Effect of the Foley catheter and synchronous low dose misoprostol administration on cervical ripening: A randomised controlled trial

[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Trials comparing these two methods, published or unpublished up to July 2023, in French or English were searched for in the PubMed, Cochrane Library and ClinicalTrial.govs datasets.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.

Intracervical Foley catheter plus intravaginal misoprostol compared to intravaginal misoprostol-only for cervical ripening: A systematic review and meta-analysis

To compare the combination of intracervical Foley catheter and intravaginal misoprostol administration versus intravaginal misoprostol administration-only for cervical ripening. The Medline, EMBASE, ClinicalTrials.gov, PROSPERO, Scopus, and Cochrane Collaboration databases were searched systematically. Randomized controlled trials that included patients with a singleton viable fetus who underwent induction of labor that required cervical ripening with an unfavorable cervix (Bishop ≤ 6) were eligible for inclusion. Primary outcomes was time to delivery and rate of cesarean delivery. Thirteen trials with 2978 subjects met the inclusion criteria. There was no difference in the incidence of cesarean delivery between the two groups (RR, 0.90; 95 % CI, 0.72-1.14; I² = 69 %). The combination group resulted in comparable time to delivery (MD -2.50 h; 95 % CI 0.38, -5.38; I² = 97 %), shorter time to vaginal delivery (MD -3.49 h; 95 % CI -4.89, -2.09; I² = 81 %), lower risk of neonatal intensive care unit (NICU) admission (RR 0.72, 95 % CI 0.58-0.90, I² = 0 %), meconium-stained fluid (RR 0.48, 95 % CI 0.31-0.73, I² = 28 %), and tachysystole with fetal heart trace changes (RR 0.49, 95 % CI 0.27-0.86, I² = 43 %), compared with intravaginal misoprostol-only group. There was no statistical difference in rates of terbutaline use, endometritis or chorioamnionitis between the two groups. The combination of intravaginal misoprostol with intracervical Foley catheter for cervical ripening is not associated with shorter time to delivery. However, the combination group shows significant difference in shorter time to vaginal delivery, NICU admission, meconium-stained fluid, and tachysystole with fetal heart trace changes.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Maternal and neonatal outcomes with mechanical cervical dilation plus misoprostol compared to misoprostol alone for cervical ripening; a systematic review of literature and metaanalysis

OBJECTIVE DATA

The aim of the present systematic review was to investigate the efficacy and safety of cervical ripening for the combination of mechanical dilation and misoprostol administration compared with misoprostol alone by evaluating 2 primary outcomes: time to delivery and rate of cesarean delivery.

STUDY

The Medline, EMBASE, and Web-of-Science electronic databases (from conception to end-of-search date December 31, 2018) were searched systematically. Randomized controlled trials that included patients with a singleton viable fetus who underwent induction of labor that required cervical ripening with an unfavorable cervix (Bishop ≤7) were eligible for inclusion.

STUDY APPRAISAL AND SYNTHESIS METHODS

Data were pooled with the use of the random effects and fixed effects model after the assessment for the presence of heterogeneity. Risk of bias for each included study was assessed based on the criteria outlined in the Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions.

RESULTS

Eleven trials met the inclusion criteria and included a total of 922 and 947 subjects in the combination and misoprostol-only groups, respectively. There was no difference in the incidence of cesarean delivery between the 2 groups (relative risk, 0.95; 95% confidence interval, 0.80-1.13). The combination of mechanical dilation and misoprostol resulted in overall shorter time to delivery (mean difference, -3.65 hours; 95% confidence interval, 5.23 to -2.07), shorter time to vaginal delivery (mean difference, -4.53 hours; 95% confidence interval, -5.79 to -3.27), lower risk of neonatal intensive care unit admission (relative risk, 0.71; 95% confidence interval, 0.53-0.96), meconium-stained fluid (relative risk, 0.62; 95% confidence interval, 0.43-0.90), tachysystole with fetal heart trace changes (relative risk, 0.53; 95% confidence interval, 0.30-0.94), and terbutaline use (relative risk, 0.63; 95% confidence interval, 0.47-0.85) compared with the use of misoprostol alone. Risk of endometritis (relative risk, 1.07; 95% confidence interval, 0.43-2.61) and chorioamnionitis (relative risk, 1.58; 95% confidence interval, 0.88-2.84) was comparable between the 2 groups.

CONCLUSION

The combination of mechanical cervical dilation with misoprostol for cervical ripening is associated with a shorter time to delivery, a similar rate of cesarean delivery, and a lower incidence of neonatal intensive care unit admission compared with the use of misoprostol alone.

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.

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.

Which method is best for the induction of labour? A systematic review, network meta-analysis and cost-effectiveness analysis

BACKGROUND

More than 150,000 pregnant women in England and Wales have their labour induced each year. Multiple pharmacological, mechanical and complementary methods are available to induce labour.

OBJECTIVE

To assess the relative effectiveness, safety and cost-effectiveness of labour induction methods and, data permitting, effects in different clinical subgroups.

METHODS

We carried out a systematic review using Cochrane methods. The Cochrane Pregnancy and Childbirth Group's Trials Register was searched (March 2014). This contains over 22,000 reports of controlled trials (published from 1923 onwards) retrieved from weekly searches of OVID MEDLINE (1966 to current); Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (The Cochrane Library); EMBASE (1982 to current); Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (1984 to current); ClinicalTrials.gov; the World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Portal; and hand-searching of relevant conference proceedings and journals. We included randomised controlled trials examining interventions to induce labour compared with placebo, no treatment or other interventions in women eligible for third-trimester induction. We included outcomes relating to efficacy, safety and acceptability to women. In addition, for the economic analysis we searched the Database of Abstracts of Reviews of Effects, and Economic Evaluations Databases, NHS Economic Evaluation Database and the Health Technology Assessment database. We carried out a network meta-analysis (NMA) using all of the available evidence, both direct and indirect, to produce estimates of the relative effects of each treatment compared with others in a network. We developed a de novo decision tree model to estimate the cost-effectiveness of various methods. The costs included were the intervention and other hospital costs incurred (price year 2012-13). We reviewed the literature to identify preference-based utilities for the health-related outcomes in the model. We calculated incremental cost-effectiveness ratios, expected costs, utilities and net benefit. We represent uncertainty in the optimal intervention using cost-effectiveness acceptability curves.

RESULTS

We identified 1190 studies; 611 were eligible for inclusion. The interventions most likely to achieve vaginal delivery (VD) within 24 hours were intravenous oxytocin with amniotomy [posterior rank 2; 95% credible intervals (CrIs) 1 to 9] and higher-dose (≥ 50 µg) vaginal misoprostol (rank 3; 95% CrI 1 to 6). Compared with placebo, several treatments reduced the odds of caesarean section, but we observed considerable uncertainty in treatment rankings. For uterine hyperstimulation, double-balloon catheter had the highest probability of being among the best three treatments, whereas vaginal misoprostol (≥ 50 µg) was most likely to increase the odds of excessive uterine activity. For other safety outcomes there were insufficient data or there was too much uncertainty to identify which treatments performed 'best'. Few studies collected information on women's views. Owing to incomplete reporting of the VD within 24 hours outcome, the cost-effectiveness analysis could compare only 20 interventions. The analysis suggested that most interventions have similar utility and differ mainly in cost. With a caveat of considerable uncertainty, titrated (low-dose) misoprostol solution and buccal/sublingual misoprostol had the highest likelihood of being cost-effective.

LIMITATIONS

There was considerable uncertainty in findings and there were insufficient data for some planned subgroup analyses.

CONCLUSIONS

Overall, misoprostol and oxytocin with amniotomy (for women with favourable cervix) is more successful than other agents in achieving VD within 24 hours. The ranking according to safety of different methods was less clear. The cost-effectiveness analysis suggested that titrated (low-dose) oral misoprostol solution resulted in the highest utility, whereas buccal/sublingual misoprostol had the lowest cost. There was a high degree of uncertainty as to the most cost-effective intervention.

FUTURE WORK

Future trials should be powered to detect a method that is more cost-effective than misoprostol solution and report outcomes included in this NMA.

STUDY REGISTRATION

This study is registered as PROSPERO CRD42013005116.

FUNDING

The National Institute for Health Research Health Technology Assessment programme.

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%.

Tension compared to no tension on a Foley transcervical catheter for cervical ripening: a randomized controlled trial

BACKGROUND

Cervical ripening of an unfavorable cervix can be achieved by placement of a transcervical catheter. Advantages of this method include both lower cost and lower risk of tachysystole than other methods. Despite widespread use with varying degrees of applied tension, an unanswered question is whether there is an advantage to placing the transcervical catheter to tension compared with placement without tension.

OBJECTIVE

The purpose of this study was to determine whether tension placed on a transcervical balloon catheter that is inserted for cervical ripening results in a faster time to delivery.

STUDY DESIGN

This was a prospective, randomized controlled trial; 140 women who underwent cervical ripening (Bishop score, ≤6) were assigned randomly to a balloon catheter with applied tension vs no tension. Tension was created when the catheter was taped to the patient's thigh and tension was reapplied in 30-minute increments. There were 67 patients in the tension group and 73 patients in the no tension group. Low-dose oxytocin (maximum, 6 mU/min) was administered after catheter placement. The primary outcome was time from catheter insertion to delivery. A secondary outcome was time from insertion to catheter expulsion. The Kolmogorov-Smirnov test was used to determine whether the data were distributed normally. Survival curves that used lifetables were constructed from time of catheter insertion to delivery and from time of catheter insertion to catheter expulsion and were compared with the use of the Wilcoxon (Gehan) Breslow statistic. A probability value of <.05 was set to denote statistical significance.

RESULTS

Baseline characteristics were similar between groups. The median time from catheter insertion to delivery was not significantly different between the tension group and the no tension group (16.2 vs 16.9 hours; P=.814). The median time from catheter insertion to expulsion, however, was significantly less in the tension group vs the no tension group (2.6 vs 4.6 hours; P<.001), respectively. Vaginal delivery within 24 hours was not significantly different between the tension and no tension groups (41/52 [79%] vs 37/52 [71%]; P=.365) nor were there significant differences in cesarean delivery rates between the tension and no tension groups (17/67 [25%] vs 27/73 [37%]; P=.139).

CONCLUSION

Application of tension did not result in faster delivery times but did result in faster times to catheter expulsion.

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.

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

BACKGROUND

The effectiveness of Foley catheter plus misoprostol for cervical ripening has not been convincingly shown in trials.

OBJECTIVES

To summarize the evidence comparing Foley catheter plus misoprostol versus misoprostol alone for cervical ripening.

SEARCH STRATEGY

Embase, Medline, and Cochrane Collaboration databases were searched with the terms "Foley catheter," "misoprostol," "cervical ripening," and "labor induction."

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomized controlled trials comparing the methods of cervical ripening for delivery of a viable fetus were included.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Study characteristics, quality, and outcomes were recorded. Random-effects models were used to combine data.

MAIN RESULTS

Eight trials were included, with 1153 patients overall. In a pooled analysis of seven high-quality studies, the combination group had a decreased time to delivery (mean difference -2.36 hours, 95% confidence interval [CI] -4.07 to -0.66; P=0.007). Risk of chorioamnionitis was significantly increased in the combination group (risk ratio [RR] 2.07, 95% CI 1.04-4.13; P=0.04), and that of tachysystole with fetal heart rate changes was decreased (RR 0.58, 95% CI 0.38-0.91; P=0.02). Frequency of cesarean did not differ (P=0.77).

CONCLUSIONS

The combined use of Foley catheter and misoprostol results in a reduced time to delivery, a reduced frequency tachysystole with fetal heart rate changes, and an increased incidence of chorioamnionitis.

Oral versus vaginal misoprostol for induction of labor in Enugu, Nigeria: a randomized controlled trial

OBJECTIVE

The study aimed at comparing the effectiveness and maternal satisfaction of oral misoprostol with vaginal misoprostol for induction of labor at term.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A randomized controlled trial of 140 term pregnant women at the University of Nigeria Teaching Hospital Enugu, Nigeria, was conducted from April 2011 to May 2012. The women were equally randomized into two groups (A and B) to receive oral and vaginal misoprostol, respectively.

RESULTS

The vaginal route reduced the mean induction-vaginal delivery interval by four-and-half hours (20.7 ± 12.1 vs. 16.2 ± 10.4; mean difference: 4.50, 95% CI 0.63-0.82; p = 0.02). Furthermore, the mean dose of misoprostol required to achieve induction of labor and the mean duration of oxytocin augmentation when indicated were significantly less in the vaginal group than in the oral group (2.5 ± 1.3 vs. 2.0 ± 1.1; mean difference: 0.50, 95% CI 0.10-0.90; p = 0.02 and 4.6 ± 3.2 vs. 3.4 ± 3.1; mean difference: 1.20, 95% CI 0.15-0.23; p = 0.03 respectively). However, neonatal complications and maternal satisfaction were similar between the two groups.

CONCLUSION

Both routes of administration are effective in the induction of labor at term and have comparable maternal satisfaction. However, the vaginal route has the added advantage of shorter induction-delivery interval among others, and thus should be highly considered when induction of labor is indicated at term.