Efficacy and safety of oral misoprostol vs transvaginal balloon catheter for labor induction: An observational study within the SWEdish Postterm Induction Study (SWEPIS)

Women satisfaction on choosing the cervical ripening method: Oral misoprostol versus balloon catheter

Objective

Induction of labor concerns about 29 % of women in Unites States and 33 % in Europe. Among the various methods for cervical ripening, the efficacy and safety profiles of oral misoprostol and balloon catheter are comparable, but data in the literature on maternal satisfaction during induction of labor are few. The objective of this study was to assess the satisfaction of women who chose the method of cervical ripening, i.e. either balloon catheter or oral misoprostol, for induction of labor.

Study design

This retrospective study asked women who had undergone induction of labor between February 1, 2020 and February 28, 2021. After receiving verbal and written information, the choice of method between oral misoprostol and balloon catheter was left to the patient's free appreciation. Satisfaction was assessed by means of a questionnaire distributed to all women during their stay in the maternity unit. The principal assessment criterion was based on women' inclination to choose the same cervical ripening method if induction of labor were to prove necessary in a future pregnancy, and their willingness to recommend this method to a friend. Univariate analyses were conducted using Student's t-test, Chi-2 test or Fisher's exact test.

Results

On 575 women eligible for analysis, 365 (63.5 %) of these women replied to the satisfaction questionnaire. Of this number, 236 (64.7 %) chose cervical ripening by balloon catheter, and 129 (35.3 %) by oral misoprostol. No significant difference was found between the two groups: 68.2 % of women in the balloon catheter group would opt for the same method of cervical ripening if it proved necessary in a future pregnancy and 64.7% would recommend it to a pregnant friend, versus 65.9 % and 63.6 % in the oral misoprostol group, respectively. Women were overall pleased to be able to choose their method of cervical ripening: 90.5 % of patients in the balloon catheter group and 95.3 % in the oral misoprostol group.

Conclusions

When women choose the method of cervical ripening, satisfaction is overall good, irrespective of the method, whether by balloon catheter or misoprostol.

Sublingual misoprostol vs. oral misoprostol solution for induction of labor: A retrospective study

Introduction

Induction of labor (IOL) is one of the most common obstetrical procedures, with an increasing rate. The prostaglandin E1 analogue misoprostol is frequently used as a primary method of labor induction. The optimal dose and route of administration is yet to be ascertained.

Aim

To compare efficiacy and safety between a regimen of sublingually administered misoprostol and a regimen of orally administered misoprostol, with cesarean delivery as primary outcome.

Methods

A retrospective study was conducted including women carrying a live, singleton fetus in a cephalic position with labor induced at >37 + 0 gestational weeks at Skåne University hospital, Lund, between January 1st 2013 to December 31st 2017. Data was obtained from computerized obstetrical charts.

Results

Totally 2,404 women were included; 974 induced with sublingual misoprostol and 1,430 with oral solution. In primiparous women the cesarean delivery rate was lower in primiparous women induced with oral compared to sublingual misoprostol (20.5% vs. 28.6%, p < 0.001), whereas in parous women the rates did not differ significantly 4.9% vs. 7.5%; NS). The increased risk of caesarean remained after controlling for potential confounding factors (adjusted odds ratio 1.49 (1.14–1.95). Women induced with sublingual misoprostol had a shorter time to vaginal delivery when compared to oral solution (primiparous median 16.7 h vs. 21.7 h; p < 0.001, parous median 9.9 h vs. 13.3 h; p = 0.01), and a higher rate of vaginal delivery within 24 h (primiparas 77.7% vs. 63.3%, p < 0.001, parous 93.2% vs. 84.2%; p = 0.01).

Conclusion

IOL with oral misoprostol solution was associated with a significantly higher vaginal delivery rate when compared to sublingual misoprostol, whereas sublingual misoprostol was associated with a significantly shorter time from induction to vaginal delivery. Oral administration is considered the most safe and efficient administration of misoprostol, although more studies are needed to find the optimal route and dosage of misoprostol for IOL.

Comparison of primiparous women's childbirth experience in labor induction with cervical ripening by balloon catheter or oral misoprostol - a prospective study using a validated childbirth experience questionnaire (CEQ) and visual analogue scale (VAS)

INTRODUCTION

Primiparity and labor induction, especially when cervical ripening is required, are risk factors for a negative childbirth experience. Our aim was to compare childbirth experience in primiparous women with cervical ripening by balloon catheter or oral misoprostol using the validated Childbirth Experience Questionnaire (CEQ). We also wanted to compare assessment of a negative childbirth experience by visual analogue scale (VAS) and CEQ.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

This is a prospective study of 362 primiparous women undergoing cervical ripening and labor induction by balloon catheter (67.4%) or oral misoprostol (32.6%) at Helsinki University Hospital, Finland, between January 1, 2019 and January 31, 2020. After delivery, the women assessed their childbirth experience using the CEQ, and patient records provided the patient characteristics, delivery outcomes and VAS ratings. We analyzed the results using IBM SPSS Statistics.

RESULTS

Overall, the women experienced their labor and delivery rather positively, with a mean CEQ score of 2.9 (SD 0.6) (scale 1-4), and no differences were detectable when comparing women with cervical ripening by balloon catheter or misoprostol. However, women with balloon catheter were more often satisfied with the method chosen for them and would choose the same method in a future pregnancy. Compared with CEQ, VAS seems mainly to reflect the women's perception of their own capacity to give birth and the safety of the hospital setting, not the level of professional support or participation in decision-making. According to our results, CEQ and VAS are comparable, but the usability of the CEQ is limited by its inability to distinguish the most negative and the most positive experiences, and the VAS is limited by its simplicity.

CONCLUSIONS

Women with cervical ripening by balloon catheter or oral misoprostol experienced their childbirth rather positively, results being similar in both groups. However, women with cervical ripening by balloon catheter were more content with their labor induction. The CEQ and VAS can both be used to assess the childbirth experience of primiparous women undergoing labor induction, but both methods have limitations.

Novel side by side Foley catheter balloons for 'extended labour induction': Concept, simulation study and clinical application

OBJECTIVE

To introduce the concept of extended or prolonged mechanical balloon labour induction as opposed to pharmacological methods and amniotomy after single balloon expulsion, by the novel use of side-by-side Foley catheter balloons. This method is of particular relevance when there is prior uterine surgery, fetal reserve is uncertain, the risk of vertical infection is high, or facilities for labour monitoring are limited.

STUDY DESIGN

We conducted simulation studies to compare balloon circumferences and resistance to passage through a simulation cervix between different gauge, fluid distension volume and number of Foley catheters. We describe an illustrative clinical case.

RESULTS

In simulation studies we found modest increases in Foley catheter balloon circumference with increased catheter gauge and with increasing volume of distending fluid. We found that retention of Foley balloon(s) by a flexible simulated cervix was increased with the gauge, distending volume and number of balloons used side-by-side. We describe the case of a mother with pre-eclampsia with severe features and compromised fetal reserve in whom the side-by-side balloon method achieved spontaneous delivery after a single balloon had been expelled without labour commencing.

CONCLUSIONS

Institutional protocols for Balloon labour inductions should take into account the characteristics of locally-available balloon catheters. Further research is justified to determine the usefulness of extended mechanical labour induction with side-by-side balloon catheters, particularly with prior caesarean section, uncertain fetal reserve and settings with limited fetal monitoring capacity.