Home cervical ripening with dinoprostone gel in nulliparous women with singleton pregnancies

Outpatient versus inpatient cervical ripening with a slow-release dinoprostone vaginal insert in term pregnancies on maternal, neonatal, and birth outcomes: A systematic review

BACKGROUNDS

Outpatient induction of labor (IOL) is an alternative choice offered to pregnant women requiring cervical ripening. Outpatient IOL can provide solutions in terms of women empowerment, but most importantly promotes as normal labor as possible, within the medical context of the IOL. The objectives of this systematic review were to assess safety and effectiveness of cervical ripening performed with a slow-release dinoprostone vaginal insert in term pregnancies in two settings: the outpatient (home) versus the inpatient (hospital).

METHODS

The electronic databases Cinahl, Embase, Medline and Maternity and Infant Care were searched to detect studies that met the inclusion criteria. Both reviewers collected the data and assessed the quality of the studies and assessed the pooled odds ratio using a 95% confidence interval and a random-effects model. Primary outcomes were linked to maternal and neonatal morbidity. Secondary outcomes were related to birth outcomes.

RESULTS

No statistical difference was seen between the outpatient and inpatient setting in terms of maternal complications, neonatal morbidity, cesarean section, and labor onset <24 h. Women in the outpatient setting were significantly less likely to experience uterine hyperstimulation, and they were also significantly more likely to require oxytocin to augment or induce their labor than the women in the inpatient setting. Women in the outpatient setting were more satisfied with the cervical ripening experience.

CONCLUSIONS

Cervical ripening with a slow-release dinoprostone vaginal insert in term pregnancies in the outpatient setting appears as safe as the inpatient setting in terms of maternal, neonatal, and birth outcomes.

Experience of induction of labour: a cross-sectional postnatal survey of women at UK maternity units

OBJECTIVES

This study explored women's views and experiences of key elements of the induction of labour (IOL) process, including at home or in hospital cervical ripening (CR).

DESIGN

A questionnaire-based postnatal survey undertaken as part of the CHOICE Study process evaluation. The questionnaire was administered online and included fixed response and free-text options.

SETTING

National Health Service maternity units in the UK.

PARTICIPANTS

309 women who had an IOL.

OUTCOME MEASURES

The primary outcome measure was experience of IOL. Few women returned home during CR, meaning that statistical comparison between those who experienced home-based and hospital-based CR was not possible. Findings are reported as descriptive statistics with content analysis of women's comments providing context.

RESULTS

Information to support choice and understand what to expect about IOL is often inadequate or unavailable. Having IOL can create anxiety and remove options for birth that women had hoped would enhance their experience. Although it can provide a more comfortable environment, home CR is not always an acceptable solution. Women described maternity care negatively impacted by staffing shortages; delays to care sometimes led to unsafe situations. Women who had a positive experience of IOL described supportive interaction with staff as a significant contribution to that.

CONCLUSIONS

Women do not experience IOL as a benign and consequence free intervention. There is urgent need for research to better target IOL and optimise safety and experience for women and their babies. Relatively few women were offered CR at home and further research is needed on this experience.

Prevalence of uterine rupture among women with one prior low transverse cesarean and women with unscarred uterus undergoing labor induction with PGE2: A systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

As uterine rupture may affect as many as 11/1000 women with 1 prior cesarean birth and 5/10.000 women with unscarred uterus undergoing labor induction, we intended to estimate the prevalence of such rare outcome when PGE2 is used for cervical ripening and labor induction.

METHODS

We searched MEDLINE, ClinicalTrials.gov and the Cochrane library up to September 1st 2020. Retrospective and prospective cohort studies, as well as randomized controlled trials (RCTs) on singleton viable pregnancies receiving PGE2 for cervical ripening and labor induction were reviewed. Prevalence of uterine rupture was meta-analyzed with Freeman-Tukey double arcsine transformation among women with 1 prior low transverse cesarean section and women with unscarred uterus.

RESULTS

We reviewed 956 full text articles to include 69 studies. The pooled prevalence rate of uterine rupture is estimated to range between 2 and 9 out of 1000 women with 1 prior low transverse cesarean (5/1000; 95%CI 2-9/1000, 122/9000). The prevalence of uterine rupture among women with unscarred uterus is extremely low, reaching at most 0.7/100.000 (<1/100.000.000; 95%CI <1/100.000.000-0.7/100.000, 8/17.684).

CONCLUSIONS

Uterine rupture is a rare event during cervical ripening and labor induction with PGE2.

Outpatient Cervical Ripening: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

OBJECTIVE

To assess the comparative effectiveness and potential harms of cervical ripening in the outpatient compared with the inpatient setting, or different methods of ripening in the outpatient setting alone.

DATA SOURCES

Searches for articles in English included MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, Cochrane Library, ClinicalTrials.gov, and reference lists (up to August 2020).

METHODS OF STUDY SELECTION

Using predefined criteria and DistillerSR software, 10,853 citations were dual-reviewed for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and cohort studies of outpatient cervical ripening using prostaglandins and mechanical methods in pregnant women at or beyond 37 weeks of gestation.

TABULATION, INTEGRATION, AND RESULTS

Using prespecified criteria, study data abstraction and risk of bias assessment were conducted by two reviewers, random-effects meta-analyses were conducted and strength of evidence was assessed. We included 30 RCTs and 10 cohort studies (N=9,618) most generalizable to women aged 25-30 years with low-risk pregnancies. All findings were low or insufficient strength of evidence and not statistically significant. Incidence of cesarean delivery was not different for any comparison of inpatient and outpatient settings, or comparisons of different methods in the outpatient setting (most evidence available for single-balloon catheters and dinoprostone). Harms were inconsistently reported or inadequately defined. Differences were not found for neonatal infection (eg, sepsis) with outpatient compared with inpatient dinoprostone, birth trauma (eg, cephalohematoma) with outpatient compared with inpatient single-balloon catheter, shoulder dystocia with outpatient dinoprostone compared with placebo, maternal infection (eg, chorioamnionitis) with outpatient compared with inpatient single-balloon catheters or outpatient prostaglandins compared with placebo, and postpartum hemorrhage with outpatient catheter compared with inpatient dinoprostone. Evidence on misoprostol, hygroscopic dilators, and other outcomes (eg, perinatal mortality and time to vaginal birth) was insufficient.

CONCLUSION

In women with low-risk pregnancies, outpatient cervical ripening with dinoprostone or single-balloon catheters did not increase cesarean deliveries. Although there were no clear differences in harms when comparing outpatient with inpatient cervical ripening, the certainty of evidence is low or insufficient to draw definitive conclusions.

SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION

PROSPERO, CRD42020167406.

Outpatient induction of labour in the UK: a survey of practice

OBJECTIVE

To identify the current UK use of outpatient procedures for cervical ripening prior to induction of labour.

STUDY DESIGN

Postal survey of consultant led obstetric units within the United Kingdom. A questionnaire was sent by post to 210 NHS consultant led obstetric units within the UK. Units that provided outpatient induction of labour (OP IOL) were asked complete a series of questions defining their protocol for risk stratification and management.

RESULTS

The survey had a 78% response rate. 17.6% of units stated that they currently or soon will provide OP IOL. All units were willing to provide OP IOL for post-dates singleton pregnancies and none provided this service for women with a previous caesarean or multiple pregnancy. 96% of inductions were initiated in a hospital setting prior to discharge home. 84% of units used Propess(®) to initiate OP IOL and 96% had a fetal assessment with CTG. Only 40% of units had a clear mechanism for assessment once the woman had gone home. 72% of units performed regular audit of their practice.

CONCLUSIONS

We suggest that robust comparative research within a UK context is urgently required to establish the safety and cost effectiveness of outpatient induction of labour before this technique becomes fully embedded in clinical care without an adequate evidence base.