Vaginal assessment and expedited amniotomy in oral misoprostol labor induction in nulliparas: a randomized trial

Routine vaginal examination to assess labor progress at 8 compared to 4 h after early amniotomy following Foley balloon ripening in the labor induction of nulliparas: A randomized trial

INTRODUCTION

Our objective was to compare the performance of the first vaginal examination at 8 vs 4 h after amniotomy following Foley ripening in nulliparous labor induction.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

A randomized controlled trial was conducted from June 2021 to January 2022. 210 nulliparas at term for labor induction were randomized: 105 each to first vaginal examination at 8 or 4 h after Foley balloon ripening and amniotomy. Titrated oxytocin infusion was routinely commenced after amniotomy to expedite labor. Primary outcomes were the amniotomy-to-delivery interval (non-inferiority hypothesis) and maternal satisfaction with their allocated labor care (superiority hypothesis) within 24 h after delivery. Analyses performed using t-test, Mann-Whitney U test, and Chi-squared test as appropriate.

RESULTS

The amniotomy-to-delivery interval was mean ± standard deviation 8.7 ± 3.4 vs 8.4 ± 3.7, mean difference 0.4 (97.5% CI: -0.7 to 1.5) hours, p = 0.442 within the pre-specified 2-hour non-inferiority margin, and maternal satisfaction score with allocated labor care was median [interquartile range] 8[7.5-10] vs 8[7.0-10], p = 0.248 for 8 vs 4 h arms, respectively. The amniotomy to first vaginal examination intervals was 5.9 ± 2.3 vs 3.6 ± 1.0 h, p < 0.001, and the number of vaginal examinations was 2[1-2.5] vs 3 [2, 3], p < 0.001 for 8 vs 4 h, respectively. The first vaginal examination was less likely to have been performed as scheduled, more likely to be indicated by the urge to bear down, and non-reassuring cardiotocography for the 8 h arm (p < 0.001). Spontaneous vaginal delivery was significantly more likely and instrumental vaginal delivery less likely, but cesarean rate was not significantly different for the 8 h arm (p = 0.017).

CONCLUSIONS

A routine first vaginal examination at 8 h compared to 4 h is non-inferior for the time to birth but does not increase maternal satisfaction although the number of vaginal examinations is fewer. The increase in spontaneous vaginal delivery and reduction in instrumental vaginal delivery rates warrant further powered primary evaluation.

Routine vaginal examination to assess labor progress at 8 compared to 4 hours after early amniotomy following Foley balloon ripening in the labor induction of multiparas: a randomized trial

BACKGROUND

Vaginal examination to monitor labor progress is recommended at least every 4 hours, but it can cause pain and embarrassment to women. Trial data are limited on the best intensity for vaginal examination. Vaginal examination is not needed for oxytocin dose titration after an amniotomy has been performed and oxytocin infusion started. The Foley balloon commonly ripens the cervix without strong contractions. Amniotomy and oxytocin infusion are usually required to drive labor.

OBJECTIVE

This study aimed to evaluate the first vaginal examination at 8 vs 4 hours after amniotomy-oxytocin after Foley ripening in multiparous labor induction.

STUDY DESIGN

A randomized controlled trial was conducted from October 2021 to September 2022 at the University Malaya Medical Center, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia. Multiparas at term were recruited at admission for labor induction. Participants were randomized to a first routine vaginal examination at 8 or 4 hours after Foley balloon ripening and amniotomy. Titrated oxytocin infusion was routinely commenced after amniotomy to initiate contractions. The 2 primary outcomes were the time from amniotomy to delivery (noninferiority hypothesis) and maternal satisfaction (superiority hypothesis). Data were analyzed using the Student t test, Mann-Whitney U test, and chi-square test (or Fisher exact test), as suitable for the data.

RESULTS

A total of 204 women were randomized, 102 to each arm. Amniotomy to birth intervals were 4.97±2.47 hours in the 8-hour arm and 5.79±3.17 hours in the 4-hour arm (mean difference, -0.82; 97.5% confidence interval, -1.72 to 0.08; P=.041; Bonferroni correction), which were noninferior within the prespecified 2-hour upper margin, and the maternal satisfaction scores (11-point 0-10 numerical rating scale) with allocated labor care were 9 (interquartile range, 8-9) in the 8-hour arm and 8 (interquartile range, 7-9) in the 4-hour arm (P=.814). In addition, oxytocin infusion to birth interval difference was noninferior within the 97.5% confidence interval (-1.59 to 0.23) margin of 1.3 hours. Of the maternal outcomes, the amniotomy to first vaginal examination intervals were 3.9±1.8 hours in the 8-hour arm and 3.4±1.3 hours in the 4-hour arm (P=.026), and the numbers of vaginal examinations were 2.00 (interquartile range, 2.00-3.00) in the 8-hour arm and 3.00 (interquratile range, 2.00-3.25) in the 4-hour arm (P<.001). For the 8-hour arm, the first vaginal examination was less likely to be as scheduled and more likely to be indicated by sensation to bear down (P<.001), and the epidural analgesia rates were lower (13/102 participants [12.7%] in the 8-hour arm vs 28/102 participants [27.5%] in the 4-hour arm; relative risk, 0.46; 95% confidence interval, 0.26-0.84; P=.009). Other outcomes of the mode of delivery, indications for cesarean delivery, and delivery blood loss were not different. Neonatal outcomes were not different.

CONCLUSION

Routine first vaginal examination at 8 hours compared with that at 4 hours was noninferior for the time to birth but did not improve maternal satisfaction.

Cross-Cultural Adaptation and Psychometric Properties of the French Version of the EXIT to Measure Women’s Experiences of Induction of Labor

Background: In France, more than 20% of women require induction of labor (IOL), which can be psychologically and emotionally challenging for patients. It is important to assess how they feel about their IOL experiences. Our aim was to cross-culturally adapt and evaluate the psychometric properties of a French version of the EXIT to assess women’s experiences of IOL. Methods: The EXIT was cross-culturally adapted by conducting forward and backward translations following international guidelines. A cross-sectional study was conducted to assess the psychometric properties of the ten French EXIT items: data completeness, factor analysis, internal consistency, score distribution, floor and ceiling effects, inter-subscale correlations, convergent validity, and test–retest reliability. Results: The EXIT was successfully cross-culturally adapted to the French context and any IOL method. The results obtained from 163 patients requiring IOL showed good acceptability. Exploratory factor analysis resulted in a three-factor solution with subscales reflecting the experiential aspects of time taken to give birth, discomfort with IOL, and subsequent contractions. Good internal consistency (Cronbach’s alpha or Spearman correlation coefficients ranging from 0.55 to 0.84) and good test–retest reliability (intraclass correlation coefficients ranging from 0.66 to 0.85) for the three identified subscales were found. Conclusions: The ten-item French EXIT is a valid and reliable instrument for the self-assessment of women’s experiences of IOL in the three weeks following delivery for any method of IOL used. As a patient-reported outcome measure, it would allow the comparison of experiential outcomes across IOL studies in order to include women’s preferences in decisions regarding their care.

Routine vaginal examinations compared to other methods for assessing progress of labour to improve outcomes for women and babies at term

BACKGROUND

Routine vaginal examinations are undertaken at regular time intervals during labour to assess whether labour is progressing as expected. Unusually slow progress can be due to underlying problems, described as labour dystocia, or can be a normal variation of progress. Evidence suggests that if mother and baby are well, length of labour alone should not be used to decide whether labour is progressing normally. Other methods to assess labour progress include intrapartum ultrasound and monitoring external physical and behavioural cues. Vaginal examinations can be distressing for women, and overdiagnosis of dystocia can result in iatrogenic morbidity due to unnecessary intervention. It is important to establish whether routine vaginal examinations are effective, both as an accurate measure of physiological labour progress and to distinguish true labour dystocia, or whether other methods for assessing labour progress are more effective. This Cochrane Review is an update of a review first published in 2013.

OBJECTIVES

To compare the effectiveness, acceptability, and consequences of routine vaginal examinations compared with other methods, or different timings, to assess labour progress at term.

SEARCH METHODS

For this update, we searched Cochrane Pregnancy and Childbirth Trials Register (which includes trials from CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, and conference proceedings) and ClinicalTrials.gov (28 February 2021). We also searched the reference lists of retrieved studies.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of vaginal examinations compared with other methods of assessing labour progress and studies assessing different timings of vaginal examinations. Quasi-RCTs and cluster-RCTs were eligible for inclusion. We excluded cross-over trials and conference abstracts.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently assessed all studies identified by the search for inclusion in the review. Four review authors independently extracted data. Two review authors assessed risk of bias and certainty of the evidence using GRADE.

MAIN RESULTS

We included four studies that randomised a total of 755 women, with data analysed for 744 women and their babies. Interventions used to assess labour progress were routine vaginal examinations, routine ultrasound assessments, routine rectal examinations, routine vaginal examinations at different frequencies, and vaginal examinations as indicated. We were unable to conduct meta-analysis as there was only one study for each comparison.  All studies were at high risk of performance bias due to difficulties with blinding. We assessed two studies as high risk of bias and two as low or unclear risk of bias for other domains. The overall certainty of the evidence assessed using GRADE was low or very low.  Routine vaginal examinations versus routine ultrasound to assess labour progress (one study, 83 women and babies) Study in Turkey involving multiparous women with spontaneous onset of labour. Routine vaginal examinations may result in a slight increase in pain compared to routine ultrasound (mean difference -1.29, 95% confidence interval (CI) -2.10 to -0.48; one study, 83 women, low certainty evidence) (pain measured using a visual analogue scale (VAS) in reverse: zero indicating 'worst pain', 10 indicating no pain). The study did not assess our other primary outcomes: positive birth experience; augmentation of labour; spontaneous vaginal birth; chorioamnionitis; neonatal infection; admission to neonatal intensive care unit (NICU). Routine vaginal examinations versus routine rectal examinations to assess labour progress (one study, 307 women and babies) Study in Ireland involving women in labour at term. We assessed the certainty of the evidence as very low. Compared with routine rectal examinations, routine vaginal examinations may have little or no effect on: augmentation of labour (risk ratio (RR) 1.03, 95% CI 0.63 to 1.68; one study, 307 women); and spontaneous vaginal birth (RR 0.98, 95% CI 0.90 to 1.06; one study, 307 women). We found insufficient data to fully assess: neonatal infections (RR 0.33, 95% CI 0.01 to 8.07; one study, 307 babies); and admission to NICU (RR 1.32, 95% CI 0.47 to 3.73; one study, 307 babies). The study did not assess our other primary outcomes: positive birth experience; chorioamnionitis; maternal pain. Routine four-hourly vaginal examinations versus routine two-hourly examinations (one study, 150 women and babies) UK study involving primiparous women in labour at term. We assessed the certainty of the evidence as very low. Compared with routine two-hourly vaginal examinations, routine four-hourly vaginal examinations may have little or no effect, with data compatible with both benefit and harm, on: augmentation of labour (RR 0.97, 95% CI 0.60 to 1.57; one study, 109 women); and spontaneous vaginal birth (RR 1.02, 95% CI 0.83 to 1.26; one study, 150 women). The study did not assess our other primary outcomes: positive birth experience; chorioamnionitis; neonatal infection; admission to NICU; maternal pain. Routine vaginal examinations versus vaginal examinations as indicated (one study, 204 women and babies)  Study in Malaysia involving primiparous women being induced at term. We assessed the certainty of the evidence as low. Compared with vaginal examinations as indicated, routine four-hourly vaginal examinations may result in more women having their labour augmented (RR 2.55, 95% CI 1.03 to 6.31; one study, 204 women). There may be little or no effect on: • spontaneous vaginal birth (RR 1.08, 95% CI 0.73 to 1.59; one study, 204 women); • chorioamnionitis (RR 3.06, 95% CI 0.13 to 74.21; one study, 204 women); • neonatal infection (RR 4.08, 95% CI 0.46 to 35.87; one study, 204 babies); • admission to NICU (RR 2.04, 95% CI 0.63 to 6.56; one study, 204 babies). The study did not assess our other primary outcomes of positive birth experience or maternal pain.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Based on these findings, we cannot be certain which method is most effective or acceptable for assessing labour progress. Further large-scale RCT trials are required. These should include essential clinical and experiential outcomes. This may be facilitated through the development of a tool to measure positive birth experiences. Data from qualitative studies are also needed to fully assess whether methods to evaluate labour progress meet women's needs for a safe and positive labour and birth, and if not, to develop an approach that does.

Foley catheter and controlled release dinoprostone versus foley catheter labor induction in nulliparas: a randomized trial

PURPOSE

To evaluate Foley catheter and controlled release dinoprostone insert compared to foley catheter alone on induction to delivery interval and maternal satisfaction.

METHODS

A randomized trial was conducted in a university hospital in Malaysia from December 2018 to May 2019. Term nulliparas with unfavorable cervix (Bishop score ≤ 5) scheduled for labor induction were randomized to Foley catheter and controlled release dinoprostone insert simultaneously or Foley catheter alone. Primary outcomes were induction to delivery interval (hours) and maternal satisfaction on birth experience (assessed by 11-point Visual Numerical Rating Scale VNRS 0-10, higher score more satisfied).

RESULTS

Induction to vaginal delivery intervals was mean ± standard deviation 22.5 ± 10.4 vs. 35.1 ± 14.9 h, P =  < 0.001 but maternal satisfaction on birth experience was not significantly different median[interquartile range] VNRS 8[7-9] vs. 8[7-9], P = 0.12 for Foley catheter-controlled-release dinoprostone and Foley catheter alone arms, respectively. Cesarean delivery rates were 35/102(34.3%) vs. 50/101(49.5%), P = 0.02 RR 0.7 95% CI 0.5-0.9 NNTb 6.3 95% CI 3.5-39.4, pain score at 6 h after catheter insertion 5[2-8] vs. 1[1-3], P < 0.001, Bishop score at trial devices removal 9[9-10] vs. 8[7-9], P = 0.001, requirement for oxytocin induction or augmentation 39/102(38.2%) vs. 76/101(75.2%) NNTb 3 95% CI 2.0-4.1, P < 0.001 and amniotomy rates 73/99(73.7%) vs. 81/95(85.3%), P = 0.052 RR 0.9 85% CI 0.8-1.0 in Foley catheter-controlled-release dinoprostone and Foley catheter alone arms respectively.

CONCLUSION

In nulliparas with unripe cervixes at term, combined Foley catheter and controlled release dinoprostone vaginal insert compared to Foley catheter alone reduces the induction to vaginal delivery interval and cesarean delivery rate but satisfaction was not significantly increased.

CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION

ISRCTN2282883, 03/12/2018, "prospectively registered" ( https://doi.org/10.1186/ISRCTN12282883 ).

Number and quality of randomized controlled trials in obstetrics published in the top general medical and obstetrics and gynecology journals

BACKGROUND

There has been an increasing number of randomized controlled trials published in obstetrics and maternal-fetal medicine to reduce biases of treatment effect and to provide insights on the cause-effect of the relationship between treatment and outcomes.

OBJECTIVE

This study aimed to identify obstetrical randomized controlled trials published in top weekly general medical journals and monthly obstetrics and gynecology journals, to assess their quality in reporting and identify factors associated with publication in different journals.

STUDY DESIGN

The 4 weekly medical journals with the highest 2019 impact factor (New England Journal of Medicine, The Lancet, The Journal of the American Medical Association, and British Medical Journal), the top 4 monthly obstetrics and gynecology journals with obstetrics-related research (American Journal of Obstetrics & Gynecology, Ultrasound in Obstetrics & Gynecology, Obstetrics & Gynecology, and the British Journal of Obstetrics and Gynaecology), and the American Journal of Obstetrics & Gynecology Maternal-Fetal Medicine were searched for obstetrical randomized controlled trials in the years 2018 to 2020. The primary outcome was the number of obstetrical randomized controlled trials published in the obstetrics and gynecology journals vs the weekly medical journals and the percentage of trials published, overall and per journal. The secondary outcomes included the proportion of positive vs negative trials overall and per journal and the assessment of the study characteristics of published trials, including quality assessment criteria.

RESULTS

Of the 4024 original research articles published in the 9 journals during the 3-year study period, 1221 (30.3%) were randomized controlled trials, with 137 (11.2%) randomized controlled trials being in obstetrics (46 in 2018, 47 in 2019, and 44 studies in 2020). Furthermore, 33 (24.1%) were published in weekly medical journals, and 104 (75.9%) were published in obstetrics and gynecology journals. The percentage of obstetrical randomized controlled trials published ranged from 1.5% to 9.6% per journal. Overall, 34.3% of obstetrical trials were statistically significant or "positive" for the primary outcome. Notably, 24.8% of the trials were retrospectively registered after the enrollment of the first study patient. Trials published in the 4 weekly medical journals enrolled significantly more patients (1801 vs 180; P<.001), received more often funding from the federal government (78.8% vs 35.6%; P<.001), and were more likely to be multicenter (90.9% vs 42.3%; P<.001), non-United States based (69.7% vs 49.0%; P=.03), and double blinded (45.5% vs 18.3%; P=.003) than trials published in the obstetrics and gynecology journals. There was no difference in study type (noninferiority vs superiority) and trial quality characteristics, including pretrial registration, ethics approval statement, informed consent statement, and adherence to the Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials guidelines statement between studies published in weekly medical journals and studies published in obstetrics and gynecology journals.

CONCLUSION

Approximately 45 trials in obstetrics are being published every year in the highest impact journals, with one-fourth being in the weekly medical journals and the remainder in the obstetrics and gynecology journals. Only about a third of published obstetrical trials are positive. Trials published in weekly medical journals are larger, more likely to be funded by the government, multicenter, international, and double blinded. Quality metrics are similar between weekly medical journals and obstetrics and gynecology journals.