Outpatient versus inpatient induction of labour for improving birth outcomes

A snapshot of women’s and clinicians’ perceptions of the double balloon catheter for induction of labor

INTRODUCTION

Induction of labor (IOL) is rising globally and is growing steadily in the state of New South Wales, Australia. There are numerous methods of induction of labor, including the double balloon catheter (DBC). There is minimal evidence on women’s attitudes and experiences and clinician’s opinions on the use of the DBC. This study aims to explore the views regarding DBC insertion and effectiveness from women induced with a DBC and clinicians involved in the catheter insertion and care.

METHODS

This study is a descriptive survey of two prospective, de-identified, self-reported questionnaires which were completed in 2016. One questionnaire was administered to term pregnant women that were admitted to the antenatal ward post IOL, and the other was completed by midwives and obstetric doctors working in the ward at the time.

RESULTS

The DBC appeared to be a well-accepted method of cervical ripening among women (61%) and clinicians (>82%). Success of DBC to achieve an artificial rupture of membrane post removal, directly correlates to women’s acceptance (61%). While most clinicians (59–67%) perceived insertion of DBC in an outpatient setting and then women discharged home was appropriate, only 13% of women were in favor. On the logistics of the procedure in respect to insertion and removal of the DBC, there were differences of opinion, with only 43% of women, 77% of midwives and 33% of doctors stating that the timing of insertion and removal needed to be improved.

CONCLUSIONS

This study highlights the need to undertake qualitative research to further explore women’s views and perceptions on IOL in order to ensure that clinical practice is woman-centered and evidenced-based, and to guide policy and protocol.

Outpatient Cervical Ripening With Misoprostol in Low-Risk Pregnancies

Objective To determine if outpatient cervical ripening with daily misoprostol can reduce admission to delivery time in women with low-risk pregnancies at 39 or more weeks of gestation. Study design This is a retrospective cohort study of a convenience sample of low-risk pregnancies that underwent elective outpatient cervical ripening compared to matched controls for parity (nulliparous vs. parous) and gestational age. Time from admission to delivery, induction agents, presence of tachysystole, mode of delivery, length of hospitalization, neonatal intensive care unit (NICU) admission, and low Apgar scores were compared. Results Fifty-six patients who underwent outpatient cervical ripening with daily dosing of misoprostol were compared to 56 patients matched for parity and gestational weeks who underwent inpatient cervical ripening/induction of labor with misoprostol. We found the time from admission to delivery in the outpatient cervical ripening cohort was significantly lesser than the inpatient cohort (17.5 ± 11.5 hours outpatient vs. 26.6 ± 15.6 hours inpatient, P=0.001). More patients (N=18, 32%) were able to deliver within 12 hours of admission in the outpatient induction group compared to the inpatient group (N=8, 11%, P=0.010). There were no differences in frequency of cesarean delivery, uterine tachysystole with or without fetal heart rate changes, NICU admission, low Apgar scores, or low umbilical artery pH values between the two groups. Conclusion Outpatient cervical ripening with misoprostol may be a feasible alternative to inpatient cervical ripening in low-risk pregnancies, may help improve patient experience, and reduce the operational burden that elective induction confers upon labor and delivery units.

Effect of Postoperative Coffee Consumption on Postoperative Ileus after Abdominal Surgery: An Updated Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

BACKGROUND

Previous systematic reviews have not clarified the effect of postoperative coffee consumption on the incidence of postoperative ileus (POI) and the length of hospital stay (LOS). We aimed to assess its effect on these postoperative outcomes.

METHODS

Studies evaluating postoperative coffee consumption were searched using electronic databases until September 2021 to perform random-effect meta-analysis. The quality of evidence was assessed using the Cochrane risk-of-bias tool. Caffeinated and decaffeinated coffee were also compared.

RESULTS

Thirteen trials (1246 patients) and nine ongoing trials were included. Of the 13 trials, 6 were on colorectal surgery, 5 on caesarean section, and 2 on gynecological surgery. Coffee reduced the time to first defecation (mean difference (MD) -10.1 min; 95% confidence interval (CI) = -14.5 to -5.6), POI (risk ratio 0.42; 95% CI = 0.26 to 0.69); and LOS (MD -1.5; 95% CI = -2.7 to -0.3). This trend was similar in colorectal and gynecological surgeries. Coffee had no adverse effects. There was no difference in POI or LOS between caffeinated and decaffeinated coffee (p > 0.05). The certainty of evidence was low to moderate.

CONCLUSION

This review showed that postoperative coffee consumption, regardless of caffeine content, likely reduces POI and LOS after colorectal and gynecological surgery.

Quality appraisal of systematic reviews on methods of labour induction: a systematic review

PURPOSE

Induction of labour has become more common over the last decade, together with an increase in the number of systematic reviews of the subject. However, with multiple systematic reviews it is necessary to evaluate the methodological rigor to ensure the reliability of conclusions and recommendations for clinical practice. Therefore, the aim of this study was to appraise the quality of systematic reviews that examined the efficacy and/or safety of labour induction methods.

METHODS

An electronic search of MEDLINE, Embase, and the Cochrane Library from 2000 to 2020 was conducted. Study selection, data extraction and quality assessment were conducted using A Measurement Tool to Assess Systematic Reviews (AMSTAR) by two independent reviewers, in duplicate.

RESULTS

The search identified 387 publications, of which 48 studies (13%) met the a priori inclusion criteria. No significant relationships were found between study quality and number of citations, journal impact factor, or publication year.

CONCLUSION

Methodological quality for systematic reviews on the induction of labour were ranked as moderate with no significant changes in quality over the past 2 decades. Publication characteristics are not significantly associated with methodological quality, indicating that healthcare professionals should critically appraise studies before applying them to practice.

Cervical ripening at home or in-hospital-prospective cohort study and process evaluation (CHOICE) study: a protocol

INTRODUCTION

The aim of the cervical ripening at home or in-hospital-prospective cohort study and process evaluation (CHOICE) study is to compare home versus in-hospital cervical ripening to determine whether home cervical ripening is safe (for the primary outcome of neonatal unit (NNU) admission), acceptable to women and cost-effective from the perspective of both women and the National Health Service (NHS).

METHODS AND ANALYSIS

We will perform a prospective multicentre observational cohort study with an internal pilot phase. We will obtain data from electronic health records from at least 14 maternity units offering only in-hospital cervical ripening and 12 offering dinoprostone home cervical ripening. We will also conduct a cost-effectiveness analysis and a mixed methods study to evaluate processes and women/partner experiences. Our primary sample size is 8533 women with singleton pregnancies undergoing induction of labour (IOL) at 39+0 weeks' gestation or more. To achieve this and contextualise our findings, we will collect data relating to a cohort of approximately 41 000 women undergoing IOL after 37 weeks. We will use mixed effects logistic regression for the non-inferiority comparison of NNU admission and propensity score matched adjustment to control for treatment indication bias. The economic analysis will be undertaken from the perspective of the NHS and Personal Social Services (PSS) and the pregnant woman. It will include a within-study cost-effectiveness analysis and a lifetime cost-utility analysis to account for any long-term impacts of the cervical ripening strategies. Outcomes will be reported as incremental cost per NNU admission avoided and incremental cost per quality adjusted life year gained.

RESEARCH ETHICS APPROVAL AND DISSEMINATION

CHOICE has been funded and approved by the National Institute of Healthcare Research Health Technology and Assessment, and the results will be disseminated via publication in peer-reviewed journals.

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

ISRCTN32652461.

Outpatient Induction of Labor - Are Balloon Catheters an Appropriate Method?

As the number of labor inductions in high-income countries has steadily risen, hospital costs and the additional burden on obstetric staff have also increased. Outpatient induction of labor is therefore becoming increasingly important. It has been estimated that 20 – 50% of all pregnant women requiring induction would be eligible for outpatient induction. The use of balloon catheters in patients with an unripe cervix has been shown to be an effective and safe method of cervical priming. Balloon catheters are as effective as the vaginal administration of prostaglandin E ₂ or oral misoprostol. The advantage of using a balloon catheter is that it avoids uterine hyperstimulation and monitoring is less expensive. This makes balloon catheters a suitable option for outpatient cervical ripening. Admittedly, intravenous administration of oxytocin to induce or augment labor is required in approximately 75% of cases. Balloon catheters are not associated with a higher risk of maternal and neonatal infection compared to vaginal PGE ₂ . Low-risk pregnancies (e.g., post-term pregnancies, gestational diabetes) are suitable for outpatient cervical ripening with a balloon catheter. The data for high-risk pregnancies are still insufficient. The following conditions are recommended when considering an outpatient approach: strict selection of appropriate patients (singleton pregnancy, cephalic presentation, intact membranes), CTG monitoring for 20 – 40 minutes after balloon placement, the patient must be given detailed instructions about the indications for immediate readmission to hospital, and 24-hour phone access to the hospital must be ensured. According to reviewed studies, the balloon catheter remained in place between 12 hours (“overnight”) and 24 hours. The most common reason for readmission to hospital was expulsion of the balloon catheter. The advantages of outpatient versus inpatient induction of cervical ripening with a balloon catheter were the significantly shorter hospital stay, the lower costs, and higher patient satisfaction, with both procedures having been shown to be equally effective. Complication rates (e.g., vaginal bleeding, severe pain, uterine hyperstimulation syndrome) during the cervical ripening phase are low (0.3 – 1.5%); severe adverse outcomes (e.g., placental abruption) have not been reported. Compared to inpatient induction of labor using vaginal PGE ₂ , outpatient cervical ripening using a balloon catheter had a lower rate of deliveries/24 hours and a significantly higher need for oxytocin; however, hospital stay was significantly shorter, frequency of pain during the cervical ripening phase was significantly lower, and patientsʼ duration of sleep was longer. A randomized controlled study comparing outpatient cervical priming with a balloon catheter with outpatient or inpatient induction of labor with oral misoprostol would be of clinical interest.

A systematic review of supportive interventions to promote women's comfort and well-being during induction of labour

AIMS

To evaluate the effectiveness of non-pharmacological non-invasive supportive interventions for impacts on women's comfort and well-being during induction of labour.

DESIGN

A quantitative systematic review without meta-analysis.

DATA SOURCES

Databases were searched for primary research published in English between 2000-2019: AMED, CINAHL, Medline, Maternity and Infant Care database, PsycINFO, and ProQuest. The quality of studies was evaluated using JBI levels of evidence and established critical appraisal tools. Studies describing measures of comfort, coping, and well-being for women during induction of labour were included.

RESULTS

Two articles met the criteria for inclusion. There is limited evidence to suggest that women having outpatient cervical priming were more satisfied with their experience than women having inpatient cervical priming and that outpatient cervical priming did not increase women's anxiety. A specifically designed information brochure explaining the induction process improved women's knowledge and understanding.

REVIEW METHODS

The quantitative systematic review followed the Centre for Reviews and Dissemination guidelines and Cochrane Effective Practice and Organisation of Care guidance. Quality appraisal was conducted using JBI levels of evidence, Cochrane Risk of Bias, and other established tools. A narrative description of the quantitative data was undertaken. There was insufficient evidence to perform a narrative synthesis or meta-analysis due to the nature of the study designs and insufficient outcome data.

CONCLUSIONS

Globally, the number of women having an induction of labour is increasing and there is a lack of evidence on the effectiveness of supportive interventions. Components of supportive care for women having induction of labour require urgent evaluation. Measurement tools which capture the complexity of supportive care for women having induction of labour need to be developed and validated.

IMPACT

This is the first review to evaluate non-pharmacological, non-invasive supportive interventions for women having induction of labour. The findings of this review identify the urgent need to develop an evidence base for effective supportive.

Local guidelines for admission to UK midwifery units compared with national guidance: A national survey using the UK Midwifery Study System (UKMidSS)

OBJECTIVES

To describe the extent to which local guidelines for admission to UK midwifery units align with national guidance; to describe variation in individual admission criteria; and to describe the extent to which alongside midwifery units (AMUs) are the default option for eligible women.

DESIGN

National cross-sectional survey.

SETTING

All 122 UK maternity services with midwifery units, between October 2018 and February 2019.

OUTCOME MEASURES

Alignment of local admission guidelines with national guidance (NICE CG190); frequency and nature of variation in individual admission criteria; percentage of services with AMU as default birth setting for eligible women.

RESULTS

Admission guidelines were received from 87 maternity services (71%), representing 153 units, and we analysed 85 individual guideline documents. Overall, 92% of local admission guidelines varied from national guidance; 76% contained both some admission criteria that were 'more inclusive' and some that were 'more restrictive' than national guidance. The most common 'more inclusive' admission criteria, occurring in 40-80% of guidelines, were: explicit admission of women with parity ≥4; aged 35-40yrs; with a BMI 30-35kg/m2; selective admission of women with a BMI 35-40kg/m2; Group B Streptococcus carriers; and those undergoing induction of labour. The most common 'more restrictive' admission criteria, occurring in around 30% of guidelines, excluded women who: declined blood products; had experienced female genital cutting; were aged <16yrs; or had not attended for regular antenatal care. Over half of services (59%) reported the AMU as the default option for healthy women with straightforward pregnancies.

CONCLUSIONS

The variation in local midwifery unit admission criteria found in this study represents a potentially confusing and inequitable basis for women making choices about planned place of birth. A review of national guidance may be indicated and where a lack of relevant evidence underlies variation in admission criteria, further research by planned place of birth is required.

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.

Prostaglandin insert dinoprostone versus trans-cervical balloon catheter for outpatient labour induction: a randomised controlled trial of feasibility (PROBIT-F)

Background

The aim was to assess the feasibility of conducting a randomised controlled trial (RCT) of induction of labour comparing use of two methods in the outpatient setting.

Methods

An open-label feasibility RCT was conducted in two UK maternity units from October 2017 to March 2019. Women aged ≥ 16 years, undergoing induction of labour (IOL) at term, with intact membranes and deemed suitable for outpatient IOL according to local guidelines were considered eligible. They were randomised to cervical ripening balloon catheter (CRB) or vaginal dinoprostone (Propess). The participants completed a questionnaire and a sub-group underwent detailed interview. Service use and cost data were collected via the Adult Service Use Schedule (AD-SUS). Women who declined to participate were requested to complete a decliners’ questionnaire.

Results

During the study period, 274 eligible women were identified. Two hundred thirty (83.9%) were approached for participation of whom 84/230 (36.5%) agreed and 146 did not. Of these, 38 were randomised to Propess (n = 20) and CRB (n = 18). Decliner data were collected for 93 women. The reasons for declining were declining IOL (n = 22), preference for inpatient IOL (n = 22) and preference for a specific method, Propess (n = 19). The intended sample size of 120 was not reached due to restrictive criteria for suitability for outpatient IOL, participant preference for Propess and shortage of research staff.

The intervention as randomised was received by 29/38 (76%) women. Spontaneous vaginal delivery was observed in 9/20 (45%) women in the dinoprostone group and 11/18 (61%) women in the CRB group. Severe maternal adverse events were recorded in one woman in each group. All babies were born with good condition and all except one (37/38, 97.4%) remained with the mother after delivery. No deaths were recorded. − 21% of women in the dinoprostone group were re-admitted prior to diagnosis of active labour compared to 12% in the CRB group.

Conclusions

A third of the approached eligible women agreed for randomisation. An RCT is not feasible in the current service context. Modifications to the eligibility criteria for outpatient IOL, better information provision and round the clock availability of research staff would be needed to reach sufficient numbers.

Trial registration

NCT03199820. Registered on June 27, 2017

Outpatient versus inpatient balloon catheter insertion for labor induction: A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

OBJECTIVE

To compare between outpatient and inpatient balloon catheter insertion for labor induction.

METHODS

We searched in four different databases for the available trials during May 2020. We included randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that compared outpatient to inpatient balloon catheter for induction of labor. We extracted the available data from the included studies and pooled them in meta-analysis using RevMan software. The dichotomous data were pooled as risk ratio (RR) and the continuous data were pooled as mean difference (MD) with the corresponding 95% confidence intervals (CI).Our primary outcome was the rate of cesarean delivery. Our secondary outcomes were the length of hospital stay, Bishop score, and different adverse events including postpartum hemorrhage, Apgar score less than 7 at 5 minutes, and chorioamnionitis.

RESULTS

Eight RCTs with a total number of 740patients were included. The cesarean delivery rate was significantly reduced among outpatient balloon catheter compared to inpatient balloon catheter (RR = 0.63, 95% CI [0.46, 0.86], p = 0.004). Outpatient balloon catheter was associated with shorter hospital stay duration in comparison with inpatient group (MD= -0.38, 95% CI [-0.61, -0.14], p = 0.002). Outpatient group was linked to a more favorable increase in Bishop score (MD = 0.88, 95% CI [0.78, 0.98], p>0.001). There were no significant differences between both groups regarding different adverse events.

CONCLUSION

Outpatient balloon catheter priming is safe and effective in reducing cesarean delivery rates and shortening the length of hospital stay with a better Bishop score.

Retrospective Comparison of PGE2 Vaginal Insert and Foley Catheter for Outpatient Cervical Ripening

OBJECTIVE

To compare the efficacy of two methods of outpatient cervical ripening (CR): an intracervical Foley catheter and a prostaglandin E₂ (PGE)₂ slow-release vaginal insert.

METHODS

All records of women receiving outpatient CR at a tertiary care hospital from January 2017 to June 2018 were retrospectively reviewed. We compared time from insertion of first CR agent until delivery between groups using a Cox proportional hazards (CPH) model. Exclusion criteria included age <18 years, multiple gestation, or contraindication to either CR method. Secondary outcomes included time from removal of agent and time from admission until delivery, additional CR used, uterine tachysystole, labour and delivery complications, type of delivery, and adverse neonatal outcomes.

RESULTS

A total of 153 patients were included (82 Foley; 71 PGE₂). Baseline characteristics were comparable except for lower dilation in the PGE₂ group (16% vs. 38% <1cm dilated; P < 0.05). In the CPH model, time from insertion to delivery was not different between PGE₂ and Foley catheter groups (median 27 vs. 33 h), controlling for parity, gestational age, initial dilation, and use of oxytocin (HR 1.13, 95% confidence interval 0.77-1.68). Patients in the PGE₂ group were more likely to experience uterine tachysystole (9% vs. 0%; P < 0.01) and require another method of CR (34% vs. 1%; P < 0.001). There were no differences in neonatal or maternal adverse outcomes between groups.

CONCLUSION

Our results suggest that outpatient Foley catheter and PGE₂ CR are comparable in time from insertion to delivery; however, PGE₂ inserts are associated with higher rates of tachysystole and the need for second CR method. A prospective study is warranted to further investigate these findings.

Outpatient balloon catheter vs inpatient prostaglandin for induction of labour (OBLIGE): a randomised controlled trial

Background

Approximately one in four pregnant women undergo an induction of labour. The purpose of this study is to investigate the clinical effectiveness, safety, and cost-effectiveness for mothers and babies of two methods of cervical ripening – inpatient care for women starting induction with vaginal prostaglandin E2 hormones, or allowing women to go home for 18 to 24 h after starting induction with a single-balloon catheter.

Methods/design

This is a multi-centre randomised controlled trial in New Zealand. Eligible pregnant women, with a live singleton baby in a cephalic presentation who undergo a planned induction of labour at term, will be randomised to outpatient balloon-catheter induction or in-hospital prostaglandin induction. The primary outcome is caesarean section rate. To detect a 24% relative risk reduction in caesarean rate from a baseline of 24.8%, with 80% power and 5% type 1 error, will require 1552 participants in a one to one ratio.

Discussion

If outpatient balloon-catheter induction reduces caesarean section rates, has additional clinical benefits, and is safe, cost-effective, and acceptable to women and clinicians, we anticipate change in induction of labour practice around the world. We think that home-based balloon-catheter induction will be welcomed as part of a patient-centred labour-induction care package for pregnant women.

Trial registration

Australia New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry (ANZCTR), ACTRN: 12616000739415. Registered on 6 June 2016.

Recent advances in the induction of labor

The rate of labor induction is steadily increasing and, in industrialized countries, approximately one out of four pregnant women has their labor induced. Induction of labor should be considered when the benefits of prompt vaginal delivery outweigh the maternal and/or fetal risks of waiting for the spontaneous onset of labor. However, this procedure is not free of risks, which include an increase in operative vaginal or caesarean delivery and excessive uterine activity with risk of fetal heart rate abnormalities. A search for “Induction of Labor” retrieves more than 18,000 citations from 1844 to the present day. The aim of this review is to summarize the controversies concerning the indications, the methods, and the tools for evaluating the success of the procedure, with an emphasis on the scientific evidence behind each.

A comparison between induction of labor with 3 methods of titrated oral misoprostol, constant dose of oral misoprostol and Foley catheter with extra amniotic saline infusion (EASI), in women with unfavorable cervix

Background: Different methods of cervical ripening and induction of labor have been used in the cases of unfavorable cervix with different levels of success, but no method has been found to be the best option. The purpose of the present study was to find the effects and side effects of three different methods of cervical ripening and induction of labor. These three methods were oral titrated misoprostol, constant dose of oral misoprostol and Foley catheter with extra-amniotic saline infusion.

Methods: This clinical trial was performed on women with unfavorable cervix who had been admitted in Akbarabadi Teaching Hospital for induction of labor and had bishop score of less than six; between March 2014- March 2015. The eligible women were assigned into three groups. In titrated oral misoprostol group (n=33), titrated solution of misoprostol, and in oral misoprostol group (n=33), 50µg oral misoprostol every four hours and in Foley catheter group (n=50), Foley catheter with extra-amniotic saline infusion were administered. The main outcome was the number of vaginal deliveries during the first 24 hours. In addition, number of cesarean deliveries and adverse effects were compared between the three groups. The obtained data were analyzed using SPSS 18 software. Data analysis was performed according to the intention to treat principle. Chi-square test, Fisher Exact test, Student ttest, and Mann-Whitney U test, were used for comparing data. P-value≤0.05 was considered statistically significant.

Results: The three groups did not have any significant difference according to maternal age, gestational age at the time of admission, gravidity, parity, and primary Bishop Score. There was no significant difference between the three groups for the main outcome, which was vaginal delivery during the first 24 hours (p=0.887). There was no significant difference between the three groups according to hypertonicity, uterine hyperstimulation, meconium passage, non-reassuring fetal heart rate, neonatal Apgar score in minutes one and 5, and mean duration of beginning the intervention up to delivery. However, uterine tachysystole and NICU admission were more in the group to whom the titrated solution of misoprostol was administered (p=0.002 and p=0.037 respectively). The number of cesarean deliveries due to failure to progress was higher in the EASI group. However, EASI group showed the least number of none-reassuring fetal heart rate between the three groups. Meconium passage was more in the titrated misoprostol group, but the difference was not significant.

Conclusion: All three methods are appropriate methods for induction of labor in the cases of unfavorable cervix; and choosing each method depends on the expertise of labor staff, accessibility to the medications, cost, and taking care for monitoring the patients and adverse effects.

Woman-Centred Induction of Labour (the WOCIL project)

Induction of labour (IOL) is a common obstetric intervention. 32% of women are induced per year in our obstetric unit. We were experiencing delays in starting IOLs due to unit activity, protracted inpatient stay and dissatisfaction among staff and service users. We used quality improvement (QI) methodology to identify inefficiencies and root causes and used a bottom-up approach in planning improvements. After optimising our IOL processes, we introduced misoprostol vaginal insert (MVI) as it was faster acting than traditional dinoprostone. We compared 207 women who had MVI with 172 women who had dinoprostone prior to MVI introduction. There was a reduction of IOL start to delivery time, from a mean of 30 hours to 21 hours. Fewer women required oxytocin and of those who did, required oxytocin for fewer hours. We also found a reduction in caesarean section rates in women undergoing IOL, statistically significant in nulliparous women (41%-25%, p=0.03). There was a higher uterine tachysystole and hyperstimulation rate with MVI use and introduction should be accompanied by education of staff. We did not find any increase in neonatal admissions, maternal haemorrhage or other serious adverse events. In summary, MVI is a useful drug in helping high volume units with high IOL rates, reduced bed occupancy and improved flow of women. We would recommend a holistic QI approach to change management, as safe use of the drug requires optimisation of the IOL processes as well as staff engagement, due to rapid flow of women through the IOL pathway and increased hyperstimulation rates.

Pharmacological and mechanical interventions for labour induction in outpatient settings

BACKGROUND

Induction of labour is carried out for a variety of indications and using a range of methods. For women at low risk of pregnancy complications, some methods of induction of labour or cervical ripening may be suitable for use in outpatient settings.

OBJECTIVES

To examine pharmacological and mechanical interventions to induce labour or ripen the cervix in outpatient settings in terms of effectiveness, maternal satisfaction, healthcare costs and, where information is available, safety.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Pregnancy and Childbirth Group's Trials Register (30 November 2016) 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. Cluster trials were eligible for inclusion.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently assessed trials for inclusion and risk of bias, extracted data and checked them for accuracy. We assessed evidence using the GRADE approach.

MAIN RESULTS

This updated review included 34 studies of 11 different methods for labour induction with 5003 randomised women, where women received treatment at home or were sent home after initial treatment and monitoring in hospital.Studies examined vaginal and intracervical prostaglandin E₂ (PGE₂), vaginal and oral misoprostol, isosorbide mononitrate, mifepristone, oestrogens, amniotomy and acupuncture, compared with placebo, no treatment, or routine care. Trials generally recruited healthy women with a term pregnancy. The risk of bias was mostly low or unclear, however, in 16 trials blinding was unclear or not attempted. In general, limited data were available on the review's main and additional outcomes. Evidence was graded low to moderate quality. 1. Vaginal PGE₂ versus expectant management or placebo (5 studies)Fewer women in the vaginal PGE₂ group needed additional induction agents to induce labour, however, confidence intervals were wide (risk ratio (RR) 0.52, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.27 to 0.99; 150 women; 2 trials). There were no clear differences between groups in uterine hyperstimulation (with or without fetal heart rate (FHR) changes) (RR 3.76, 95% CI 0.64 to 22.24; 244 women; 4 studies; low-quality evidence), caesarean section (RR 0.80, 95% CI 0.49 to 1.31; 288 women; 4 studies; low-quality evidence), or admission to a neonatal intensive care unit (NICU) (RR 0.32, 95% CI 0.10 to 1.03; 230 infants; 3 studies; low-quality evidence).There was no information on vaginal birth within 24, 48 or 72 hours, length of hospital stay, use of emergency services or maternal or caregiver satisfaction. Serious maternal and neonatal morbidity or deaths were not reported. 2. Intracervical PGE₂ versus expectant management or placebo (7 studies) There was no clear difference between women receiving intracervical PGE₂ and no treatment or placebo in terms of need for additional induction agents (RR 0.98, 95% CI 0.74 to 1.32; 445 women; 3 studies), vaginal birth not achieved within 48 to 72 hours (RR 0.83, 95% CI 0.68 to 1.02; 43 women; 1 study; low-quality evidence), uterine hyperstimulation (with FHR changes) (RR 2.66, 95% CI 0.63 to 11.25; 488 women; 4 studies; low-quality evidence), caesarean section (RR 0.90, 95% CI 0.72 to 1.12; 674 women; 7 studies; moderate-quality evidence), or babies admitted to NICU (RR 1.61, 95% CI 0.43 to 6.05; 215 infants; 3 studies; low-quality evidence). There were no uterine ruptures in either the PGE₂ group or placebo group.There was no information on vaginal birth not achieved within 24 hours, length of hospital stay, use of emergency services, mother or caregiver satisfaction, or serious morbidity or neonatal morbidity or perinatal death. 3. Vaginal misoprostol versus placebo (4 studies)One small study reported on the rate of perinatal death with no clear differences between groups; there were no deaths in the treatment group compared with one stillbirth (reason not reported) in the control group (RR 0.34, 95% CI 0.01 to 8.14; 77 infants; 1 study; low-quality evidence).There was no clear difference between groups in rates of uterine hyperstimulation with FHR changes (RR 1.97, 95% CI 0.43 to 9.00; 265 women; 3 studies; low-quality evidence), caesarean section (RR 0.94, 95% CI 0.61 to 1.46; 325 women; 4 studies; low-quality evidence), and babies admitted to NICU (RR 0.89, 95% CI 0.54 to 1.47; 325 infants; 4 studies; low-quality evidence).There was no information on vaginal birth not achieved within 24, 48 or 72 hours, additional induction agents required, length of hospital stay, use of emergency services, mother or caregiver satisfaction, serious maternal, and other neonatal, morbidity or death.No substantive differences were found for other comparisons. One small study found that women who received oral misoprostol were more likely to give birth within 24 hours (RR 0.65, 95% CI 0.48 to 0.86; 87 women; 1 study) and were less likely to require additional induction agents (RR 0.60, 95% CI 0.37 to 0.97; 127 women; 2 studies). Women who received mifepristone were also less likely to require additional induction agents (average RR 0.59, 95% CI 0.37 to 0.95; 311 women; 4 studies; I² = 74%); however, this result should be interpreted with caution due to high heterogeneity. One trial each of acupuncture and outpatient amniotomy were included, but few review outcomes were reported.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Induction of labour in outpatient settings appears feasible and important adverse events seem rare, however, in general there is insufficient evidence to detect differences. 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 administered on an outpatient basis reduced the need for further interventions to induce labour, and shortened the interval from intervention to birth.We do not have sufficient evidence to know which induction methods are preferred by women, the interventions that are most effective and safe to use in outpatient settings, or their cost effectiveness. Further studies where various women-friendly outpatient protocols are compared head-to-head are required. As part of such work, women should be consulted on what sort of management they would prefer.

Effect of Saffron (Fan Hong Hua) On the Readiness of The Uterine Cervix In Term Pregnancy: A Placebo-Controlled Randomized Trial

Background

Readiness of the cervix is required for successful induction of labor, and there are a number of ways in which this can be achieved.

Objectives

The aim of the present study was to assess whether taking saffron orally could have an effect on the cervical readiness (primary outcome) and some delivery and neonatal outcomes (secondary outcomes) in women in the stage of term pregnancy.

Patients and Methods

In this double-blind trial, 50 women with a gestational age of 39 to 41 weeks, no indication of cesarean section, a Bishop’s score of less than 4, who had plan to have vaginal delivery at Shohada hospital of Bonab, Iran were randomized into two groups receiving three 250mg saffron or placebo pills in 24 hours. The readiness of the cervix was assessed using the Bishop’s score. The Mann-Whitney U test was used to compare the scores between the groups.

Results

There were no significant differences between the groups in terms of the Bishop’s score at the baseline (P = 0.792) and 10-12 hours after starting the intervention (P = 0.159). The Bishop’s score was significantly higher in the saffron group 20 - 24 hours after the intervention was started (P = 0.029) and just after onset of active uterine contractions (P = 0.003). In the saffron group, there was no cesarean section and 1 meconium staining of the fetus, but 3 and 4, respectively, in the placebo group. There was no statistically significant difference between the groups in terms of the timing of the onset of spontaneous active uterine contractions, the duration of the first and second stages of labor, the need for delivery augmentation, and the first and fifth minutes of neonatal Apgar (P > 0.05). No adverse event was reported in any of the groups.

Conclusions

Saffron can increase the readiness of the cervix in term pregnancies. However, the study limitations do not allow for any definite conclusions for its use in clinical practice, and more research is needed to assess its effect on delivery and neonatal outcomes.

Induction of labour at term with oral misoprostol versus a Foley catheter (PROBAAT-II): a multicentre randomised controlled non-inferiority trial

BACKGROUND

Labour is induced in 20-30% of all pregnancies. In women with an unfavourable cervix, both oral misoprostol and Foley catheter are equally effective compared with dinoprostone in establishing vaginal birth, but each has a better safety profile. We did a trial to directly compare oral misoprostol with Foley catheter alone.

METHODS

We did an open-label randomised non-inferiority trial in 29 hospitals in the Netherlands. Women with a term singleton pregnancy in cephalic presentation, an unfavourable cervix, intact membranes, and without a previous caesarean section who were scheduled for induction of labour were randomly allocated to cervical ripening with 50 μg oral misoprostol once every 4 h or to a 30 mL transcervical Foley catheter. The primary outcome was a composite of asphyxia (pH ≤7·05 or 5-min Apgar score <7) or post-partum haemorrhage (≥1000 mL). The non-inferiority margin was 5%. The trial is registered with the Netherlands Trial Register, NTR3466.

FINDINGS

Between July, 2012, and October, 2013, we randomly assigned 932 women to oral misoprostol and 927 women to Foley catheter. The composite primary outcome occurred in 113 (12·2%) of 924 participants in the misoprostol group versus 106 (11·5%) of 921 in the Foley catheter group (adjusted relative risk 1·06, 90% CI 0·86-1·31). Caesarean section occurred in 155 (16·8%) women versus 185 (20·1%; relative risk 0·84, 95% CI 0·69-1·02, p=0·067). 27 adverse events were reported in the misoprostol group versus 25 in the Foley catheter group. None were directly related to the study procedure.

INTERPRETATION

In women with an unfavourable cervix at term, induction of labour with oral misoprostol and Foley catheter has similar safety and effectiveness.

FUNDING

FondsNutsOhra.

Improving induction of labour - a quality improvement project addressing Caesarean section rates and length of process in women undergoing induction of labour

Induction of labour (IOL) in maternity care is often not an area of priority in maternity services, which often results in protracted delays, a poor patient experience, and patient complaints. Caesarean section (CS) rates among women undergoing IOL at this inner city district general hospital were noted to be higher than other units nationwide.

We collected pre and post-intervention data of the following outcome measures: time taken to administer prostaglandin after arrival, time taken to achieve established labour, mode of delivery, and user satisfaction scores. Our introduction of a dedicated IOL Suite, promotion of out-patient IOL, use of a single administration prostaglandin (as opposed to traditional six hourly prostaglandin), widespread staff engagement and rolling audit has resulted in positive change in the maternity unit. CS rates for women undergoing IOL have been reduced from 29% to 22% (p=0.05), time taken to administer the induction medication has decreased from 6.3h to 2.7h (p=0.0001), and out-patient induction rates have increased from 3% to 33% (p=0.001).

We have achieved a reduction in the overall length of in-patient stay. We have also received positive feedback from both staff and patients. We used a bottom-up approach, engaging frontline staff in problem identification and pathway design. Our staff engagement questionnaire showed other benefits such as increased staff morale as a result.

Collection of simple performance data and sharing of this in real time with staff acts as a valuable tool for acceptance of change and continuous improvement. Communicating plans to a large body of people is important in ensuring the success of an intervention. Staff showing disengagement may require specific detailed information to allay their concerns. Following initial successes, ongoing vigilance, and collection of audit data is key to sustaining any improvement.

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

BACKGROUND

Prostaglandins have been used for induction of labour since the 1960s. This is one of a series of reviews evaluating methods of induction of labour. This review focuses on prostaglandins given per vaginam, evaluating these in comparison with placebo (or expectant management) and with each other; prostaglandins (PGE2 and PGF2a); different formulations (gels, tablets, pessaries) and doses.

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 METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Pregnancy and Childbirth Group's Trials Register (1 March 2014) 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, with each other, 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

Seventy randomised controlled trials (RCTs) (11,487 women) are included. In this update seven new RCTs (778 women) have been added. Two of these new trials compare PGE2 with no treatment, four compare different PGE2 formulations (gels versus tablets, or sustained release pessaries) and one trial compares PGF2a with placebo. The majority of trials were at unclear risk of bias for most domains.Overall, vaginal prostaglandin E2 compared with placebo or no treatment probably reduces the likelihood of vaginal delivery not being achieved within 24 hours. The risk of uterine hyperstimulation with fetal heart rate changes is increased (4.8% versus 1.0%, risk ratio (RR) 3.16, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.67 to 5.98, 15 trials, 1359 women). The caesarean section rate is probably reduced by about 10% (13.5% versus 14.8%, RR 0.91, 95% CI 0.81 to 1.02, 36 trials, 6599 women). The overall effect on improving maternal and fetal outcomes (across a variety of measures) is uncertain.PGE2 tablets, gels and pessaries (including sustained release preparations) appear to be as effective as each other, small differences are detected between some outcomes, but these maybe due to chance.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Prostaglandins PGE2 probably increase the chance of vaginal delivery in 24 hours, they increase uterine hyperstimulation with fetal heart changes but do not effect or may reduce caesarean section rates. They increase the likelihood of cervical change, with no increase in operative delivery rates. PGE2 tablets, gels and pessaries appear to be as effective as each other, any differences between formulations are marginal but may be important.