open access
Prospective comparison of cervical ripening with double balloon Cook catheter, misoprostol or dinoprostone in term singleton pregnancies
Affiliations- Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology. Faculty of Medicine and Dentistry, Palacky University, University Hospital Olomouc, Olomouc, Czech Republic, Czech Republic
open access
Abstract
Objectives: Induction of labor is indicated if the risk of continuing pregnancy is higher (either for fetus or mother) than the risk associated with the induction itself. The purpose of the present study was to compare the effectiveness of the double balloon Cook catheter and pharmacological preparations — prostaglandins (PGE), in our case it was misoprostol (PGE1) or dinoprostone (PGE2) for cervical ripening in pregnant women with gestational age at term.
Material and methods: The prospective observational study was conducted from March 2017 to December 2018. We used mechanical and pharmacological methods for cervical ripening. We compared the efficiency of methods and time to delivery from start of cervical ripening. We also evaluated the neonatal complications by Apgar score and neonatal intensive care unit admission in three different groups.
Results: Two hundred and nine women were chosen for cervical ripening. Double balloon Cook catheter and misoprostol were equally efficient in achieving vaginal delivery (76%). The shortest time for cervical ripening and successful vaginal delivery was shown in misoprostol (PGE1) group. In conclusion, no significant differences were found between groups in all neonatal outcomes.
Conclusions: Currently, many methods of delivery preinduction exist and the prevalence of their usage varies considerably between countries. As yet, there is no literature comparing these three methods for the preparation of cervix.
Abstract
Objectives: Induction of labor is indicated if the risk of continuing pregnancy is higher (either for fetus or mother) than the risk associated with the induction itself. The purpose of the present study was to compare the effectiveness of the double balloon Cook catheter and pharmacological preparations — prostaglandins (PGE), in our case it was misoprostol (PGE1) or dinoprostone (PGE2) for cervical ripening in pregnant women with gestational age at term.
Material and methods: The prospective observational study was conducted from March 2017 to December 2018. We used mechanical and pharmacological methods for cervical ripening. We compared the efficiency of methods and time to delivery from start of cervical ripening. We also evaluated the neonatal complications by Apgar score and neonatal intensive care unit admission in three different groups.
Results: Two hundred and nine women were chosen for cervical ripening. Double balloon Cook catheter and misoprostol were equally efficient in achieving vaginal delivery (76%). The shortest time for cervical ripening and successful vaginal delivery was shown in misoprostol (PGE1) group. In conclusion, no significant differences were found between groups in all neonatal outcomes.
Conclusions: Currently, many methods of delivery preinduction exist and the prevalence of their usage varies considerably between countries. As yet, there is no literature comparing these three methods for the preparation of cervix.
Keywords
Bishop score; cervical ripening; prostaglandins
About this articleTitle
Prospective comparison of cervical ripening with double balloon Cook catheter, misoprostol or dinoprostone in term singleton pregnancies
Journal
Issue
Article type
Research paper
Pages
221-228
Published online
2022-04-22
Page views
2807
Article views/downloads
817
DOI
Pubmed
Bibliographic record
Ginekol Pol 2023;94(3):221-228.
Keywords
Bishop score
cervical ripening
prostaglandins
Authors
Eliska Hostinska
Marek Lubusky
Radovan Pilka
References (33)- Papanikolaou EG, Plachouras N, Drougia A, et al. Comparison of misoprostol and dinoprostone for elective induction of labour in nulliparous women at full term: a randomized prospective study. Reprod Biol Endocrinol. 2004; 2: 70.
- Tenore JL. Methods for cervical ripening and induction of labor. Am Fam Physician. 2003; 67(10): 2123–2128.
- Levine LD. Cervical ripening: Why we do what we do. Semin Perinatol. 2020; 44(2): 151216.
- Razavi M, Farzaneh F. Comparison of the three methods of syntocinon, misoprostol, transcervical catheter plus syntocinon in labor induction. Zahedan J Res Med Sci. 2020; 22(2): e90332.
- Villalain C, Quezada MS, Gómez-Arriaga P, et al. Prognostic factors of successful cervical ripening and labor induction in late-onset fetal growth restriction. Fetal Diagn Ther. 2020; 47(7): 536–544.
- Dhanjal MK, Kenyon A. Induction of Labour at Term in Older Mothers. Scientific Impact Paper No. 34, Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists; London, 2013.
- Ten Eikelder MLG, Neervoort F, Oude Rengerink K, et al. Induction of labour with a Foley catheter or oral misoprostol at term: the PROBAAT-II study, a multicentre randomised controlled trial. BMC Pregnancy Childbirth. 2013; 13: 67.
- Abdelaziz A, Mahmoud AA, Ellaithy MI, et al. Pre-induction cervical ripening using two different dinoprostone vaginal preparations: A randomized clinical trial of tablets and slow release retrievable insert. Taiwan J Obstet Gynecol. 2018; 57(4): 560–566.
- Chodankar R, Sood A, Gupta J. An overview of the past, current and future trends for cervical ripening in induction of labour. The Obstetrician & Gynaecologist. 2017; 19(3): 219–226.
- Jozwiak M, van de Lest HA, Burger NB, et al. Cervical ripening with Foley catheter for induction of labor after cesarean section: a cohort study. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand. 2014; 93(3): 296–301.
- Grobman WA, Grobman WA, Rice MM, et al. Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development Maternal–Fetal Medicine Units Network. Labor induction versus expectant management in low-risk nulliparous women. N Engl J Med. 2018; 379(6): 513–523.
- Stock SJ, Calder A. Induction of labour. In: Arulkumaran S, Robson MS. ed. Munro Kerr‘s Operative Obstetrics. 12th ed. Philadelphia: Elsevier Saunders, Phildelphia 2014.
- Duro-Gómez J, Garrido-Oyarzún MF, Rodríguez-Marín AB, et al. Efficacy and safety of misoprostol, dinoprostone and Cook's balloon for labour induction in women with foetal growth restriction at term. Arch Gynecol Obstet. 2017; 296(4): 777–781.
- Shetty A, Livingston I, Acharya S, et al. Vaginal prostaglandin E2 gel versus tablet in the induction of labour at term — a retrospective analysis. J Obstet Gynaecol. 2004; 24(3): 243–246.
- Xenakis E, Piper J, Conway D, et al. Induction of labor in the nineties: Conquering the unfavorable cervix. Obstetrics & Gynecology. 1997; 90(2): 235–239.
- Gornisiewicz T, Kusmierska-Urban K, Huras H, et al. Comparison of misoprostol versus dinoprostone for delivery induction among pregnant women without concomitant disease. Ginekol Pol. 2020; 91(12): 726–732.
- Jozwiak M, Bloemenkamp KWM, Kelly AJ, et al. Mechanical methods for induction of labour. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2012(3): CD001233.
- Huisman CMA, Ten Eikelder MLG, Mast K, et al. PROBAAT-S project group. Balloon catheter for induction of labor in women with one previous cesarean and an unfavorable cervix. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand. 2019; 98(7): 920–928.
- Combination of misoprostol with transcervical foley’s catheter compared to misoprostol alone for cervical ripening at term and labour induction in tertiary care hospital: a randomized trial. Indian Journal of Forensic Medicine & Toxicology. 2020.
- Gupta J, Chodankar R, Baev O, et al. Synthetic osmotic dilators in the induction of labour - An international multicentre observational study. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol. 2018; 229: 70–75.
- Gibson KS, Waters TP, Bailit JL. Maternal and neonatal outcomes in electively induced low-risk term pregnancies. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2014; 211(3): 249.e1–249.e16.
- Familiari A, Khalil A, Rizzo G, et al. Adverse intrapartum outcome in pregnancies complicated by small for gestational age and late fetal growth restriction undergoing induction of labor with Dinoprostone, Misoprostol or mechanical methods: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol. 2020; 252: 455–467.
- Little SE. Elective induction of labor: what is the impact? Obstet Gynecol Clin North Am. 2017; 44(4): 601–614.
- Hawkins JS, Wing DA. Current pharmacotherapy options for labor induction. Expert Opin Pharmacother. 2012; 13(14): 2005–2014.
- Martin JA, Hamilton BE, Osterman MJK, et al. Births: final data for 2018. Natl Vital Stat Rep. 2019; 68(13): 1–47.
- Levine LD, Valencia CM, Tolosa JE. Induction of labor in continuing pregnancies. Best Pract Res Clin Obstet Gynaecol. 2020; 67: 90–99.
- Walker K, Bugg G, Macpherson M, et al. Randomized trial of labor induction in women 35 years of age or older. New England Journal of Medicine. 2016; 374(9): 813–822.
- Redling K, Schaedelin S, Huhn EA, et al. Efficacy and safety of misoprostol vaginal insert vs. oral misoprostol for induction of labor. J Perinat Med. 2019; 47(2): 176–182.
- Saad AF, Gupta J, Hruban L, et al. Predictors of vaginal delivery after cervical ripening using a synthetic osmotic dilator. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol. 2020; 246: 160–164.
- Xing Y, Li Na, Ji Q, et al. Double-balloon catheter compared with single-balloon catheter for induction of labor with a scarred uterus. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol. 2019; 243: 139–143.
- Mlodawski J, Mlodawska M, Plusajska J, et al. Misoprostol vaginal insert and Foley catheter in labour induction — single center retrospective observational study of obstetrical outcome. Ginekol Pol. 2020; 91(11): 700–703.
- 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.
- Peng J, Li R, Du S, et al. Induction of labour in mid-trimester pregnancy using double-balloon catheter placement within 12 h versus within 12-24 h. BMC Pregnancy Childbirth. 2021; 21(1): 17.
