Outpatient versus inpatient induction of labour for improving birth outcomes

Home versus inpatient induction of labour for improving birth outcomes

BACKGROUND

The setting in which induction of labour takes place (home or inpatient) is likely to have implications for safety, women's experiences and costs. Home induction may be started at home with the subsequent active phase of labour happening either at home or in a healthcare facility (hospital, birth centre, midwifery-led unit). More commonly, home induction starts in a healthcare facility, then the woman goes home to await the start of labour. Inpatient induction takes place in a healthcare facility where the woman stays while awaiting the start of labour.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effects on neonatal and maternal outcomes of third trimester home induction of labour compared with inpatient induction using the same method of induction.

SEARCH METHODS

For this update, we searched the Cochrane Pregnancy and Childbirth Group's Trials Register, ClinicalTrials.gov, the WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP) (31 January 2020)), and reference lists of retrieved studies.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Published and unpublished randomised controlled trials (RCTs) in which home and inpatient settings for induction have been compared. We included conference abstracts but excluded quasi-randomised trials and cross-over studies.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently assessed study reports for inclusion. Two review authors carried out data extraction and assessment of risk of bias independently. GRADE assessments were checked by a third review author.

MAIN RESULTS

We included seven RCTs, six of which provided data on 1610 women and their babies. Studies were undertaken between 1998 and 2015, and all were in high- or upper-middle income countries. Most women were induced for post dates. Three studies reported government funding, one reported no funding and three did not report on their funding source. Most GRADE assessments gave very low-certainty evidence, downgrading mostly for high risk of bias and serious imprecision. 1. Home compared to inpatient induction with vaginal prostaglandin E (PGE) (two RCTs, 1028 women and babies; 1022 providing data). Although women's satisfaction may be slightly better in home settings, the evidence is very uncertain (mean difference (MD) 0.16, 95% confidence interval (CI) -0.02 to 0.34, 1 study, 399 women), very low-certainty evidence. There may be little or no difference between home and inpatient induction for other primary outcomes, with all evidence being very low certainty: - spontaneous vaginal birth (average risk ratio (RR) [aRR] 0.91, 95% CI 0.69 to 1.21, 2 studies, 1022 women, random-effects method); - uterine hyperstimulation (RR 1.19, 95% CI 0.40 to 3.50, 1 study, 821 women); - caesarean birth (RR 1.01, 95% CI 0.81 to 1.28, 2 studies, 1022 women); - neonatal infection (RR 1.29, 95% CI 0.59 to 2.82, 1 study, 821 babies); - admission to neonatal intensive care unit (NICU) (RR 1.20, 95% CI 0.50 to 2.90, 2 studies, 1022 babies). Studies did not report serious neonatal morbidity or mortality. 2. Home compared to inpatient induction with controlled release PGE (one RCT, 299 women and babies providing data). There was no information on whether the questionnaire on women's satisfaction with care used a validated instrument, but the findings presented showed no overall difference in scores. We found little or no difference between the groups for other primary outcomes, all also being very low-certainty evidence: - spontaneous vaginal birth (RR 0.94, 95% CI 0.77 to 1.14, 1 study, 299 women); - uterine hyperstimulation (RR 1.01, 95% CI 0.51 to 1.98, 1 study, 299 women); - caesarean births (RR 0.95, 95% CI 0.64 to 1.42, 1 study, 299 women); - admission to NICU (RR 1.38, 0.57 to 3.34, 1 study, 299 babies). The study did not report on neonatal infection nor serious neonatal morbidity or mortality. 3. Home compared to inpatient induction with balloon or Foley catheter (four RCTs; three studies, 289 women and babies providing data). It was again unclear whether questionnaires reporting women's experiences/satisfaction with care were validated instruments, with one study (48 women, 69% response rate) finding women were similarly satisfied. Home inductions may reduce the number of caesarean births, but the data are also compatible with a slight increase and are of very low-certainty (RR 0.64, 95% CI 0.41 to 1.01, 2 studies, 159 women). There was little or no difference between the groups for other primary outcomes with all being very low-certainty evidence: - spontaneous vaginal birth (RR 1.04, 95% CI 0.54 to 1.98, 1 study, 48 women): - uterine hyperstimulation (RR 0.45, 95% CI 0.03 to 6.79, 1 study, 48 women); - admission to NICU (RR 0.37, 95% CI 0.07 to 1.86, 2 studies, 159 babies). There were no serious neonatal infections nor serious neonatal morbidity or mortality in the one study (involving 48 babies) assessing these outcomes.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Data on the effectiveness, safety and women's experiences of home versus inpatient induction of labour are limited and of very low-certainty. Given that serious adverse events are likely to be extremely rare, the safety data are more likely to come from very large observational cohort studies rather than relatively small RCTs.

Women's preferences for inpatient and outpatient priming for labour induction: a discrete choice experiment

BACKGROUND

In many countries a high proportion of births begin as induced labours. Induction can be lengthy if cervical priming is required prior to induction. This usually occurs as an inpatient, however, an alternative is to allow women to go home after satisfactory fetal monitoring. The aim of this study was to assess the preferences of women for cervical priming for induction of labour in an outpatient or inpatient setting.

METHOD

A discrete choice experiment (DCE) was conducted alongside a randomised trial of inpatient and outpatient cervical priming (the OPRA trial) in two maternity hospitals in South Australia. 362 participants were included, and women's preferences for cervical priming for induction of labour were assessed.

RESULTS

Women were willing to accept an extra 1.4 trips to hospital (2.4 trips total) and a total travel time of 73.3 minutes to be able to return to their own home while waiting for the priming to work. For enhanced inpatient services, women were willing to accept a total travel time of 54.7 minutes to have a private room with private bathroom while waiting for the priming to work. The overall benefit score for outpatient priming was 3.63, 3.59 for enhanced inpatient care and 2.89 for basic inpatient care, suggesting slightly greater preferences for outpatient priming. Preferences for outpatient priming increased when women could return to their own home (compared to other offsite accommodation), and decreased with more trips to hospital and longer travel time.

CONCLUSIONS

Our results suggest that outpatient priming was slightly more preferred than either enhanced inpatient priming or basic care; these results should be confirmed in different clinical settings. There may be merit in providing women information about both options in the future, as preferences varied according to the characteristics of the services on offer and the sociodemographic background of the woman.

Outpatient versus inpatient induction of labour for improving birth outcomes

BACKGROUND

More than 20% of women undergo induction of labour in some countries. The different methods used to induce labour have been the focus of previous reviews, but the setting in which induction takes place (hospital versus outpatient settings) may have implications for maternal satisfaction and costs. It is not known whether some methods of induction that are effective and safe in hospital are suitable in outpatient settings.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effects on outcomes for mothers and babies of induction of labour for women managed as outpatients versus inpatients.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Pregnancy and Childbirth Group's Trials Register (30 June 2013).

SELECTION CRITERIA

Published and unpublished randomised and quasi-randomised trials in which inpatient and outpatient methods of cervical ripening or induction of labour have been compared.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently assessed trial reports for inclusion. Two review authors carried out data extraction and assessment of risk of bias independently.

MAIN RESULTS

We included four trials, with a combined total of 1439 women in the review; each trial examined a different method of induction and we were unable to pool the results from trials.1. Vaginal PGE2 (two studies including 1028 women). There were no differences between women managed as outpatients versus inpatients for most review outcomes. There was no evidence of a difference between the likelihood of women requiring instrumental delivery in either setting (risk ratio (RR) 1.29; 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.79 to 2.13). The overall length of hospital stay was similar in the two groups.2. Controlled release PGE2 10 mg (one study including 300 women). There was no evidence of differences between groups for most review outcomes, including success of induction. During the induction period itself, women in the outpatient group were more likely to report high levels of satisfaction with their care (satisfaction rated seven or more on a nine-point scale, RR 1.42; 95% CI 1.11 to 1.81), but satisfaction scores measured postnatally were similar in the two groups.3. Foley catheter (one study including 111 women). There was no evidence of differences between groups for caesarean section rates, total induction time and the numbers of babies admitted to neonatal intensive care.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

The data available to evaluate the efficacy or potential hazards of outpatient induction are limited. It is, therefore, not yet possible to determine whether induction of labour is effective and safe in outpatient settings.

Outpatient Foley catheter versus inpatient prostaglandin E2 gel for induction of labour: a randomised trial

Background

Induction of labour (IOL) is one of the commonest obstetric interventions, with significant impact on both the individual woman and health service delivery. Outpatient IOL is an attractive option to reduce these impacts. To date there is little data comparing outpatient and inpatient IOL methods, and potential safety concerns (hyperstimulation) if prostaglandins, the standard inpatient IOL medications, are used in the outpatient setting. The purpose of this study was to assess feasibility, clinical effectiveness and patient acceptability of outpatient Foley catheter (OPC) vs. inpatient vaginal PGE2 (IP) for induction of labour (IOL) at term.

Methods

Women with an unfavourable cervix requiring IOL at term (N = 101) were randomised to outpatient care using Foley catheter (OPC, n = 50) or inpatient care using vaginal PGE2 (IP, n = 51). OPC group had Foley catheter inserted and were discharged overnight following a reassuring cardiotocograph. IP group received 2 mg/1 mg vaginal PGE2 if nulliparous or 1 mg/1 mg if multiparous. Main outcome measures were inpatient stay (prior to birth, in Birthing Unit, total), mode of birth, induction to delivery interval, adverse reactions and patient satisfaction.

Results

OPC group had shorter hospital stay prior to birth (21.3 vs. 32.4 hrs, p < .001), IP were more likely to achieve vaginal birth within 12 hours of presenting to Birthing Unit (53% vs. 28%, p = .01). Vaginal birth rates (66% OPC Vs. 71% IP), total induction to delivery time (33.5 hrs vs. 31.3 hrs) and total inpatient times (96 hrs OPC Vs. 105 hrs IP) were similar. OPC group felt less pain (significant discomfort 26% Vs 58%, p = .003), and had more sleep (5.8 Vs 3.4 hours, p < .001), during cervical preparation, but were more likely to require oxytocin IOL (88 Vs 59%, p = .001).

Conclusions

OPC was feasible and acceptable for IOL of women with an unfavourable cervix at term compared to IP, however did not show a statistically significant reduction in total inpatient stay and was associated with increased oxytocin IOL.

Trial registration

Australian New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry, ACTRN:12609000420246.

Women's experiences of outpatient induction of labour with remote continuous monitoring

OBJECTIVE

to gain insight into women's experiences and preferences for induction in the home as part of a trial investigating the feasibility and acceptability of outpatient induction of labour with remote monitoring.

DESIGN

a qualitative study using semi-structured individual interviews. Interview transcripts were subjected to thematic analysis to identify the dominant themes regarding women's experiences of outpatient induction.

SETTING

a large maternity hospital in the North West of England.

PARTICIPANTS

fifteen women who participated in the main trial of outpatient induction of labour with remote continuous monitoring.

FINDINGS

three main themes were identified; the need for women to 'labour within their comfort zone'; their desire to achieve 'the next best thing to a normal labour' and the importance of a 'virtual presence' to offer remote reassurance.

CONCLUSIONS

women's preference for the outpatient setting of induction of labour is dominated by their need to labour within their comfort zone. Outpatient induction offered women the familiarity and freedom of the home environment, and the resulting physical and emotional comforts helped women cope better with their labour and improved their birth experiences. While remote monitoring offered some reassurance, women still depended on effective communication from hospital staff to provide the virtual presence of a health professional in the home.

IMPLICATIONS

the combination of slow-release prostaglandin and a remote monitoring device may provide low risk women with an improved induction and labour experience. While ongoing studies continue to explore further the safety of interventions at home, this study has importantly considered women's views and confirmed that induction at home is not only acceptable to women but also that the outpatient experience is preferable to long inpatient inductions.

Home labour induction with retrievable prostaglandin pessary and continuous telemetric trans-abdominal fetal ECG monitoring

Objective

To evaluate the feasibility of continuous telemetric trans-abdominal fetal electrocardiogram (a-fECG) in women undergoing labour induction at home.

Study Design

Low risk women with singleton term pregnancy undergoing labour induction with retrievable, slow-release dinoprostone pessaries (n = 70) were allowed home for up to 24 hours, while a-fECG and uterine activity were monitored in hospital via wireless technology. Semi-structured diaries were analysed using a combined descriptive and interpretive approach.

Results

62/70 women (89%) had successful home monitoring; 8 women (11%) were recalled because of signal loss. Home monitoring lasted between 2–22 hours (median 10 hours). Good quality signal was achieved most of the time (86%, SD 10%). 3 women were recalled back to hospital for suspicious a-fECG. In 2 cases suspicious a-fECG persisted, requiring Caesarean section after recall to hospital. 48/51 women who returned the diary coped well (94%); 46/51 were satisfied with home monitoring (90%).

Conclusions

Continuous telemetric trans-abdominal fetal ECG monitoring of ambulatory women undergoing labour induction is feasible and acceptable to women.

Different methods for the induction of labour in outpatient settings

BACKGROUND

Induction of labour is carried out for a variety of indications and using a range of pharmacological, mechanical and other methods. For women at low risk, some methods of induction of labour may be suitable for use in outpatient settings.

OBJECTIVES

To examine pharmacological and mechanical interventions to induce labour in outpatient settings in terms of feasibility, effectiveness, maternal satisfaction, healthcare costs and, where information is available, safety. The review complements existing reviews on labour induction examining effectiveness and safety.

SEARCH STRATEGY

We searched the Cochrane Pregnancy and Childbirth Group's Trials Register (December 2009) and reference lists of retrieved studies.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised controlled trials examining outpatient cervical ripening or induction of labour with pharmacological agents or mechanical methods.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two authors independently extracted data and assessed eligible papers for risk of bias. We checked all data after entry into review manager software.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 28 studies with 2616 women examining different methods of induction of labour where women received treatment at home or were sent home after initial treatment and monitoring in hospital.Studies examined vaginal and intracervical PGE(2), vaginal and oral misoprostol, isosorbide mononitrate, mifepristone, oestrogens, and acupuncture. Overall, the results demonstrate that outpatient induction of labour is feasible and that important adverse events are rare. There was no strong evidence that agents used to induce labour in outpatient settings had an impact (positive or negative) on maternal or neonatal health. There was some evidence that, compared to placebo or no treatment, induction agents reduced the need for further interventions to induce labour, and shortened the interval from intervention to birth. We were unable to pool results on outcomes relating to progress in labour as studies tended to measure a very broad range of outcomes.There was no evidence that induction agents increased interventions in labour such as operative deliveries. Only two studies provided information on women's views about the induction process, and overall there was very little information on the costs to health service providers of different methods of labour induction in outpatient settings.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Induction of labour in outpatient settings appears feasible. We do not have sufficient evidence to know which induction methods are preferred by women, or the interventions that are most effective and safe to use in outpatient settings.

A combination of misoprostol and estradiol for preoperative cervical ripening in postmenopausal women: a randomised controlled trial

OBJECTIVE

To compare the impact of 1000 microg of self-administered vaginal misoprostol versus self-administered vaginal placebo on preoperative cervical ripening after 2 weeks of pretreatment with estradiol vaginal tablets in postmenopausal women prior to day-care operative hysteroscopy.

DESIGN

Randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled sequential trial.

SETTING

Norwegian university teaching hospital.

POPULATION

Sixty-seven postmenopausal women referred for day-care operative hysteroscopy.

METHODS

The women were randomised to receive either 1000 microg of self-administered vaginal misoprostol or self-administered vaginal placebo on the evening before day-care operative hysteroscopy. All women had administered a 25-microg vaginal estradiol tablet daily for 14 days prior to the operation.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

PRIMARY OUTCOME

preoperative cervical dilatation at hysteroscopy.

SECONDARY OUTCOMES

difference in dilatation at recruitment and before hysteroscopy, number of women who achieved a preoperative cervical dilatation of 5 mm or more, acceptability, complications and adverse effects.

RESULTS

The mean cervical dilatation was 5.7 mm (SD, 1.6 mm) in the misoprostol group and 4.7 mm (SD, 1.5 mm) in the placebo group, the mean difference in cervical dilatation being 1.0 mm (95% CI, 0.2-1.7 mm). Self-administered vaginal misoprostol of 1000 microg at home on the evening before day-care hysteroscopy is safe and highly acceptable, although a small proportion of women experienced lower abdominal pain.

CONCLUSIONS

One thousand micrograms of self-administered vaginal misoprostol, 12 hours prior to day-care hysteroscopy, after 14 days of pretreatment with vaginal estradiol, has a significant cervical ripening effect compared with placebo in postmenopausal women.

Vaginal prostaglandin (PGE2 and PGF2a) for induction of labour at term

BACKGROUND

Prostaglandins have been used for induction of labour since the 1960s. Initial work focused on prostaglandin F2a as prostaglandin E2 was considered unsuitable for a number of reasons. With the development of alternative routes of administration, comparisons were made between various formulations of vaginal prostaglandins.

OBJECTIVES

To determine the effects of vaginal prostaglandins E2 and F2a for third trimester cervical ripening or induction of labour in comparison with placebo/no treatment or other vaginal prostaglandins (except misoprostol).

SEARCH STRATEGY

We searched the Cochrane Pregnancy and Childbirth Group's Trials Register (May 2009) and bibliographies of relevant papers.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Clinical trials comparing vaginal prostaglandins used for third trimester cervical ripening or labour induction with placebo/no treatment or other methods listed above it on a predefined list of labour induction methods.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We assessed studies and extracted data independently.

MAIN RESULTS

Sixty-three (10,441 women) have been included.Vaginal prostaglandin E2 compared with placebo or no treatment reduced the likelihood of vaginal delivery not being achieved within 24 hours (18.1% versus 98.9%, risk ratio (RR) 0.19, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.14 to 0.25, two trials, 384 women). The risk of the cervix remaining unfavourable or unchanged was reduced (21.6% versus 40.3%, RR 0.46, 95% CI 0.35 to 0.62, five trials, 467 women); and the risk of oxytocin augmentation reduced (35.1% versus 43.8%, RR 0.83, 95% CI 0.73 to 0.94, 12 trials, 1321 women) when PGE2 was compared to placebo. There was no evidence of a difference between caesarean section rates, although the risk of uterine hyperstimulation with fetal heart rate changes was increased (4.4% versus 0.49%, RR 4.14, 95% CI 1.93 to 8.90, 14 trials, 1259 women).PGE2 tablet, gel and pessary appear to be as efficacious as each other and the use of sustained release PGE2 inserts appear to be associated with a reduction in instrumental vaginal delivery rates (9.9 % versus 19.5%, RR 0.51, 95% CI 0.35 to 0.76, NNT 10 (6.7 to 24.0), five trials, 661 women) when compared to vaginal PGE2 gel or tablet.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

PGE2 increases successful vaginal delivery rates in 24 hours and cervical favourability with no increase in operative delivery rates. Sustained release vaginal PGE2 is superior to vaginal PGE2 gel with respect to some outcomes studied.Further research is needed to assess the best vehicle for delivering vaginal prostaglandins and this should, where possible, include some examination of the cost-analysis.