Combined Foley's catheter with vaginal misoprostol for pre-induction cervical ripening: A randomised controlled trial

Prostaglandins for induction in pregnancies with fetal growth restriction

BACKGROUND

The data on safety of prostaglandin agents for induction of pregnancies with fetal growth restriction is limited.

OBJECTIVE

To compare the rates of adverse outcomes among pregnancies with fetal growth restriction undergoing induction of labor with and without prostaglandins STUDY DESIGN: We performed a propensity-score-based secondary analysis of the Consortium on Safe Labor database. We included term, singleton, and nonanomalous pregnancies with fetal growth restriction (estimated fetal weight <10th percentile for gestational age). We excluded previous cesarean deliveries. The primary exposure was induction using prostaglandins (prostaglandin E₁ or prostaglandin E₂) compared with other methods. The primary outcome was a composite of adverse neonatal outcomes. The secondary outcomes included all cesarean deliveries and cesarean deliveries for nonreassuring fetal heart tracings. A subgroup analysis comparing the type of prostaglandin was planned a priori. The results are expressed as adjusted odds ratios with 95% confidence intervals.

RESULTS

Of 756 (0.3%) inductions, 212 (28%) used prostaglandins (108 prostaglandin E₁, 94 prostaglandin E₂), and 553 (72%) used nonprostaglandin methods, including oxytocin (348, 63%), amniotomy (211, 38%), and/or mechanical dilation (9, 1%). There were no differences in the composite of adverse neonatal outcomes between the prostaglandin (10.4%) and the nonprostaglandin group (6.7%), adjusted odds ratio, 1.39 (0.64-3.03). The rate of cesarean delivery was higher in the inductions that received prostaglandins than those that did not (25.5% vs 14.8%, adjusted odds ratio, 1.80; 1.07-3.02). The rate of cesarean delivery for nonreassuring fetal heart tracings was higher for those that received prostaglandins than those that did not (16.0% vs 8.7%, adjusted odds ratio, 2.37; 1.28-4.41). When prostaglandin E₁ and prostaglandin E₂ were examined independently, there were similar increases in the composite of adverse neonatal outcomes and cesarean delivery rates for both prostaglandin E₁ and prostaglandin E₂ compared with nonprostaglandin controls.

CONCLUSION

There were no differences in the composite of adverse neonatal outcomes when prostaglandins were used for induction in pregnancies with fetal growth restriction compared with other methods. However, there was a higher rate of cesarean delivery and cesarean delivery indicated for nonreassuring fetal heart tracings when prostaglandins (both prostaglandin E₁ and prostaglandin E₂) were used, compared with nonprostaglandin methods.

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.