Comparison of the efficacy and safety of dinoprostone and double-balloon catheters in cervical ripening: a propensity score matching retrospective study
Abstract
Objectives: The methods of prompting cervical ripening (CR) include mechanical and pharmacological approaches. The former seems safer. However, this superiority may change with the application of a new labor curve. Therefore, we aimed to compare the efficacy and safety of dinoprostone and double-balloon catheters (DBC) in promoting CR in induction of labor (IOL). Material and methods: A total of 877 primipara women with Bishop score ≤ 6 were divided into the dinoprostone group (n = 502) and DBC group (n = 375) according to the IOL way. The women in the dinoprostone group received dinoprostone to perform IOL, while those in the DBC group received DBC to perform IOL. The natural birth rate, time to labor onset and birth, and maternal and neonatal complications were compared between the two groups. A propensity score match (PSM) was used to eliminate the selection bias. Results: A total of 516 cases were left after PSM (1:1) to Bishop score. The dinoprostone was associated with an improved Bishop score. However, there were no significant differences in the vaginal delivery rate, the stage of labor, and the time from ripening to labor onset and delivery between the two groups (p > 0.05). The incidence rates of puerperal infection and blood loss were notably higher in the DBC group than in the dinoprostone group (p < 0.05). However, there was no statistical difference in the incidence of postpartum hemorrhage between the two groups (p > 0.05). Conclusions: Dinoprostone is associated with a lower puerperal infection rate and improved Bishop score in IOL without an increased success rate of vaginal delivery.
Keywords: cervical ripeningdouble-balloon cathetersdinoprostoneinduction of laborBishop score
References
- Pennell CE, Henderson JJ, O'Neill MJ, et al. Induction of labour in nulliparous women with an unfavourable cervix: a randomised controlled trial comparing double and single balloon catheters and PGE2 gel. BJOG. 2009; 116(11): 1443–1452.
- Cromi AGF, Uccella S, et al. [Commentary on] Double-balloon catheter results in higher rate of vaginal. Evid Based Med. 2013; 18(8): 140–141.
- Kim YM, Park JuY, Sung JH, et al. Predicting factors for success of vaginal delivery in preterm induction with prostaglandin E. Obstet Gynecol Sci. 2017; 60(2): 163–169.
- Sayed Ahmed WA, Ibrahim ZM, Ashor OE, et al. Use of the Foley catheter versus a double balloon cervical ripening catheter in pre-induction cervical ripening in postdate primigravidae. J Obstet Gynaecol Res. 2016; 42(11): 1489–1494.
- Villalain C, Herraiz I, Quezada MS, et al. Labor induction in late-onset fetal growth restriction: foley balloon versus vaginal dinoprostone. Fetal Diagn Ther. 2019; 46(1): 67–74.
- Du C, Liu Y, Liu Y, et al. Double-balloon catheter vs. dinoprostone vaginal insert for induction of labor with an unfavorable cervix. Arch Gynecol Obstet. 2015; 291(6): 1221–1227.
- Diguisto C, Le Gouge A, Giraudeau B, et al. Mechanical cervicAl ripeninG for women with PrOlongedPregnancies (MAGPOP): protocol for a randomised controlled trial of a silicone double balloon catheter versus the Propess system for the slow release of dinoprostone for cervical ripening of prolonged pregnancies. BMJ Open. 2017; 7(9): e016069.
- Coates R. Attitudes of pregnant women and healthcare professionals to labour induction and obtaining consent for labour induction. Best Pract Res Clin Obstet Gynaecol. 2021; 77: 64–75.
- Jouffray C, Corroenne R, El Hachem H, et al. Use of artificial intelligence to predict mean time to delivery following cervical ripening with dinoprostone vaginal insert. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol. 2021; 266: 1–6.
- Lassey SC, Haber HR, Kanbergs A, et al. Six versus twelve hours of single-balloon catheter placement with oxytocin administration for labor induction: a randomized controlled trial. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2021; 224(6): 611.e1–611.e8.
- Schoen C, Navathe R. Failed induction of labor. Semin Perinatol. 2015; 39(6): 483–487.
- Navve D, Orenstein N, Ribak R, et al. Is the Bishop-score significant in predicting the success of labor induction in multiparous women? J Perinatol. 2017; 37(5): 480–483.
- Levine LD. Cervical ripening: why we do what we do. Semin Perinatol. 2020; 44(2): 151216.
- Cromi A, Ghezzi F, Uccella S, et al. A randomized trial of preinduction cervical ripening: dinoprostone vaginal insert versus double-balloon catheter. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2012; 207(2): 125.e1–125.e7.
- Suffecool K, Rosenn BM, Kam S, et al. Labor induction in nulliparous women with an unfavorable cervix: double balloon catheter versus dinoprostone. J Perinat Med. 2014; 42(2): 213–218.
- Letailleur M, Mathieu N, Dietrich G, et al. [Double-balloon device and intravaginal dinoprostone for cervical ripening in women with unfavourable cervix]. Gynecol Obstet Fertil. 2015; 43(6): 424–430.
- Løkkegaard E, Lundstrøm M, Kjær MM, et al. Prospective multi-centre randomised trial comparing induction of labour with a double-balloon catheter versus dinoprostone. J Obstet Gynaecol. 2015; 35(8): 797–802.
- Shechter-Maor G, Haran G, Sadeh-Mestechkin D, et al. Intra-vaginal prostaglandin E2 versus double-balloon catheter for labor induction in term oligohydramnios. J Perinatol. 2015; 35(2): 95–98.
- Barda G, Ganer Herman H, Sagiv R, et al. Foley catheter versus intravaginal prostaglandins E2 for cervical ripening in women at term with an unfavorable cervix: a randomized controlled trial. J Matern Fetal Neonatal Med. 2018; 31(20): 2777–2781.
- Brown J, Beckmann M. Induction of labour using balloon catheter and prostaglandin gel. Aust N Z J Obstet Gynaecol. 2017; 57(1): 68–73.
- Chai Y, Qu M, Jin M. Application effect of single balloon catheters in labor induction of pregnant women in late-term pregnancy and their influences on stress and inflammatory responses. Exp Ther Med. 2018; 15(4): 3352–3356.
- Chowdhary A, Bagga R, Jain V, et al. Comparison of intracervical Foley catheter used alone or combined with a single dose of dinoprostone gel for cervical ripening: a randomised study. J Obstet Gynaecol. 2019; 39(4): 461–467.
- Rossi RM, Warshak CR, Masters HR, et al. Comparison of prostaglandin and mechanical cervical ripening in the setting of small for gestational age neonates. J Matern Fetal Neonatal Med. 2019; 32(22): 3841–3846.
- Abdi N, Alavi A, Pakbaz F, et al. Vaginal misoprostol versus intracervical Foley catheter for cervical ripening in postdate primigravid women: a randomized clinical trial. BMC Pregnancy Childbirth. 2021; 21(1): 533.
- Baumont M, Dap M, Schweizer C, et al. [Retrospective comparison of effectiveness of balloon catheter versus dinoprostone for cervical ripening]. Gynecol Obstet Fertil Senol. 2021; 49(9): 660–664.
- Du YM, Zhu LY, Cui LN, et al. Double-balloon catheter versus prostaglandin E2 for cervical ripening and labour induction: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials. BJOG. 2017; 124(6): 891–899.
- Liu YR, Pu CX, Wang XY, et al. Double-balloon catheter versus dinoprostone insert for labour induction: a meta-analysis. Arch Gynecol Obstet. 2019; 299(1): 7–12.
- Heinemann J, Gillen G, Sanchez-Ramos L, et al. Do mechanical methods of cervical ripening increase infectious morbidity? A systematic review. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2008; 199(2): 177–187; discussion 187.
- Bleicher I, Dikopoltsev E, Kadour-Ferro E, et al. Double-Balloon device for 6 compared with 12 hours for cervical ripening: a randomized controlled trial. Obstet Gynecol. 2020; 135(5): 1153–1160.
