Use of misoprostol on an outpatient basis for postdate pregnancy

Labor Induction Outcomes with Outpatient Misoprostol for Cervical Ripening among Low-Risk Women

OBJECTIVE

 In 2012, two Kaiser Permanente Northern California (KPNC) hospitals began offering outpatient cervical ripening with oral misoprostol under a study protocol. We evaluated inpatient time from admission to delivery and adverse maternal and neonatal outcomes associated with outpatient use of misoprostol for cervical ripening among low-risk women with term pregnancies.

STUDY DESIGN

 We conducted a retrospective cohort study comparing three groups: women who received misoprostol (1) outpatient, under a study protocol; (2) inpatient, at the study sites; and (3) inpatient, at all KPNC hospitals. Data were obtained from between 2012 and 2017. The primary outcome was time from inpatient admission to delivery. Secondarily, we evaluated maternal and neonatal outcomes, including the duration and maximum rate of oxytocin administered, rate of cesarean delivery, incidence of chorioamnionitis and blood transfusion, Apgar scores, and neonatal intensive care unit admissions. Demographic and clinical characteristics and outcomes of the outpatient group were compared with both inpatient misoprostol groups using the appropriate statistical test. Variables included in the regression analysis were either statistically significant in the bivariate analyses or have been reported in the literature to be potential confounders: maternal age at admission, race/ethnicity, body mass index, cervical dilation at initial misoprostol, and parity.

RESULTS

 We analyzed data from 10,253 patients: (1) 345 outpatients, under a study protocol; (2) 1,374 inpatients, at the study sites; and (3) 9,908 inpatients, at all the Kaiser hospitals. Women in the outpatient group were more likely to be white than both inpatient groups (63.3 vs. 56.3% at study sites and 47.1% in all hospitals, p = 0.002 and <0.001, respectively); other demographics were clinically comparable. Most women undergoing labor induction were nulliparous; however, a greater proportion in the outpatient group were nulliparous compared with inpatient groups (70.8 vs. 61.8% and 64.3%, p = 0.002 and 0.01). On inpatient admission for delivery, women who received outpatient misoprostol were more likely to have a cervical dilation of ≥3 cm (39.8 vs. 12.5% at study sites and 9.7% at all KPNC hospitals, p < 0.001 for both). The outpatient group had a shorter mean time between admission and delivery (23.6 vs. 29.4 at study sites and 29.8 hours at all KPNC, p < 0.001 for both). The adjusted estimated mean difference between the outpatient and inpatient group at all the Kaiser hospitals in time from admission to delivery was -6.48 hours (p < 0.001), and the adjusted estimated mean difference in cervical dilation on admission was +1.02 cm (p < 0.001). There was no difference in cesarean delivery rates between groups. The rate of chorioamnionitis in the outpatient group was higher compared with inpatients at all hospitals (17.7 vs. 10.6%, p < 0.001), but similar when compared with the inpatients at the study sites (17.7 vs. 15.4%, p = 0.29).

CONCLUSION

 Outpatient use of misoprostol for cervical ripening under the study protocol was associated with reduced inpatient time from admission to delivery compared with inpatient misoprostol. Although there was a higher rate of chorioamnionitis among outpatients under the study protocol compared with inpatients at all hospitals, there was no difference when compared with inpatients at the study sites. There was no difference in rates of cesarean delivery or maternal or neonatal complications with outpatient misoprostol.

KEY POINTS

· Outpatient misoprostol patients had 6.46 fewer hours from admission to delivery compared with inpatients at all hospitals.. · There was no difference in the rate of cesareans between the outpatient versus inpatient misoprostol groups.. · Other maternal and neonatal complications were low and comparable among outpatients and inpatients who received misoprostol; this study was not large enough to assess rare safety outcomes..

Outpatient cervical ripening and labor induction with low-dose vaginal misoprostol reduces the interval to delivery: a systematic review and network meta-analysis

OBJECTIVE

Several systematic reviews and meta-analyses have summarized the evidence on the efficacy and safety of various outpatient cervical ripening methods. However, the method with the highest efficacy and safety profile has not been determined conclusively. We performed a systematic review and network meta-analysis of published randomized controlled trials to assess the efficacy and safety of cervical ripening methods currently employed in the outpatient setting.

DATA SOURCES

With the assistance of an experienced medical librarian, we performed a systematic search of the literature using MEDLINE, Embase, Scopus, Web of Science, Cochrane Library, and ClinicalTrials.gov. We systematically searched electronic databases from inception to January 14, 2020.

STUDY ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA

We considered randomized controlled trials comparing a variety of methods for outpatient cervical ripening.

METHODS

We conducted a frequentist random effects network meta-analysis employing data from randomized controlled trials. We performed a direct, pairwise meta-analysis to compare the efficacy of various outpatient cervical ripening methods, including placebo. We employed ranking strategies to determine the most efficacious method using the surface under the cumulative ranking curve; a higher surface under the cumulative ranking curve value implied a more efficacious method. We assessed the following outcomes: time from intervention to delivery, cesarean delivery rates, changes in the Bishop score, need for additional ripening methods, incidence of Apgar scores <7 at 5 minutes, and uterine hyperstimulation.

RESULTS

We included data from 42 randomized controlled trials including 6093 participants. When assessing the efficacy of all methods, 25 μg vaginal misoprostol was the most efficacious in reducing the time from intervention to delivery (surface under the cumulative ranking curve of 1.0) without increasing the odds of cesarean delivery, the need for additional ripening methods, the incidence of a low Apgar score, or uterine hyperstimulation. Acupressure (surface under the cumulative ranking curve of 0.3) and primrose oil (surface under the cumulative ranking curve of 0.2) were the least effective methods in reducing the time to delivery interval. Among effective methods, 50 mg oral mifepristone was associated with the lowest odds of cesarean delivery (surface under the cumulative ranking curve of 0.9).

CONCLUSION

When balancing efficacy and safety, vaginal misoprostol 25 μg represents the best method for outpatient cervical ripening.

Fetal heart rate patterns and the incidence of adverse events after oral misoprostol administration for cervical ripening among low-risk pregnancies

OBJECTIVE

Though misoprostol is commonly used for inpatient cervical ripening, its use in outpatient settings has been limited by safety concerns. This study was conducted to assess the association between early fetal heart tracing (FHT) and maternal tocodynamometry patterns and the incidence of adverse fetal and pregnancy outcomes after the administration of oral misoprostol for cervical ripening.

METHODS

We conducted a retrospective cohort study of 9908 low-risk patients at ≥37 weeks gestation who received oral misoprostol for cervical ripening prior to rupture of membranes between 01/01/2012 and 12/31/2017 at Kaiser Permanente Northern California hospitals as inpatients. We excluded patients who received a different agent for cervical ripening or had any need for additional inpatient monitoring, including hypertensive disorders of pregnancy, diabetes, or intrauterine growth restriction. Abnormal FHT, abnormal uterine activity, and adverse pregnancy or fetal-related events documented in the electronic health record in the four hours after administration of the first and second doses of misoprostol were assessed using descriptive statistics.

RESULTS

We found that 0.9% of patients experienced tachysystole after the first dose of misoprostol (0.6% without decelerations; 0.3% with decelerations). The incidence of variable decelerations only and other FHT abnormalities (i.e. bradycardia, late or prolonged decelerations, or absent or minimal variability) in the first hour after misoprostol administration were 7.1% and 6.7% respectively, and diminished over time. The need for tocolytic use was 0.2% in the first hour and declined over time to 0.03% in the fourth hour after the first dose. Urgent cesarean delivery occurred in 0.1% of patients after receiving the first dose of misoprostol. Patients who did not experience variable, prolonged, or late decelerations in the first hour after the initial misoprostol dose were less likely to have such FHT abnormalities in the subsequent three hours compared to patients who had other FHT abnormalities (11.8% among patients with no FHT abnormalities vs. 43.7% among patients with other FHT abnormalities; p <.001). The overall trends in outcomes over time were similar after the second dose of misoprostol.

CONCLUSION

The risk of short-term adverse outcomes associated with misoprostol is low among relatively low-risk patients. FHT abnormalities occurred in up to 32% of patients in the first four hours of monitoring post-misoprostol. Patients with no FHT abnormalities in the first hour after receiving misoprostol had a low risk of developing adverse outcomes and FHT abnormalities on continued monitoring, while patients with any type of deceleration in the first hour were at higher risk of adverse outcomes and FHT abnormalities. Our data may inform the development of protocols for cervical ripening that allow reduced monitoring for a subset of low-risk patients, however, more research is needed to validate findings and develop clinical protocols.

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.

Outpatient Cervical Ripening: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

OBJECTIVE

To assess the comparative effectiveness and potential harms of cervical ripening in the outpatient compared with the inpatient setting, or different methods of ripening in the outpatient setting alone.

DATA SOURCES

Searches for articles in English included MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, Cochrane Library, ClinicalTrials.gov, and reference lists (up to August 2020).

METHODS OF STUDY SELECTION

Using predefined criteria and DistillerSR software, 10,853 citations were dual-reviewed for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and cohort studies of outpatient cervical ripening using prostaglandins and mechanical methods in pregnant women at or beyond 37 weeks of gestation.

TABULATION, INTEGRATION, AND RESULTS

Using prespecified criteria, study data abstraction and risk of bias assessment were conducted by two reviewers, random-effects meta-analyses were conducted and strength of evidence was assessed. We included 30 RCTs and 10 cohort studies (N=9,618) most generalizable to women aged 25-30 years with low-risk pregnancies. All findings were low or insufficient strength of evidence and not statistically significant. Incidence of cesarean delivery was not different for any comparison of inpatient and outpatient settings, or comparisons of different methods in the outpatient setting (most evidence available for single-balloon catheters and dinoprostone). Harms were inconsistently reported or inadequately defined. Differences were not found for neonatal infection (eg, sepsis) with outpatient compared with inpatient dinoprostone, birth trauma (eg, cephalohematoma) with outpatient compared with inpatient single-balloon catheter, shoulder dystocia with outpatient dinoprostone compared with placebo, maternal infection (eg, chorioamnionitis) with outpatient compared with inpatient single-balloon catheters or outpatient prostaglandins compared with placebo, and postpartum hemorrhage with outpatient catheter compared with inpatient dinoprostone. Evidence on misoprostol, hygroscopic dilators, and other outcomes (eg, perinatal mortality and time to vaginal birth) was insufficient.

CONCLUSION

In women with low-risk pregnancies, outpatient cervical ripening with dinoprostone or single-balloon catheters did not increase cesarean deliveries. Although there were no clear differences in harms when comparing outpatient with inpatient cervical ripening, the certainty of evidence is low or insufficient to draw definitive conclusions.

SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION

PROSPERO, CRD42020167406.

Induction of labour at or beyond 37 weeks' gestation

BACKGROUND

Risks of stillbirth or neonatal death increase as gestation continues beyond term (around 40 weeks' gestation). It is unclear whether a policy of labour induction can reduce these risks. This Cochrane Review is an update of a review that was originally published in 2006 and subsequently updated in 2012 and 2018.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effects of a policy of labour induction at or beyond 37 weeks' gestation compared with a policy of awaiting spontaneous labour indefinitely (or until a later gestational age, or until a maternal or fetal indication for induction of labour arises) on pregnancy outcomes for the infant and the mother.

SEARCH METHODS

For this update, we searched Cochrane Pregnancy and Childbirth's Trials Register, ClinicalTrials.gov and the WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP) (17 July 2019), and reference lists of retrieved studies.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) conducted in pregnant women at or beyond 37 weeks, comparing a policy of labour induction with a policy of awaiting spontaneous onset of labour (expectant management). We also included trials published in abstract form only. Cluster-RCTs, quasi-RCTs and trials using a cross-over design were not eligible for inclusion in this review. We included pregnant women at or beyond 37 weeks' gestation. Since risk factors at this stage of pregnancy would normally require intervention, only trials including women at low risk for complications, as defined by trialists, were eligible. The trials of induction of labour in women with prelabour rupture of membranes at or beyond term were not considered in this review but are considered in a separate Cochrane Review.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

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

MAIN RESULTS

In this updated review, we included 34 RCTs (reporting on over 21,000 women and infants) mostly conducted in high-income settings. The trials compared a policy to induce labour usually after 41 completed weeks of gestation (> 287 days) with waiting for labour to start and/or waiting for a period before inducing labour. The trials were generally at low to moderate risk of bias. Compared with a policy of expectant management, a policy of labour induction was associated with fewer (all-cause) perinatal deaths (risk ratio (RR) 0.31, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.15 to 0.64; 22 trials, 18,795 infants; high-certainty evidence). There were four perinatal deaths in the labour induction policy group compared with 25 perinatal deaths in the expectant management group. The number needed to treat for an additional beneficial outcome (NNTB) with induction of labour, in order to prevent one perinatal death, was 544 (95% CI 441 to 1042). There were also fewer stillbirths in the induction group (RR 0.30, 95% CI 0.12 to 0.75; 22 trials, 18,795 infants; high-certainty evidence); two in the induction policy group and 16 in the expectant management group. For women in the policy of induction arms of trials, there were probably fewer caesarean sections compared with expectant management (RR 0.90, 95% CI 0.85 to 0.95; 31 trials, 21,030 women; moderate-certainty evidence); and probably little or no difference in operative vaginal births with induction (RR 1.03, 95% CI 0.96 to 1.10; 22 trials, 18,584 women; moderate-certainty evidence). Induction may make little or difference to perineal trauma (severe perineal tear: RR 1.04, 95% CI 0.85 to 1.26; 5 trials; 11,589 women; low-certainty evidence). Induction probably makes little or no difference to postpartum haemorrhage (RR 1.02, 95% CI 0.91 to 1.15, 9 trials; 12,609 women; moderate-certainty evidence), or breastfeeding at discharge (RR 1.00, 95% CI 0.96 to 1.04; 2 trials, 7487 women; moderate-certainty evidence). Very low certainty evidence means that we are uncertain about the effect of induction or expectant management on the length of maternal hospital stay (average mean difference (MD) -0.19 days, 95% CI -0.56 to 0.18; 7 trials; 4120 women; Tau² = 0.20; I² = 94%). Rates of neonatal intensive care unit (NICU) admission were lower (RR 0.88, 95% CI 0.80 to 0.96; 17 trials, 17,826 infants; high-certainty evidence), and probably fewer babies had Apgar scores less than seven at five minutes in the induction groups compared with expectant management (RR 0.73, 95% CI 0.56 to 0.96; 20 trials, 18,345 infants; moderate-certainty evidence). Induction or expectant management may make little or no difference for neonatal encephalopathy (RR 0.69, 95% CI 0.37 to 1.31; 2 trials, 8851 infants; low-certainty evidence, and probably makes little or no difference for neonatal trauma (RR 0.97, 95% CI 0.63 to 1.49; 5 trials, 13,106 infants; moderate-certainty evidence) for induction compared with expectant management. Neurodevelopment at childhood follow-up and postnatal depression were not reported by any trials. In subgroup analyses, no differences were seen for timing of induction (< 40 versus 40-41 versus > 41 weeks' gestation), by parity (primiparous versus multiparous) or state of cervix for any of the main outcomes (perinatal death, stillbirth, NICU admission, caesarean section, operative vaginal birth, or perineal trauma).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

There is a clear reduction in perinatal death with a policy of labour induction at or beyond 37 weeks compared with expectant management, though absolute rates are small (0.4 versus 3 deaths per 1000). There were also lower caesarean rates without increasing rates of operative vaginal births and there were fewer NICU admissions with a policy of induction. Most of the important outcomes assessed using GRADE had high- or moderate-certainty ratings. While existing trials have not yet reported on childhood neurodevelopment, this is an important area for future research. The optimal timing of offering induction of labour to women at or beyond 37 weeks' gestation needs further investigation, as does further exploration of risk profiles of women and their values and preferences. Offering women tailored counselling may help them make an informed choice between induction of labour for pregnancies, particularly those continuing beyond 41 weeks - or waiting for labour to start and/or waiting before inducing labour.

Induction of labour for improving birth outcomes for women at or beyond term

BACKGROUND

Beyond term, the risks of stillbirth or neonatal death increase. It is unclear whether a policy of labour induction can reduce these risks. This Cochrane review is an update of a review that was originally published in 2006 and subsequently updated in 2012 OBJECTIVES: To assess the effects of a policy of labour induction at or beyond term compared with a policy of awaiting spontaneous labour or until an indication for birth induction of labour is identified) on pregnancy outcomes for infant and mother.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched Cochrane Pregnancy and Childbirth's Trials Register, ClinicalTrials.gov and the WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP) (9 October 2017), and reference lists of retrieved studies.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) conducted in pregnant women at or beyond term, comparing a policy of labour induction with a policy of awaiting spontaneous onset of labour (expectant management). We also included trials published in abstract form only. Cluster-RCTs, quasi-RCTs and trials using a cross-over design are not eligible for inclusion in this review.We included pregnant women at or beyond term. Since a risk factor at this stage of pregnancy would normally require an intervention, only trials including women at low risk for complications were eligible. We accepted the trialists' definition of 'low risk'. The trials of induction of labour in women with prelabour rupture of membranes at or beyond term were not considered in this review but are considered in a separate Cochrane review.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two reviewers independently assessed trials for inclusion, assessed risk of bias and extracted data. Data were checked for accuracy. We assessed the quality of evidence using the GRADE approach.

MAIN RESULTS

In this updated review, we included 30 RCTs (reporting on 12,479 women). The trials took place in Norway, China, Thailand, the USA, Austria, Turkey, Canada, UK, India, Tunisia, Finland, Spain, Sweden and the Netherlands. They were generally at a moderate risk of bias.Compared with a policy of expectant management, a policy of labour induction was associated with fewer (all-cause) perinatal deaths (risk ratio (RR) 0.33, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.14 to 0.78; 20 trials, 9960 infants; moderate-quality evidence). There were two perinatal deaths in the labour induction policy group compared with 16 perinatal deaths in the expectant management group. The number needed to treat to for an additional beneficial outcome (NNTB) with induction of labour in order to prevent one perinatal death was 426 (95% CI 338 to 1337). There were fewer stillbirths in the induction group (RR 0.33, 95% CI 0.11 to 0.96; 20 trials, 9960 infants; moderate-quality evidence); there was one stillbirth in the induction policy arm and 10 in the expectant management group.For women in the policy of induction arms of trials, there were fewer caesarean sections compared with expectant management (RR 0.92, 95% CI 0.85 to 0.99; 27 trials, 11,738 women; moderate-quality evidence); and a corresponding marginal increase in operative vaginal births with induction (RR 1.07, 95% CI 0.99 to 1.16; 18 trials, 9281 women; moderate-quality evidence). There was no evidence of a difference between groups for perineal trauma (RR 1.09, 95% CI 0.65 to 1.83; 4 trials; 3028 women; low-quality evidence), postpartum haemorrhage (RR 1.09 95% CI 0.92 to 1.30, 5 trials; 3315 women; low-quality evidence), or length of maternal hospital stay (average mean difference (MD) -0.34 days, 95% CI -1.00 to 0.33; 5 trials; 1146 women; Tau² = 0.49; I² 95%; very low-quality evidence).Rates of neonatal intensive care unit (NICU) admission were lower (RR 0.88, 95% CI 0.77 to 1.01; 13 trials, 8531 infants; moderate-quality evidence) and fewer babies had Apgar scores less than seven at five minutes in the induction groups compared with expectant management (RR 0.70, 95% CI 0.50 to 0.98; 16 trials, 9047 infants; moderate-quality evidence).There was no evidence of a difference for neonatal trauma (RR 1.18, 95% CI 0.68 to 2.05; 3 trials, 4255 infants; low-quality evidence), for induction compared with expectant management.Neonatal encephalopathy, neurodevelopment at childhood follow-up, breastfeeding at discharge and postnatal depression were not reported by any trials.In subgroup analyses, no clear differences between timing of induction (< 41 weeks versus ≥ 41 weeks' gestation) or by state of cervix were seen for perinatal death, stillbirth, NICU admission, caesarean section, or perineal trauma. However, operative vaginal birth was more common in the inductions at < 41 weeks' gestation subgroup compared with inductions at later gestational ages. The majority of trials (about 75% of participants) adopted a policy of induction at ≥ 41 weeks (> 287 days) gestation for the intervention arm.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

A policy of labour induction at or beyond term compared with expectant management is associated with fewer perinatal deaths and fewer caesarean sections; but more operative vaginal births. NICU admissions were lower and fewer babies had low Apgar scores with induction. No important differences were seen for most of the other maternal and infant outcomes.Most of the important outcomes assessed using GRADE had a rating of moderate or low-quality evidence - with downgrading decisions generally due to study limitations such as lack of blinding (a condition inherent in comparisons between a policy of acting and of waiting), or imprecise effect estimates. One outcome (length of maternal stay) was downgraded further to very low-quality evidence due to inconsistency.Although the absolute risk of perinatal death is small, it may be helpful to offer women appropriate counselling to help choose between scheduled induction for a post-term pregnancy or monitoring without (or later) induction).The optimal timing of offering induction of labour to women at or beyond term warrants further investigation, as does further exploration of risk profiles of women and their values and preferences. Individual participant meta-analysis is likely to help elucidate the role of factors, such as parity, in influencing outcomes of induction compared with expectant management.

Which method is best for the induction of labour? A systematic review, network meta-analysis and cost-effectiveness analysis

BACKGROUND

More than 150,000 pregnant women in England and Wales have their labour induced each year. Multiple pharmacological, mechanical and complementary methods are available to induce labour.

OBJECTIVE

To assess the relative effectiveness, safety and cost-effectiveness of labour induction methods and, data permitting, effects in different clinical subgroups.

METHODS

We carried out a systematic review using Cochrane methods. The Cochrane Pregnancy and Childbirth Group's Trials Register was searched (March 2014). This contains over 22,000 reports of controlled trials (published from 1923 onwards) retrieved from weekly searches of OVID MEDLINE (1966 to current); Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (The Cochrane Library); EMBASE (1982 to current); Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (1984 to current); ClinicalTrials.gov; the World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Portal; and hand-searching of relevant conference proceedings and journals. We included randomised controlled trials examining interventions to induce labour compared with placebo, no treatment or other interventions in women eligible for third-trimester induction. We included outcomes relating to efficacy, safety and acceptability to women. In addition, for the economic analysis we searched the Database of Abstracts of Reviews of Effects, and Economic Evaluations Databases, NHS Economic Evaluation Database and the Health Technology Assessment database. We carried out a network meta-analysis (NMA) using all of the available evidence, both direct and indirect, to produce estimates of the relative effects of each treatment compared with others in a network. We developed a de novo decision tree model to estimate the cost-effectiveness of various methods. The costs included were the intervention and other hospital costs incurred (price year 2012-13). We reviewed the literature to identify preference-based utilities for the health-related outcomes in the model. We calculated incremental cost-effectiveness ratios, expected costs, utilities and net benefit. We represent uncertainty in the optimal intervention using cost-effectiveness acceptability curves.

RESULTS

We identified 1190 studies; 611 were eligible for inclusion. The interventions most likely to achieve vaginal delivery (VD) within 24 hours were intravenous oxytocin with amniotomy [posterior rank 2; 95% credible intervals (CrIs) 1 to 9] and higher-dose (≥ 50 µg) vaginal misoprostol (rank 3; 95% CrI 1 to 6). Compared with placebo, several treatments reduced the odds of caesarean section, but we observed considerable uncertainty in treatment rankings. For uterine hyperstimulation, double-balloon catheter had the highest probability of being among the best three treatments, whereas vaginal misoprostol (≥ 50 µg) was most likely to increase the odds of excessive uterine activity. For other safety outcomes there were insufficient data or there was too much uncertainty to identify which treatments performed 'best'. Few studies collected information on women's views. Owing to incomplete reporting of the VD within 24 hours outcome, the cost-effectiveness analysis could compare only 20 interventions. The analysis suggested that most interventions have similar utility and differ mainly in cost. With a caveat of considerable uncertainty, titrated (low-dose) misoprostol solution and buccal/sublingual misoprostol had the highest likelihood of being cost-effective.

LIMITATIONS

There was considerable uncertainty in findings and there were insufficient data for some planned subgroup analyses.

CONCLUSIONS

Overall, misoprostol and oxytocin with amniotomy (for women with favourable cervix) is more successful than other agents in achieving VD within 24 hours. The ranking according to safety of different methods was less clear. The cost-effectiveness analysis suggested that titrated (low-dose) oral misoprostol solution resulted in the highest utility, whereas buccal/sublingual misoprostol had the lowest cost. There was a high degree of uncertainty as to the most cost-effective intervention.

FUTURE WORK

Future trials should be powered to detect a method that is more cost-effective than misoprostol solution and report outcomes included in this NMA.

STUDY REGISTRATION

This study is registered as PROSPERO CRD42013005116.

FUNDING

The National Institute for Health Research Health Technology Assessment programme.

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.

Outpatient cervical ripening

Induction of labor is one of the most commonly performed obstetric procedures. Many patients undergoing labor induction require cervical ripening. In an era where cost and patient satisfaction have become paramount, the idea of outpatient cervical ripening is appealing; provided it can be performed in a safe and cost effective manner. The ideal agent would induce adequate cervical ripening without causing significant uterine contractions/labor. Various methods have been studied including administration of misoprostol, PGE2, nitric oxide donors, use of Foley balloon catheters and acupuncture. Each method has its strengths and limitations; however, larger studies of outpatient cervical ripening that are specifically powered for rare adverse maternal and fetal outcomes are needed before definitive recommendations can be made.

Oral misoprostol for induction of labour

BACKGROUND

Misoprostol is an orally active prostaglandin. In most countries misoprostol is not licensed for labour induction, but its use is common because it is cheap and heat stable.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the use of oral misoprostol for labour induction in women with a viable fetus.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Pregnancy and Childbirth Group's Trials Register (17 January 2014).

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised trials comparing oral misoprostol versus placebo or other methods, given to women with a viable fetus for labour induction.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently assessed trial data, using centrally-designed data sheets.

MAIN RESULTS

Overall there were 76 trials (14,412) women) which were of mixed quality.In nine trials comparing oral misoprostol with placebo (1109 women), women using oral misoprostol were more likely to give birth vaginally within 24 hours (risk ratio (RR) 0.16, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.05 to 0.49; one trial; 96 women), need less oxytocin (RR 0.42, 95% CI 0.37 to 0.49; seven trials; 933 women) and have a lower caesarean section rate (RR 0.72, 95% CI 0.54 to 0.95; eight trials; 1029 women).In 12 trials comparing oral misoprostol with vaginal dinoprostone (3859 women), women given oral misoprostol were less likely to need a caesarean section (RR 0.88, 95% CI 0.78 to 0.99; 11 trials; 3592 women). There was some evidence that they had slower inductions, but there were no other statistically significant differences.Nine trials (1282 women) compared oral misoprostol with intravenous oxytocin. The caesarean section rate was significantly lower in women who received oral misoprostol (RR 0.77, 95% CI 0.60 to 0.98; nine trials; 1282 women), but they had increased rates of meconium-stained liquor (RR 1.65, 95% CI 1.04 to 2.60; seven trials; 1172 women).Thirty-seven trials (6417 women) compared oral and vaginal misoprostol and found no statistically significant difference in the primary outcomes of serious neonatal morbidity/death or serious maternal morbidity or death. The results for vaginal birth not achieved in 24 hours, uterine hyperstimulation with fetal heart rate (FHR) changes, and caesarean section were highly heterogenous - for uterine hyperstimulation with FHR changes this was related to dosage with lower rates in those with lower doses of oral misoprostol. However, there were fewer babies born with a low Apgar score in the oral group (RR 0.60, 95% CI 0.44 to 0.82; 19 trials; 4009 babies) and a decrease in postpartum haemorrhage (RR 0.57, 95% CI 0.34 to 0.95; 10 trials; 1478 women). However, the oral misoprostol group had an increase in meconium-stained liquor (RR 1.22, 95% CI 1.03 to 1.44; 24 trials; 3634 women).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Oral misoprostol as an induction agent is effective at achieving vaginal birth. It is more effective than placebo, as effective as vaginal misoprostol and results in fewer caesarean sections than vaginal dinoprostone or oxytocin.Where misoprostol remains unlicensed for the induction of labour, many practitioners will prefer to use a licensed product like dinoprostone. If using oral misoprostol, the evidence suggests that the dose should be 20 to 25 mcg in solution. Given that safety is the primary concern, the evidence supports the use of oral regimens over vaginal regimens. This is especially important in situations where the risk of ascending infection is high and the lack of staff means that women cannot be intensely monitored.

Induction of labour for improving birth outcomes for women at or beyond term

BACKGROUND

As a pregnancy continues beyond term the risks of babies dying inside the womb or in the immediate newborn period increase. Whether a policy of labour induction at a predetermined gestational age can reduce this increased risk is the subject of this review.

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate the benefits and harms of a policy of labour induction at term or post-term compared with awaiting spontaneous labour or later induction of labour.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Pregnancy and Childbirth Group's Trials Register (31 March 2012).

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised controlled trials conducted in women at or beyond term. The eligible trials were those comparing a policy of labour induction with a policy of awaiting spontaneous onset of labour. Cluster-randomised trials and cross-over trials are not included. Quasi-random allocation schemes such as alternation, case record numbers or open random-number lists were not eligible.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently assessed trials for inclusion. Two review authors independently assessed trial quality and extracted data. Data were checked for accuracy. Outcomes are analysed in two main categories: gestational age and cervix status.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 22 trials reporting on 9383 women. The trials were generally at moderate risk of bias.Compared with a policy of expectant management, a policy of labour induction was associated with fewer (all-cause) perinatal deaths: risk ratio (RR) 0.31, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.12 to 0.88; 17 trials, 7407 women. There was one perinatal death in the labour induction policy group compared with 13 perinatal deaths in the expectant management group. The number needed to treat to benefit (NNTB) with induction of labour in order to prevent one perinatal death was 410 (95% CI 322 to 1492).For the primary outcome of perinatal death and most other outcomes, no differences between timing of induction subgroups were seen; the majority of trials adopted a policy of induction at 41 completed weeks (287 days) or more.Fewer babies in the labour induction group had meconium aspiration syndrome (RR 0.50, 95% CI 0.34 to 0.73; eight trials, 2371 infants) compared with a policy of expectant management. There was no statistically significant difference between the rates of neonatal intensive care unit (NICU) admission for induction compared with expectant management (RR 0.90, 95% CI 0.78 to 1.04; 10 trials, 6161 infants). For women in the policy of induction arms of trials, there were significantly fewer caesarean sections compared with expectant management in 21 trials of 8749 women (RR 0.89, 95% CI 0.81 to 0.97).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

A policy of labour induction compared with expectant management is associated with fewer perinatal deaths and fewer caesarean sections. Some infant morbidities such as meconium aspiration syndrome were also reduced with a policy of post-term labour induction although no significant differences in the rate of NICU admission were seen.However, the absolute risk of perinatal death is small. Women should be appropriately counselled in order to make an informed choice between scheduled induction for a post-term pregnancy or monitoring without induction (or delayed induction).

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.

Outpatient induction -- how safe

There is a world-wide interest in outpatient care. Induction of labor is commonly offered to women with prolonged pregnancy, and evidence from randomized controlled studies suggest that inpatient and outpatient induction achieve comparative maternal and fetal outcomes. However, safety data are very limited. Careful selections of appropriate patients as well as standardized monitoring protocols are essential before outpatient induction can be initiated. Uterine hyperstimulation with fetal heart rate deceleration and other maternal or fetal adverse events are rare but unpredictable. Unrecognized fetal hypoxia due to uterine contractions remains an unsolved problem after discharge from the hospital. The ideal method for outpatient cervical ripening is controversial. The local application of nitric oxide donors prior to induction might be a promising approach. Larger studies are necessary before widespread use of outpatient cervical ripening by prostaglandins or other cervical ripening agents can be advocated.

Induction of labour for improving birth outcomes for women at or beyond term

BACKGROUND

As a pregnancy continues beyond term the risks of babies dying inside the womb or in the immediate newborn period increase. Whether a policy of labour induction at a predetermined gestational age can reduce this increased risk is the subject of this review.

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate the benefits and harms of a policy of labour induction at term or post-term compared to awaiting spontaneous labour or later induction of labour.

SEARCH STRATEGY

We searched the Cochrane Pregnancy and Childbirth Group's Trials Register (June 2006).

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomized controlled trials conducted in women at or beyond term. The eligible trials were those comparing a policy of labour induction to a policy of awaiting spontaneous onset of labour. Trials comparing cervical ripening methods, membrane stripping/sweeping or nipple stimulation without any commitment to delivery within a certain time were excluded.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently evaluated potentially eligible trials and extracted data. Outcomes are analysed in two main categories: gestational age and cervix status.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 19 trials reporting on 7984 women. A policy of labour induction at 41 completed weeks or beyond was associated with fewer (all-cause) perinatal deaths (1/2986 versus 9/2953; relative risk (RR) 0.30; 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.09 to 0.99). The risk difference is 0.00 (95% CI 0.01 to 0.00). If deaths due to congenital abnormality are excluded, no deaths remain in the labour induction group and seven deaths remain in the no-induction group. There was no evidence of a statistically significant difference in the risk of caesarean section (RR 0.92; 95% CI 0.76 to 1.12; RR 0.97; 95% CI 0.72 to 1.31) for women induced at 41 and 42 completed weeks respectively. Women induced at 37 to 40 completed weeks were more likely to have a caesarean section with expectant management than those in the labour induction group (RR 0.58; 95% CI 0.34 to 0.99). There were fewer babies with meconium aspiration syndrome (41+: RR 0.29; 95% CI 0.12 to 0.68, four trials, 1325 women; 42+: RR 0.66; 95% CI 0.24 to 1.81, two trials, 388 women).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

A policy of labour induction after 41 completed weeks or later compared to awaiting spontaneous labour either indefinitely or at least one week is associated with fewer perinatal deaths. However, the absolute risk is extremely small. Women should be appropriately counselled on both the relative and absolute risks.

Oral misoprostol for induction of labour

BACKGROUND

Misoprostol is a synthetic prostaglandin that can be given orally or vaginally. In most countries misoprostol has not been licensed for use in pregnancy, but its unlicensed use is common because misoprostol is cheap, stable at room temperature and effective in causing uterine contractions. Oral use of misoprostol may be convenient, but high doses could cause uterine hyperstimulation and uterine rupture which may be life-threatening for both mother and fetus.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effectiveness and safety of oral misoprostol used for labour induction in women with a viable fetus in the third trimester of pregnancy.

SEARCH STRATEGY

We searched the Cochrane Pregnancy and Childbirth Group Trials Register (January 2005).

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised trials comparing oral misoprostol versus other methods, placebo or no treatment, given to women with a viable fetus for labour induction.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Three authors independently assessed trial quality and extracted data, using centrally-designed data sheets.

MAIN RESULTS

Forty-one trials (8606 participants) were included. In four trials comparing oral misoprostol with placebo (474 participants), women using oral misoprostol were less likely to have long labours (relative risk (RR) 0.16, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.05 to 0.49), needed less oxytocin (RR 0.32, 95% CI 0.24 to 0.43) and had a lower caesarean section rate (RR 0.62, 95% CI 0.40 to 0.96). In nine trials comparing oral misoprostol with vaginal dinoprostone (2627 participants), women given oral misoprostol were less likely to need a caesarean section, but this reduction reached statistical significance only in the subgroup with intact membranes (RR 0.78, 95% CI 0.66 to 0.94). Uterine hyperstimulation was more common after oral misoprostol (RR 1.63, 95% CI 1.09 to 2.44) although this was not associated with any adverse fetal events. Seven trials (1017 participants) compared oral misoprostol with intravenous oxytocin. The only difference between the groups was an increase in meconium-stained liquor in women with ruptured membranes following administration of oral misoprostol (RR 1.72, 95% 1.08 to 2.74). Sixteen trials (3645 participants) compared oral and vaginal misoprostol and found no difference in the primary outcomes. There was less uterine hyperstimulation without fetal heart rate changes in those given oral misoprostol (RR 0.37, 95% 0.23 to 0.59). Oral misoprsotol was associated with increased need for oxytocin augmentation (RR 1.28, 95% 1.11 to 1.48) and more meconium-stained liquor (RR 1.27, 1.01 to 1.60).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Oral misoprostol appears to be more effective than placebo and at least as effective as vaginal dinoprostone. However, there remain questions about its safety because of a relatively high rate of uterine hyperstimulation and the lack of appropriate dose ranging studies. In countries where misoprostol remains unlicenced for the induction of labour, many practitioners will prefer the legal protection of using a licenced product like dinoprostone. There is no evidence that misoprostol given orally is inferior to the vaginal route and has lower rates of hyperstimulation. If misoprostol is used orally, the dose should not exceed 50 mcg.