Induction of labour: a comparison of two methods with particular concern to patient acceptability

Failed induction of labor in term nulliparous women with an unfavorable cervix: Comparison of cervical ripening by two forms of vaginal prostaglandins (slow-release pessary and vaginal gel)

OBJECTIVE

To compare the rate of failed induction after cervical ripening by two forms of vaginal prostaglandins.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

This two-year retrospective study (January 1, 2016, through December 31, 2017) in two tertiary maternity units included nulliparous women with a singleton fetus in cephalic presentation and an unfavorable cervix requiring labor induction for prolonged pregnancy. The principal endpoint was the rate of failed induction, defined by the performance of a cesarean delivery before 6 cm of dilation. Cervical ripening was initiated by prostaglandins for 24 h, using a slow-release pessary (unit A) or a vaginal gel (unit B). The care protocol of the two groups after the first 24 h were similar. The women's individual characteristics were compared between the two units. The rates of failed induction were then compared between the two units, first by univariate and then by multivariable analysis adjusted for the characteristics that differed significantly between the units.

RESULTS

Among the 17,217 women delivered in the two maternity units during the study period, 178 met our inclusion criteria (125 in unit A (slow-release pessary) and 53 in unit B (vaginal gel)). The rate of failed induction was similar: 21.6% in unit A (slow-release pessary) and 17.0% in unit B (vaginal gel) (P = 0.48). The multivariate analysis did not show any difference about failed induction, time from the onset of induction to delivery, and vaginal delivery rate within 24h.

CONCLUSION

The rate of failed induction of labor did not differ between slow-release pessary and vaginal gel.

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.

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

BACKGROUND

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

OBJECTIVES

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

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Pregnancy and Childbirth Group's Trials Register (1 March 2014) and bibliographies of relevant papers.

SELECTION CRITERIA

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

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We assessed studies and extracted data independently.

MAIN RESULTS

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

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

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

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

BACKGROUND

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

OBJECTIVES

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

SEARCH STRATEGY

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

SELECTION CRITERIA

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

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We assessed studies and extracted data independently.

MAIN RESULTS

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

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

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

Randomised trial of intravaginal misoprostol and intracervical Foley catheter for cervical ripening and induction of labour

Induction of labour may be indicated despite an unripe cervix. The purpose of this study was to compare the safety and efficacy of intravaginal misoprostol and an intracervical Foley's balloon catheter for preinduction cervical ripening and labour induction. A total of 120 patients requiring indicated induction of labour with an unfavourable cervix (Bishop's score < or =4) were randomised prospectively to receive either 50 mug intravaginal misoprostol every 6 h for a maximum of two doses, or an intracervical Foley balloon catheter for 12 h followed by an intravenous oxytocin infusion. The two arms of the study were comparable with respect to maternal age, parity, gestational age, indication for induction, and initial Bishop's scores. There were significant change in the Bishop's score in the two groups (5.9 +/- 0.2 and 4.0 +/- 0.2, respectively, p < 0.001) but no inter group differences. Oxytocin induction or augmentation of labour occurred more in the catheter group (95%) than in the misoprostol group (43.3%) (p < 0.0001). Induction to delivery interval was significantly shorter in the misoprostol group than in the catheter group (8.7 +/- 2.4 vs 11.9 +/- 2.7 h p < 0.0001). There was no significant difference noted in the caesarean or other operative delivery rates among patients in the two treatment groups. There was a higher incidence of tachysystole and hyperstimulation in the misoprostol group than in the catheter group (p < 0.03). No differences were observed between groups for meconium passage, 1- or 5-min Apgar scores < 7 and admission into the neonatal intensive care unit. In conclusion, the maternal and perinatal outcomes in this study have shown no difference confirming the efficacy and safety of both methods, however we observe a decrease in the induction-to-delivery interval when misoprostol is used for this purpose.

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

BACKGROUND

Prostaglandins have been used for induction of labour since the 1960s. Initial work focused on prostaglandin F2a as prostaglandin E2 was considered unsuitable for a number of reasons. With the development of alternative routes of administration, comparisons were made between various formulations of vaginal prostaglandins. This is one of a series of reviews of methods of cervical ripening and labour induction using standardised methodology.

OBJECTIVES

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

SEARCH STRATEGY

The Cochrane Pregnancy and Childbirth Group trials register (May 2003) and bibliographies of relevant papers.

SELECTION CRITERIA

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

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

A strategy was developed to deal with the large volume and complexity of trial data relating to labour induction. This involved a two-stage method of data extraction.

MAIN RESULTS

In total, 101 studies were considered: 43 excluded and 57 (10,039 women) included. One study is awaiting assessment. Vaginal prostaglandin E2 compared with placebo or no treatment reduced the likelihood of vaginal delivery not being achieved within 24 hours (18% versus 99%, relative risk (RR) 0.19, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.14 to 0.25, 2 trials, 384 women), there was no evidence of a difference between caesarean section rates although the risk of uterine hyperstimulation with fetal heart rate changes was increased (4.6% versus 0.51%, RR 4.14, 95% CI 1.93 to 8.90, 13 trials, 1203 women). Comparison of vaginal prostaglandin F2a with placebo showed similar caesarean section rates but the cervical score was more likely to be improved (15% versus 60%, RR 0.25, 95% CI 0.13 to 0.49, 5 trials, 467 women), and the risk of oxytocin augmentation reduced (53.9% versus 89.1%, RR 0.60, 95% CI 0.43 to 0.84, 11 trials, 1265 women) with the use of vaginal PGF2a. There were insufficient data to make meaningful conclusions for the comparison of vaginal PGE2 and PGF2a.PGE2 tablet, gel and pessary appear to be as efficacious as each other. Lower dose regimens, as defined in the review, appear as efficacious as higher dose regimens.

REVIEWER'S CONCLUSIONS

The primary aim of this review was to examine the efficacy of vaginal prostaglandin E2 and F2a. This is reflected by an increase in successful vaginal delivery rates in 24 hours, no increase in operative delivery rates and significant improvements in cervical favourability within 24 to 48 hours. Further research is needed to quantify the cost-analysis of induction of labour with vaginal prostaglandins, with special attention to different methods of administration.