable option for outpatient cervical ripening. Admittedly, intravenous administration of oxytocin to induce or augment labor is required in approximately 75% of cases. Balloon catheters are not associated with a higher risk of maternal and neonatal infection compared to vaginal PGE 2 . Low-risk pregnancies (e.g., post-term pregnancies, gestational diabetes) are suitable for outpatient cervical ripening with a balloon catheter. The data for high-risk pregnancies are still insufficient. The following conditions are recommended when considering an outpatient approach: strict selection of appropriate patients (singleton pregnancy, cephalic presentation, intact membranes), CTG monitoring for 20 - 40 minutes after balloon placement, the patient must be given detailed instructions about the indications for immediate readmission to hospital, and 24-hour phone access to the hospital must be ensured. According to reviewed studies, the balloon catheter remained in place between 12 hours ("overnight") and 24 hours. The most common reason for readmission to hospital was expulsion of the balloon catheter. The advantages of outpatient versus inpatient induction of cervical ripening with a balloon catheter were the significantly shorter hospital stay, the lower costs, and higher patient satisfaction, with both procedures having been shown to be equally effective. Complication rates (e.g., vaginal bleeding, severe pain, uterine hyperstimulation syndrome) during the cervical ripening phase are low (0.3 - 1.5%); severe adverse outcomes (e.g., placental abruption) have not been reported. Compared to inpatient induction of labor using vaginal PGE 2 , outpatient cervical ripening using a balloon catheter had a lower rate of deliveries/24 hours and a significantly higher need for oxytocin; however, hospital stay was significantly shorter, frequency of pain during the cervical ripening phase was significantly lower, and patients' duration of sleep was longer. A randomized controlled study comparing outpatient cervical priming with a balloon catheter with outpatient or inpatient induction of labor with oral misoprostol would be of clinical interest.

Experiences of induction of labor with a catheter - A prospective randomized controlled trial comparing the outpatient and inpatient setting

INTRODUCTION

Approximately every fourth labor is induced. In Finland, when labor is induced, it is commonly carried out with a catheter in the inpatient (IP) setting. However, in uncomplicated, full-term pregnancies, induction of labor (IOL) in the outpatient (OP) setting is also possible. Nevertheless, there is only a limited amount of information about the experiences of IOL in OP setting. Our study compared the experiences of catheter IOL in OP and IP settings.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

We performed a prospective randomized study, including 113 women with uncomplicated full-term pregnancies with planned IOL. After catheter insertion, women were randomized into OP or IP settings: after dropouts, there were 53 women in the OP group and 54 in the IP. The experiences of IOL were evaluated with three sets of visual analog scale (VAS) questionnaires: the general experience questionnaire (eight questions), the concurrent induction experience questionnaire (1, 5, 9, 13 hours; nine questions) and the postpartum experience questionnaire (14 questions).

RESULTS

Both groups had low VAS scores, indicating good experiences of IOL. Women in the OP group were less satisfied (mean VAS difference Δ = 7.8, P = .015) and more anxious (Δ = 4.8, P = .008) than were women in the IP group. In the course of the IOL, all women became less satisfied (Δ = 8.4, P = .001), had more contraction pain (Δ = 8.9, P = .020) and had a higher frequency of contractions (Δ = 9.9, P = .004) but they were more relaxed and experienced less fear (Δ = 6.9, P = .036, Δ = 5.3, P = .001, respectively). There was no interaction between group and time. According to the postpartum experience questionnaire, both groups had a similar good general experience of IOL (P = .736) but the OP group had more fear (Δ = 9.5, P = .009) and was more anxious (Δ = 9.0, P = .007). Most of the women would choose catheter IOL in a subsequent pregnancy (OP 82.6%, IP 87.0%).

CONCLUSIONS

The women in the OP setting were less satisfied and more anxious than were the women in the IP setting. However, the differences were marginal and the general experience after IOL was good. IOL in an OP setting is thus a viable option in low-risk full-term pregnancies. Therefore, when using catheter IOL, both setting options should be available.

Efficacy and safety of controlled-release dinoprostone vaginal delivery system (PROPESS) in Japanese pregnant women requiring cervical ripening: Results from a multicenter, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled phase III study

AIM

To evaluate the efficacy and safety of dinoprostone vaginal insert (PROPESS) in pregnant post-term Japanese women requiring cervical ripening.

METHODS

This randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled study included 114 pregnant Japanese women at term (41 weeks of gestation) requiring cervical ripening (baseline Bishop score (BS) ≤ 4). The primary end-point was the proportion of subjects with successful cervical ripening defined as BS ≥ 7 or vaginal delivery in 12 h. The secondary end-points were changes in BS, proportion of women with vaginal delivery, proportion of women receiving mechanical cervical ripening procedure and use of oxytocic drugs.

RESULTS

PROPESS administration for a maximum of 12 h showed significantly higher successful cervical ripening rate (47.4% vs 14.3%, respectively; treatment contrast [TC]: 33.1%; P = 0.0002). The median time from administration to vaginal delivery was significantly shorter in the PROPESS group than in the placebo group (26.18 h vs 33.02 h; OR 2.51; 95% CI [1.60-3.92]; P < 0.0001). In the PROPESS group, the dosage of uterotonic drugs, such as oxytocin, decreased, and the number of patients who used these drugs also decreased.

CONCLUSION

PROPESS administration for a maximum of 12 h was an effective and well-tolerated treatment for pregnant Japanese women post-term requiring cervical ripening.

Mechanical methods for induction of labour

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.

Use of labor induction with dinoprostone vaginal suppositories in pregnant women with gestational hypertension

AIM

Gestational hypertension is a common disorder of pregnancy. This study aims to evaluate the effect of labor induction with dinoprostone vaginal suppositories (Propess) on pregnancy outcomes in pregnant women with gestational hypertension.

METHODS

The retrospective study included 375 patients with gestational hypertension. All patients were included into three groups according to the characteristics at admission. Women who had initiated labor spontaneously at admission were enrolled in Spontaneous labor group. According to Bishop score, other patients underwent labor induction with Propess or oxytocin were enrolled in Propess group or Oxytocin group. Demographic information and perinatal outcome data were collected.

RESULTS

The vaginal delivery rate of the women with gestational hypertension was respectively 93.5% (Spontaneous labor group), 77.0% (Propess group), and 52.5% (Oxytocin group) in three groups with significant difference (P < 0.001). The duration of labor was 8.29 ± 3.70 h (Spontaneous labor group), 8.45 ± 5.21 h (Propess group) and 12.37 ± 11.47 h (Oxytocin group) in three groups, respectively. No differences were found in the intrapartum fever (P = 0.588), intrapartum hemorrhage (P = 0.953), intrapartum maximum blood pressure (P = 0.301 and P = 0.535) and post-partum hemorrhage (P = 0.075) among three groups. Neonatal outcomes were similar among three groups (Neonatal hospitalization rate, P = 0.437; 1-min Apgar score, P = 0.304; 5-min Apgar score, P = 0.340; Birth weight, P = 0.089). No poor maternal and neonatal outcomes occurred.

CONCLUSION

Pregnant women with gestational hypertension could have favorable pregnancy outcomes. Using Propess as a mode of labor induction in gestational hypertension is safe and effective, without increasing intrapartum blood pressure and inducing poor pregnancy outcomes.

Double-balloon catheter versus dinoprostone insert for labour induction: a meta-analysis

OBJECTIVE

To assess the efficacy and safety of a double-balloon catheter versus dinoprostone insert for labour induction.

STUDY DESIGN

PubMed, MEDLINE, Embase, ClinicalTrials.gov, and the Cochrane Central Register of Clinical Trials databases were searched from 1985 to April 2018. Randomized controlled trials that compared a double-balloon catheter and dinoprostone insert for cervical ripening were identified. Eligible study populations consisted of women with singleton pregnancies that had any indication for labour induction and were randomly assigned to undergo induction with a double-balloon catheter or dinoprostone insert. The main outcomes were incidence of vaginal delivery within 24 h and caesarean section, and neonatal outcomes.

RESULTS

Five randomized trials (603 women; 305 with a double-balloon catheter and 298 with a dinoprostone insert) were eligible for inclusion. No differences were observed between the two groups in terms of vaginal delivery within 24 h [relative risk (RR) 1.21, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.93-1.59] and incidence of caesarean section (RR 0.99, 95% CI 0.77-1.27). Compared with the double-balloon catheter, the dinoprostone insert was associated with a reduced need for oxytocin administration in the process of labour induction (RR 1.95, 95% CI 1.45-2.62). However, there was a higher incidence of excessive uterine activity (RR 0.17, 95% CI 0.06-0.54) and neonatal umbilical cord arterial blood pH < 7.1 (RR 0.36, 95% CI 0.15-0.84) in the dinoprostone insert group.

CONCLUSION

This review showed that the efficacy of labour induction using both the double-balloon catheter and dinoprostone insert was similar. However, the double-balloon catheter seemed to be a safer method.

Challenges and Limitations of Clinical Trials on Labor Induction: A Review of the Literature

Induction of labor is a common obstetric procedure performed in nearly a quarter of all deliveries in the United States. Pharmacological (prostaglandins, oxytocin) and/or mechanical methods (balloon catheters) are commonly used for labor induction; however, there is ongoing debate as to which method is the safest and most effective. This narrative review discusses key limitations of published trials on labor induction, including the lack of well-designed randomized controlled trials directly comparing specific methods of induction, heterogeneous trial populations, and wide variation in the protocols used and outcomes reported. Furthermore, the majority of published trials were underpowered to detect significant differences in the most clinically relevant efficacy and safety outcomes (e.g., cesarean delivery, neonatal mortality). By identifying the limitations of labor induction trials, we hope to highlight the importance of quality published data to better inform guidelines and drive evidence-based treatment decisions.

Patient satisfaction with the cervical ripening balloon as a method for induction of labour: a randomised controlled trial

INTRODUCTION

Evidence has shown that balloon catheters are as effective as prostaglandins (PGE) in achieving vaginal delivery within 24 hours of the start of induction of labour (IOL), with lower rates of uterine hyperstimulation, and similar Caesarean section and infection rates. International guidelines recommend mechanical methods as a method of IOL. We designed a prospective randomised controlled study to evaluate patient acceptance of the cervical ripening balloon (CRB) for IOL.

METHODS

Suitable women with a singleton term pregnancy without major fetal anomaly suitable for vaginal delivery were recruited and randomised to receive the CRB or PGE on the day of IOL. Characteristics of the women, labour and birth outcomes were obtained from case notes. Pain and satisfaction scores were obtained by interviewing the women at IOL and after delivery. The main outcome measures were participant characteristics, labour and birth outcomes, pain score, satisfaction scores, and whether the participant would recommend the mode of IOL.

RESULTS

There was no difference in the pain score between the two groups at the start of IOL, but thereafter, pain scores were lower in the CRB group compared to the PGE group (4.5 ± 2.3 vs. 5.6 ± 2.4, p = 0.044). Women were equally satisfied with both methods and equally likely to recommend their method for IOL.

CONCLUSION

Patient experience of IOL with CRB or PGE was equally satisfactory, although pain during induction was lower in the CRB group. We found that both methods of IOL are acceptable to women and should be made available to provide more options.

Risk of maternal, fetal and neonatal complications associated with the use of the transcervical balloon catheter in induction of labour: A systematic review

Induction of labour is one of the most frequently applied obstetrical interventions globally. Many studies have compared the use of balloon catheters with pharmacological agents. Although the safety of the balloon catheter is often mentioned, little has been written about the total spectrum of maternal and fetal morbidity associated with induction of labour using a balloon catheter. We evaluated the safety of labour induction with a transcervical balloon catheter by conducting a literature review with pooled risk assessments of the maternal, fetal and neonatal morbidity. We searched Medline, EMBASE and CINAHL as well as the Cochrane database using the Keywords 'induction of labour', 'cervical ripening', 'transcervical balloon', 'balloon catheter' and 'Foley balloon'. We did not use language or date restrictions. Randomized and quasi-randomized controlled trials as well as observational studies that contained original data on occurrence of maternal, fetal or neonatal morbidity during induction of labour with the balloon catheter were included. Studies were excluded if the balloon catheter was used concurrently with oxytocin and concurrently or consecutively with misoprostol, dinoprostone or extra-amniotic saline infusion. Study selection and quality assessment was performed by two authors independently using a standardized critical appraisal instrument. Outcomes were reported as weighted mean rates. We detected 84 articles reporting on 13,791 women. The overall risk of developing intrapartum maternal infection was 11.3% (912 of 8079 women), 3.3% (151 of 4538 women) for postpartum maternal infection and 4.6% (203 of 4460 women) for neonatal infection. Uterine hypercontractility occurred in 2.7% (148 of 5439) of the women. Uterine rupture after previous caesarean section occurred in 1.9% of women (26 of 1373), while other major maternal complications had an occurrence rate of <1%. The risk for developing minor maternal complications was <2%. The risk of developing a non-reassuring fetal heart rate was 10.8% (793 of 7336 women), 10.1% (507 of 5008 women) for fetal distress and 14.0% (460 of 3295 women) for meconium stained liquor. Neonatal death occurred in 0.29% (6 of 2058) of the deliveries and NICU admission in 7.2% (650 of 9065 deliveries). This review shows that labour induction with a balloon catheter is a safe intervention, with intrapartum maternal infection being the only reasonable risk above 10%.

Induction of Labor in Women with Oligohydramnios: Misoprostol Compared with Prostaglandin E2

Objective To compare perinatal outcomes in women with oligohydramnios and an unfavorable cervix undergoing labor induction with misoprostol to prostaglandin E2. Study Design We conducted a secondary analysis of women with oligohydramnios undergoing labor induction in the Consortium on Safe Labor study (2002-2008). Oligohydramnios was recorded in the medical chart. We evaluated perinatal outcomes. We limited the analysis to women with an unfavorable cervix defined by simplified Bishop score ≤ 4. Misoprostol was compared with prostaglandin E2. Women could have received oxytocin, underwent mechanical dilation, or had artificial rupture of membranes, but women who underwent induction with both misoprostol and prostaglandin E2 were excluded. We calculated adjusted odds ratios with 95% confidence intervals, controlling for maternal age, maternal body mass index (kg/m²), parity, and mechanical dilation. Results Among women with oligohydramnios and an unfavorable cervix who underwent induction of labor, 141 (39.4%) received misoprostol and 217 (60.6%) received prostaglandin E2. There were no significant differences in cesarean delivery, chorioamnionitis, postpartum hemorrhage, transfusion, neonatal intensive care unit (NICU) admission, NICU stay > 72 hours, mechanical ventilation, and neonatal sepsis. Conclusion In women with oligohydramnios and an unfavorable cervix, induction of labor with misoprostol was comparable to prostaglandin E2.

Double-balloon catheter versus prostaglandin E2 for cervical ripening and labour induction: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials

BACKGROUND

Induction of labour has become an increasingly common procedure. Ripening methods, including mechanical devices and pharmacological agents, improve the success rate of labour induction.

OBJECTIVE

To compare the efficacy and safety of the double-balloon catheter with prostaglandin E2 agents used for labour induction.

SEARCH STRATEGY

We searched electronic sources from MEDLINE, Embase and Web of Science, the Cochrane Library Database of Systematic Reviews, and ClinicalTrials.gov website.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Only randomised controlled trials comparing the PGE2 agents with the double-balloon catheter for cervical ripening and labour induction in women with unfavourable cervices were included in the analysis.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

The main outcomes included the vaginal delivery rate within 24 hours and risk of caesarean section. We calculated relative risks and mean differences using fixed- and random-effects models.

MAIN RESULTS

Nine studies (1866 patients) were included in this systematic review. Both the double-balloon catheter and PGE2 agents were comparable with regard to rate of caesarean section (RR 0.92; 95% CI 0.79, 1.07), vaginal delivery within 24 hours (RR 0.95; 95% CI 0.78, 1.16) and maternal adverse events, but the risk of excessive uterine activity (RR 10.02; 95% CI 3.99, 25.17) and need for neonatal intensive care unit admissions (RR 1.31; 95% CI 1.01, 1.69) were significantly increased in women who received PGE2 agents.

CONCLUSIONS

The double-balloon catheter demonstrated greater safety and cost-effectiveness than PGE2 agents for cervical ripening and labour induction. The efficacy profiles of both methods were similar.

TWEETABLE ABSTRACT

Double-balloon catheter versus prostaglandin E2 for cervical ripening and labour induction.

The Renaissance of Transcervical Balloon Catheters for Cervical Ripening and Labour Induction

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.

Other mechanical methods for pre-induction cervical ripening

Pre-induction cervical ripening is an important part of the labor induction process in women with an unfavorable cervix. This can be achieved either by pharmacologic or mechanical methods of cervical ripening. While the Foley catheter is the most commonly used mechanical method for labor induction, other mechanical methods are also available. This article reviews the safety profiles of osmotic dilators, extra-amniotic saline infusion, double-balloon catheters, and also compares their efficacy to that of other mechanical and pharmacologic cervical ripening methods. While mechanical methods have been shown to be safe and effective for cervical ripening, none of these alternatives has been shown to be superior to the Foley catheter.