Women's Experiences with and Preference for Induction of Labor with Oral Misoprostol or Foley Catheter at Term

Role of mode of induction and delivery and women's satisfaction after induction of labour at term: An observational study

This cross-sectional study aimed at evaluating the impact of different modalities of induction of labour (IOL) and delivery on levels of woman' satisfaction. All women aged 18 years or older, who underwent IOL for at-term pregnancy (≥41 weeks of gestation) in randomly selected days during the study period in 6 participating centres were eligible for the study. The questionnaire investigated women's opinion regarding information about induction, pain control, length of induction, their experience about induction, labour and delivery and their attitude towards induction in a subsequent pregnancy. Women were also asked to fill in the Italian version of the Birth Satisfaction Scale-Revised (BSS-R). A total of 300 women entered the study. The answer to the question about a "positive attitude towards induction in a subsequent pregnancy was "absolutely yes" or "yes" respectively in the 77.8%, 52.8% and 48.6% of women who were induced with oral drugs, vaginal drugs and Cook balloon (heterogeneity chi-square p = 0.05). The corresponding values for women who delivered vaginally or by caesarean section (CS) were 63.3% and 36.4% (chi-square p = 0.0009). The mean BSS-R total score was higher among women who underwent IOL with oral drugs than with vaginal drugs (p < 0.0001) or Cook Balloon (p < 0.0001), and among women who delivered vaginally than in those who delivered by CS (p < 0.0001). Women were asked "What do you think is important for a method of induction?": 47.3% (95% CI 41.7%-53.0%) of women answered that "should make the induction as painless as possible", 47.0% (95% CI 41.4%-52.7%) "should induce labour quickly", 44.3% (95% CI 38.8%-50.0%) "should be safe for baby". This study showed that vaginal delivery was associated with a higher rate of satisfaction among induced women. Considering mode of induction, oral drugs were associated with a higher level of satisfaction. Control of pain and quick induction were the most appreciated characteristics.

Offering women a choice in induction of labour: a prospective cohort study

PURPOSE

To evaluate women's choice in the method of labour induction between oral misoprostol, PGE2 pessary and the Foley catheter. To compare women's satisfaction according to their choice and to identify factors associated with patient satisfaction.

METHODS

We conducted a comparative, prospective cohort study of 520 women who chose their preferred method for labour induction, in a French tertiary hospital, from July 2019 to October 2020. Before and after the delivery, they were asked to argue their choice and to evaluate their satisfaction through the use of questionnaires. The primary outcome was global level of satisfaction.

RESULTS

Of the 520 women included, 67.5% of women chose oral misoprostol compared to 21% PGE2 pessary and 11.5% Foley catheter. Regarding global satisfaction, we found no significant difference between the three groups: 78.4%, 68.8% and 71.2% (p = 0.107) for, respectively, oral misoprostol, PGE2 pessary and Foley catheter. Factors that seem to improve women's satisfaction were nulliparity (aOR = 2.03, 95% CI [1.19-3.53]), delivery within 24 h after the start of induction (aOR = 3.46, 95% CI [2.02-6.14]) and adequate information (aOR = 4.21, 95% CI [1.869.64]). Factors associated with lower satisfaction rates were postpartum haemorrhage (aOR = 0.51, 95% CI [0.30-0.88]) and caesarean section (aOR = 0.31, 95% CI [0.17-0.54]).

CONCLUSION

Women satisfaction rates were not different between the three methods, when chosen by the patients themselves. These finding should encourage caregivers to promote shared decision making when possible.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

The protocol was approved by the French ethics committee for research in obstetrics and gynaecology (CEROG, reference number 2019-OBS-0602) on 1st June 2019.

The Induction with Foley OR Misoprostol (INFORM) Study dataset. A dataset of 602 women with hypertensive disease in pregnancy, in India, randomised to either Foley catheter or oral misoprostol for induction of labour

Objectives

Induction of labour (IOL), or starting labour artificially, can be a lifesaving intervention for pregnant women and their babies, and rates are rising significantly globally. As rates increase, it becomes increasingly important to fully evaluate all available data, especially that from low income settings where the potential benefits and harms are greater. The goal of this paper is to describe the datasets collected as part of the Induction with Foley OR Misoprostol (INFORM) Study, a randomised trial comparing two of the recommended methods of cervical ripening for labour induction, oral misoprostol and Foley catheter, in women being induced for hypertension in pregnancy, at two sites in India during 2013–15.

Data description

This dataset includes comprehensive data on 602 women who underwent IOL for hypertensive disorders in pregnancy. Women were randomly assigned to cervical ripening with oral misoprostol or a transcervical Foley catheter in two government hospitals in India. The main dataset has 367 variables including monitoring during the induction of labour, medications administered, timing and mode of delivery, measures of neonatal morbidity and mortality, maternal mortality and morbidity, maternal satisfaction and health economic data. The dataset is anonymised and available on ReShare.

Low-dose oral misoprostol for induction of labour

BACKGROUND

Misoprostol given orally is a commonly used labour induction method. Our Cochrane Review is restricted to studies with low-dose misoprostol (initially ≤ 50 µg), as higher doses pose unacceptably high risks of uterine hyperstimulation.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the efficacy and safety of low-dose oral misoprostol for labour induction in women with a viable fetus in the third trimester of pregnancy.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched Cochrane Pregnancy and Childbirth's Trials Register, ClinicalTrials.gov,  the WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (14 February 2021) and reference lists of retrieved studies.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised trials comparing low-dose oral misoprostol (initial dose ≤ 50 µg) versus placebo, vaginal dinoprostone, vaginal misoprostol, oxytocin, or mechanical methods; or comparing oral misoprostol protocols (one- to two-hourly versus four- to six-hourly; 20 µg to 25 µg versus 50 µg; or 20 µg hourly titrated versus 25 µg two-hourly static).

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Using Covidence, two review authors independently screened reports, extracted trial data, and performed quality assessments. Our primary outcomes were vaginal birth within 24 hours, caesarean section, and hyperstimulation with foetal heart changes.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 61 trials involving 20,026 women. GRADE assessments ranged from moderate- to very low-certainty evidence, with downgrading decisions based on imprecision, inconsistency, and study limitations. Oral misoprostol versus placebo/no treatment (four trials; 594 women) Oral misoprostol may make little to no difference in the rate of caesarean section (risk ratio (RR) 0.81, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.59 to 1.11; 4 trials; 594 women; moderate-certainty evidence), while its effect on uterine hyperstimulation with foetal heart rate changes is uncertain (RR 5.15, 95% CI 0.25 to 105.31; 3 trials; 495 women; very low-certainty evidence). Vaginal births within 24 hours was not reported. In all trials, oxytocin could be commenced after 12 to 24 hours and all women had pre-labour ruptured membranes. Oral misoprostol versus vaginal dinoprostone (13 trials; 9676 women) Oral misoprostol probably results in fewer caesarean sections (RR 0.84, 95% CI 0.78 to 0.90; 13 trials, 9676 women; moderate-certainty evidence). Subgroup analysis indicated that 10 µg to 25 µg (RR 0.80, 95% CI 0.74 to 0.87; 9 trials; 8652 women) may differ from 50 µg (RR 1.10, 95% CI 0.91 to 1.34; 4 trials; 1024 women) for caesarean section. Oral misoprostol may decrease vaginal births within 24 hours (RR 0.93, 95% CI 0.87 to 1.00; 10 trials; 8983 women; low-certainty evidence) and hyperstimulation with foetal heart rate changes (RR 0.49, 95% CI 0.40 to 0.59; 11 trials; 9084 women; low-certainty evidence). Oral misoprostol versus vaginal misoprostol (33 trials; 6110 women) Oral use may result in fewer vaginal births within 24 hours (average RR 0.81, 95% CI 0.68 to 0.95; 16 trials, 3451 women; low-certainty evidence), and less hyperstimulation with foetal heart rate changes (RR 0.69, 95% CI 0.53 to 0.92, 25 trials, 4857 women, low-certainty evidence), with subgroup analysis suggesting that 10 µg to 25 µg orally (RR 0.28, 95% CI 0.14 to 0.57; 6 trials, 957 women) may be superior to 50 µg orally (RR 0.82, 95% CI 0.61 to 1.11; 19 trials; 3900 women). Oral misoprostol probably does not increase caesarean sections overall (average RR 1.00, 95% CI 0.86 to 1.16; 32 trials; 5914 women; low-certainty evidence) but likely results in fewer caesareans for foetal distress (RR 0.74, 95% CI 0.55 to 0.99; 24 trials, 4775 women). Oral misoprostol versus intravenous oxytocin (6 trials; 737 women, 200 with ruptured membranes) Misoprostol may make little or no difference to vaginal births within 24 hours (RR 1.12, 95% CI 0.95 to 1.33; 3 trials; 466 women; low-certainty evidence), but probably results in fewer caesarean sections (RR 0.67, 95% CI 0.50 to 0.90; 6 trials; 737 women; moderate-certainty evidence). The effect on hyperstimulation with foetal heart rate changes is uncertain (RR 0.66, 95% CI 0.19 to 2.26; 3 trials, 331 women; very low-certainty evidence). Oral misoprostol versus mechanical methods (6 trials; 2993 women) Six trials compared oral misoprostol to transcervical Foley catheter. Misoprostol may increase vaginal birth within 24 hours (RR 1.32, 95% CI 0.98 to 1.79; 4 trials; 1044 women; low-certainty evidence), and probably reduces the risk of caesarean section (RR 0.84, 95% CI 0.75 to 0.95; 6 trials; 2993 women; moderate-certainty evidence). There may be little or no difference in hyperstimulation with foetal heart rate changes (RR 1.31, 95% CI 0.78 to 2.21; 4 trials; 2828 women; low-certainty evidence). Oral misoprostol one- to two-hourly versus four- to six-hourly (1 trial; 64 women) The evidence on hourly titration was very uncertain due to the low numbers reported. Oral misoprostol 20 µg hourly titrated versus 25 µg two-hourly static (2 trials; 296 women) The difference in regimen may have little or no effect on the rate of vaginal births in 24 hours (RR 0.97, 95% CI 0.80 to 1.16; low-certainty evidence). The evidence is of very low certainty for all other reported outcomes.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Low-dose oral misoprostol is probably associated with fewer caesarean sections (and therefore more vaginal births) than vaginal dinoprostone, and lower rates of hyperstimulation with foetal heart rate changes. However, time to birth may be increased, as seen by a reduced number of vaginal births within 24 hours. Compared to transcervical Foley catheter, low-dose oral misoprostol is associated with fewer caesarean sections, but equivalent rates of hyperstimulation. Low-dose misoprostol given orally rather than vaginally is probably associated with similar rates of vaginal birth, although rates may be lower within the first 24 hours. However, there is likely less hyperstimulation with foetal heart changes, and fewer caesarean sections performed due to foetal distress. The best available evidence suggests that low-dose oral misoprostol probably has many benefits over other methods for labour induction. This review supports the use of low-dose oral misoprostol for induction of labour, and demonstrates the lower risks of hyperstimulation than when misoprostol is given vaginally. More trials are needed to establish the optimum oral misoprostol regimen, but these findings suggest that a starting dose of 25 µg may offer a good balance of efficacy and safety.

Women's expectations and experiences of labor induction - a questionnaire-based analysis of a randomized controlled trial

Background

Although labor induction is a commonly used procedure in obstetrical care, there are limited data on its psycho-emotional effects on the woman. This study analysed the expectations and experiences of women in different routes of labor induction. The study’s primary aim was to compare women’s delivery experience if induced by orally administrated misoprostol (OMS) compared with misoprostol vaginal insert (MVI). Secondly, an evaluation of women’s general satisfaction with induced labor was made, and factors associated with a negative experience.

Methods

Primiparous women (n = 196) with a singleton fetus in cephalic presentation, ≥ 37 weeks of gestation, with a Bishop’s score ≤ 4 planning labor induction were randomly allocated to receive either OMS (Cytotec®) or MVI (Misodel®). Data were collected by validated questionnaires, the Wijma Delivery Expectation/Experience Questionnaire (A + B). The pre-labor part of the survey (W-DEQ version A) was given to participants to complete within 1 hour before the start of induction, and the post-labor part of the questionnaire (W-DEQ version B) was administered after birth and collected before the women were discharged from hospital.

Results

It was found that 11.8% (17/143) reported a severe fear of childbirth (W-DEQ A score ≥ 85). Before the induction, women with extreme fear had 3.7 times increased risk of experiencing labor induction negatively (OR 3.7 [95% CI, 1.04–13.41]).

Conclusion

No difference was identified between OMS and MVI when delivery experience among women induced to labor was analysed. Severe fear of childbirth before labor was a risk factor for a negative experience of labor induction.

Trial registration

Clinical trial register number NCT02918110. Date of registration on May 31, 2016.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s12884-021-03786-6.

Mechanical methods for induction of labour

BACKGROUND

Mechanical methods were the first methods developed to ripen the cervix and induce labour. During recent decades they have been substituted by pharmacological methods. Potential advantages of mechanical methods, compared with pharmacological methods may include reduction in side effects that could improve neonatal outcomes. This is an update of a review first published in 2001, last updated in 2012.

OBJECTIVES

To determine the effectiveness and safety of mechanical methods for third trimester (> 24 weeks' gestation) induction of labour in comparison with prostaglandin E2 (PGE2) (vaginal and intracervical), low-dose misoprostol (oral and vaginal), amniotomy or oxytocin.

SEARCH METHODS

For this update, we searched Cochrane Pregnancy and Childbirth's Trials Register, ClinicalTrials.gov, the WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP), and reference lists of retrieved studies (9 January 2018). We updated the search in March 2019 and added the search results to the awaiting classification section of the review.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Clinical trials comparing mechanical methods used for third trimester cervical ripening or labour induction with pharmacological methods.Mechanical methods include: (1) the introduction of a catheter through the cervix into the extra-amniotic space with balloon insufflation; (2) introduction of laminaria tents, or their synthetic equivalent (Dilapan), into the cervical canal; (3) use of a catheter to inject fluid into the extra-amniotic space (EASI).This review includes the following comparisons: (1) specific mechanical methods (balloon catheter, laminaria tents or EASI) compared with prostaglandins (different types, different routes) or with oxytocin; (2) single balloon compared to a double balloon; (3) addition of prostaglandins or oxytocin to mechanical methods compared with prostaglandins or oxytocin alone.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently assessed trials for inclusion and assessed risk of bias. Two review authors independently extracted data and assessed the quality of the evidence using the GRADE approach.

MAIN RESULTS

This review update includes a total of 113 trials (22,373 women) contributing data to 21 comparisons. Risk of bias of trials varied. Overall, the evidence was graded from very-low to moderate quality. All evidence was downgraded for lack of blinding and, for many comparisons, the effect estimates were too imprecise to make a valid judgement.Balloon versus vaginal PGE2: there may be little or no difference in vaginal deliveries not achieved within 24 hours (average risk ratio (RR) 1.01, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.82 to 1.26; 7 studies; 1685 women; I² = 79%; low-quality evidence) and there probably is little or no difference in caesarean sections (RR 1.00, 95% CI 0.92 to 1.09; 28 studies; 6619 women; moderate-quality evidence) between induction of labour with a balloon catheter and vaginal PGE2. A balloon catheter probably reduces the risk of uterine hyperstimulation with fetal heart rate (FHR) changes (RR 0.35, 95% CI 0.18 to 0.67; 6 studies; 1966 women; moderate-quality evidence), serious neonatal morbidity or perinatal death (RR 0.48, 95% CI 0.25 to 0.93; 8 studies; 2757 women; moderate-quality evidence) and may slightly reduce the risk of aneonatal intensive care unit (NICU) admission (RR 0.82, 95% CI 0.65 to 1.04; 3647 women; 12 studies; low-quality evidence). It is uncertain whether there is a difference in serious maternal morbidity or death (RR 0.20, 95% CI 0.01 to 4.12; 4 studies; 1481 women) or five-minute Apgar score < 7 (RR 0.74, 95% CI 0.49 to 1.14; 4271 women; 14 studies) because the quality of the evidence was found to be very low and low, respectively.Balloon versus low-dose vaginal misoprostol: it is uncertain whether there is a difference in vaginal deliveries not achieved within 24 hours between induction of labour with a balloon catheter and vaginal misoprostol (RR 1.09, 95% CI 0.85 to 1.39; 340 women; 2 studies; low-quality evidence). A balloon catheter probably reduces the risk of uterine hyperstimulation with FHR changes (RR 0.39, 95% CI 0.18 to 0.85; 1322 women; 8 studies; moderate-quality evidence) but may increase the risk of a caesarean section (average RR 1.28, 95% CI 1.02 to 1.60; 1756 women; 12 studies; I² = 45%; low-quality evidence). It is uncertain whether there is a difference in serious neonatal morbidity or perinatal death (RR 0.58, 95% CI 0.12 to 2.66; 381 women; 3 studies), serious maternal morbidity or death (no events; 4 studies, 464 women), both very low-quality evidence, and five-minute Apgar score < 7 (RR 1.00, 95% CI 0.50 to 1.97; 941 women; 7 studies) and NICU admissions (RR 1.00, 95% CI 0.61 to 1.63; 1302 women; 9 studies) both low-quality evidence.Balloon versus low-dose oral misoprostol: a balloon catheter probably increases the risk of a vaginal delivery not achieved within 24 hours (RR 1.28, 95% CI 1.13 to 1.46; 782 women, 2 studies, and probably slightly increases the risk of a caesarean section (RR 1.17, 95% CI 1.04 to 1.32; 3178 women; 7 studies; both moderate-quality evidence) when compared to oral misoprostol. It is uncertain whether there is a difference in uterine hyperstimulation with FHR changes (RR 0.81, 95% CI 0.48 to 1.38; 2033 women; 2 studies), serious neonatal morbidity or perinatal death (RR 1.11, 95% CI 0.60 to 2.06; 2627 women; 3 studies), both low-quality evidence, serious maternal morbidity or death (RR 0.50, 95% CI 0.05 to 5.52; 2627 women; 3 studies), very low-quality evidence, five-minute Apgar scores < 7 (RR 0.71, 95% CI 0.38 to 1.32; 2693 women; 4 studies) and NICU admissions (RR 0.82, 95% CI 0.58 to 1.17; 2873 women; 5 studies) both low-quality evidence.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Low- to moderate-quality evidence shows mechanical induction with a balloon is probably as effective as induction of labour with vaginal PGE2. However, a balloon seems to have a more favourable safety profile. More research on this comparison does not seem warranted.Moderate-quality evidence shows a balloon catheter may be slightly less effective as oral misoprostol, but it remains unclear if there is a difference in safety outcomes for the neonate. When compared to low-dose vaginal misoprostol, low-quality evidence shows a balloon may be less effective, but probably has a better safety profile.Future research could be focused more on safety aspects for the neonate and maternal satisfaction.

Challenges and Limitations of Clinical Trials on Labor Induction: A Review of the Literature

Induction of labor is a common obstetric procedure performed in nearly a quarter of all deliveries in the United States. Pharmacological (prostaglandins, oxytocin) and/or mechanical methods (balloon catheters) are commonly used for labor induction; however, there is ongoing debate as to which method is the safest and most effective. This narrative review discusses key limitations of published trials on labor induction, including the lack of well-designed randomized controlled trials directly comparing specific methods of induction, heterogeneous trial populations, and wide variation in the protocols used and outcomes reported. Furthermore, the majority of published trials were underpowered to detect significant differences in the most clinically relevant efficacy and safety outcomes (e.g., cesarean delivery, neonatal mortality). By identifying the limitations of labor induction trials, we hope to highlight the importance of quality published data to better inform guidelines and drive evidence-based treatment decisions.