Labor induction in nulliparous women with an unfavorable cervix: double balloon catheter versus dinoprostone

[Prostaglandins or cervical balloon for the induction of labor for cervical ripening: A literature review]

OBJECTIVE

Induction of labor in France concerns one birth out of four with 70% of induction starting by cervical ripening, either with a pharmacological (prostaglandins) or a mechanical (balloon) method. This review aims to compare these two methods within current knowledge, using the PRISMA methodology.

METHODS

Trials comparing these two methods, published or unpublished up to July 2023, in French or English were searched for in the PubMed, Cochrane Library and ClinicalTrial.govs datasets. Fifty articles including 10,689 women were selected. The outcomes of interest were those from the Core Outcome Set for trails on Induction of Labour (COSIOL) list: mode of delivery, time from induction-to-birth, maternal and neonatal morbidity, and maternal satisfaction.

RESULT

No differences were observed between the two methods for the mode of delivery or neonatal and maternal morbidity. The time from induction-to-birth was longer for mechanical methods. Those were also associated with a greater need for oxytocin, less uterine hyperstimulation and less instrumental deliveries. Maternal satisfaction was assessed in only nine trials using various scales which made the interpretation of maternal satisfaction.

CONCLUSION

The efficacy of these two induction methods is similar for vaginal delivery, but it remains to be seen which one best meets women's satisfaction criteria.

Outpatient cervical ripening with balloon catheters: A Bayesian network meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

BACKGROUND

One in four labors are induced. The process of cervical ripening can be lengthy and pre-labor hospitalization is required. Outpatient cervical ripening can be an attractive alternative.

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate the efficacy and safety of outpatient cervical ripening with a balloon catheter compared with inpatient balloon catheter or prostaglandin E2 (PGE2 ).

SEARCH STRATEGY

The PubMed, MEDLINE, Embase, ClinicalTrials.gov, and Cochrane Library databases were searched from their inception to October 15, 2022.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomized controlled trials comparing the outpatient balloon catheter with inpatient balloon catheter or inpatient PGE2 for term cervical ripening.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Bayesian network meta-analysis was performed. The primary outcome was the cesarean delivery rate. The secondary outcomes included instrumental delivery, the time from intervention-to-birth, oxytocin augmentation, total hospital duration, and maternal/neonatal adverse events.

MAIN RESULTS

Twenty-nine randomized controlled trials with a total of 6004 participants were identified. No difference in the cesarean delivery rate was revealed among the three interventions. Compared with inpatient balloon catheter, outpatient balloon catheter had shorter total hospital duration (mean difference -8.58, 95% confidence interval -17.02 to -1.10). No differences were revealed in the time from intervention-to-birth, instrumental delivery, postpartum hemorrhage, 5-min Apgar score less than 7, umbilical cord arterial pH less than 7.1, and neonatal intensive care unit admission among the three interventions.

CONCLUSIONS

Outpatient balloon catheter in low-risk term pregnancies is an available option that could be considered for cervical ripening. The safety and effectiveness are comparable to inpatient cervical ripening methods.

Efficacy and safety of double balloon catheter and dinoprostone for labor induction in multipara at term

PURPOSE

The aim of this study was to comparatively assess the efficacy and safety of double balloon catheter (DBC) and dinoprostone as labor-inducing agents just for multipara at term.

METHODS

A retrospective cohort study was conducted among multipara at term with a Bishop score < 6 who needed planned labor induction from January 1, 2020, to December 30, 2020 in Maternal and Child Health Hospital of Hubei province, Tongji Medical College, Huazhong University of Science and Technology. They were divided into DBC group and dinoprostone group, respectively. Baseline maternal data, maternal and neonatal outcomes were recorded for statistical analysis. Total vaginal delivery rate, rate of vaginal delivery within 24 h, rate of uterine hyperstimulation combined with abnormal fetal heart rate(FHR) were regarded as the primary outcome variables. The difference between groups was considered statistically significant when p value < 0.05.

RESULTS

A total of 202 multiparas was included for analysis (95 women in DBC group vs 107 women in dinoprostone group). There were no significant differences in total vaginal delivery rate and rate of vaginal delivery within 24 h between groups. Uterine hyperstimulation combined with abnormal FHR occurred exclusively in dinoprostone group.

CONCLUSION

DBC and dinoprostone seem to be equally effective, while, DBC seems to be safer than dinoprostone.

Is there a difference in labor patterns after induction with prostaglandins and double-balloon catheters?

BACKGROUND

Labor progression curves are believed to differ between spontaneous and induced labors. However, data describing labor progression patterns with different modes of induction are insufficient.

OBJECTIVE

This study aimed to compare the progress patterns between labors induced with slow-release prostaglandin E2 vaginal analogue and those induced with a double-balloon catheter.

STUDY DESIGN

This retrospective cohort study included all nulliparous women who delivered at term and who underwent cervical ripening with prostaglandin E2 vaginal analogue or a double-balloon catheter from 2013 to 2021 in a tertiary hospital in Israel. Included in the analysis were women who achieved 10 cm cervical dilatation. The time intervals between centimeter-to-centimeter changes were evaluated.

RESULTS

A total of 1087 women were included of whom 786 (72.3%) were induced using prostaglandin E2 vaginal analogue and 301 (27.7%) were induced using a double-balloon catheter. The time from induction to birth was similar between the groups (32.5 hours for the prostaglandin E2 vaginal analogue group [5th-95th percentiles, 6.5-153.8] vs 29.2 hours for the double-balloon group [5th-95th percentiles, 9.1-157.1]; P=.100). The median time of the latent phase (2-6 cm dilation) was longer for the double-balloon catheter group than for the prostaglandin E2 vaginal analogue group (7.3 hours [5th-95th percentiles, 5.6-14.5] vs 6.0 hours [5th-95th percentiles, 2.4-18.8]; P=.042). The median time of active labor (6-10 cm dilatation) was similar between groups (1.9 hours [5th-95th percentiles, 0.3-7.4] for the prostaglandin E2 vaginal analogue group vs 2.3 hours [5th-95th percentiles, 0.3-6.5] for the double-balloon catheter group; P=.307).

CONCLUSION

Deliveries subjected to cervical ripening with a double-balloon catheter were characterized by a slightly longer latent phase than deliveries induced by prostaglandin E2 vaginal analogue. After reaching the active phase of labor, the mode of cervical ripening did not influence the labor progress pattern.

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 includes a total of 112 trials, with 104 studies contributing data (22,055 women; 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 (risk ratio (RR) 1.01, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.82 to 1.26; 7 studies; 1685 women; 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 (RR 1.28, 95% CI 1.02 to 1.60; 1756 women; 12 studies; 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.

Safety and efficacy of double-balloon catheter for cervical ripening: a Bayesian network meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

BACKGROUND

Various methods are used for cervical ripening during the induction of labor. Mechanical and pharmacological methods are commonly used for cervical ripening. A double-balloon catheter was specifically developed to ripen the cervix and induce labor; however, the efficacy of the double-balloon catheter in cervical ripening compared to other methods is unknown.

METHODS

We searched five databases and performed a Bayesian network meta-analysis. Six interventions (double-balloon catheter, Foley catheter, oral misoprostol, vaginal misoprostol, dinoprostone, and double-balloon catheter combined with oral misoprostol) were included in the search. The primary outcomes were cesarean delivery rate and time from intervention-to-birth. The secondary outcomes were as follows: Bishop score increment; achieving a vaginal delivery within 24 h; uterine hyperstimulation with fetal heart rate changes; need for oxytocin augmentation; instrumental delivery; meconium staining; chorioamnionitis; postpartum hemorrhage; low Apgar score; neonatal intensive care unit admission; and arterial pH.

RESULTS

Forty-eight randomized controlled trials involving 11,482 pregnant women were identified. The cesarean delivery rates of the cervical ripening with a double-balloon catheter and oral misoprostol, oral misoprostol, and vaginal misoprostol were significantly lower than cervical ripening with a Foley catheter (OR = 0.48, 95% CI: 0.23-0.96; OR = 0.74, 95% CI: 0.58-0.93; and OR = 0.79, 95% CI: 0.64-0.97, respectively; all P < 0.05). The time from intervention-to-birth of vaginal misoprostol was significantly shorter than the other five cervical ripening methods. Vaginal misoprostol and oral misoprostol increased the risk of uterine hyperstimulation with fetal heart rate changes compared to a Foley catheter. A double-balloon catheter with or without oral misoprostol had similar outcomes, including uterine hyperstimulation with fetal heart rate changes compared to a Foley catheter.

CONCLUSION

Double-balloon catheter did not show superiority when compared with other single method in primary and secondary outcomes of labor induction. The combination of double-balloon catheter with oral misoprostol was significantly reduced the rate of cesarean section compared to Foley catheter without increased risk of uterine hyperstimulation with fetal heart rate changes, which was shown in oral or vaginal misoprostol.

Double Balloon Catheter (Plus Oxytocin) versus Dinoprostone Vaginal Insert for Term Rupture of Membranes: A Randomized Controlled Trial (RUBAPRO)

Background: The aim of this study is to demonstrate that a double balloon catheter combined with oxytocin decreases time between induction of labor and delivery (TID) as compared to a vaginal dinoprostone insert in cases of premature rupture of membranes at term. Methods: This is a prospective, randomized, controlled trial including patient undergoing labor induction for PROM at term with an unfavorable cervix in Clermont-Ferrand university hospital. We compared the double balloon catheter over a period of 12 h with adjunction of oxytocin 6 h after catheter insertion versus dinoprostone vaginal insert. After device ablation, cervical ripening continued only with oxytocin. The main outcome was TID. Secondary outcomes concerned delivery mode, as well as maternal and fetal outcome, and were adjusted for parity. Results: 40 patients per group were randomized. Each group had similar baseline characteristics. The study failed to demonstrate reduced TID (16.2 versus 20.2 h, ES = 0.16 (−0.27 to 0.60), p = 0.12) in the catheter group versus dinoprostone except in nulliparous women (17.0 versus 26.5 h, ES = 0.62 (0.10 to 1.14), p = 0.006). The rate of vaginal delivery <24 h significantly increased with combined induction (88.5% versus 66.6%, p = 0.03). No statistical difference was observed concerning caesarean rate (12.5% versus 17.5%, p > 0.05), chorioamnionitis (0% versus 2.5%, p = 1), postpartum endometritis, or maternal or neonatal outcomes. Procedure-related pain and tolerance to devices were found to be similar for the two methods. Interpretation: The double balloon catheter combined with oxytocin is an alternative for cervical ripening in case of PROM at term, and may reduce TID in nulliparous women.

Effectiveness of Dinoprostone and Cook's Balloon for Labor Induction in Primipara Women at Term

Labor induction is commonly used for achieving successful vaginal delivery. This study aimed to compare the effectiveness of dinoprostone and Cook's balloon as labor-inducing agents in primipara women at term. A retrospective cohort study among primipara women was conducted in Hubei Maternity and Child Health Hospital. Basic clinical characteristics were collected. The main outcomes were vaginal delivery rate, cesarean section rate and forceps delivery rate. Obstetric and perinatal outcomes were also compared. Univariate and multivariate analyses were further performed to evaluate the predictors for vaginal delivery within 24 h. A total of 845 eligible primipara women undergoing labor induction were recruited. Of them, 141 women were induced with dinoprostone (dinoprostone group, DG), and 704 with Cook's balloon (Cook's balloon group, CG). Groups were homogeneous except more women with premature rupture of membranes in DG, with gestational hypertension in CG (P<0.05). The vaginal delivery rate within 12 h was 1.98% and 16.52% in CG and DG respectively (P=0.0001). Besides, the vaginal delivery rate within 24 h was 37.62% and 52.26% in CG and DG respectively (P=0.0079). DG showed the lower rate of oxytocin augmentation, artificial rupture of membrane and postpartum hemorrhage and the shorter interval from insertion to active labor than CG (P<0.05). Multivariate regression analysis revealed that abortion history, oxytocin augmentation, artificial rupture of membrane, and obstetric analgesia were independent predictors for vaginal delivery within 24 h. In conclusion, dinoprostone was more effective than Cook's balloon to induce labor and achieve vaginal birth in the sample of primipara women at term.

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.

Double-balloon catheter versus dinoprostone insert for labour induction: a meta-analysis

OBJECTIVE

To assess the efficacy and safety of a double-balloon catheter versus dinoprostone insert for labour induction.

STUDY DESIGN

PubMed, MEDLINE, Embase, ClinicalTrials.gov, and the Cochrane Central Register of Clinical Trials databases were searched from 1985 to April 2018. Randomized controlled trials that compared a double-balloon catheter and dinoprostone insert for cervical ripening were identified. Eligible study populations consisted of women with singleton pregnancies that had any indication for labour induction and were randomly assigned to undergo induction with a double-balloon catheter or dinoprostone insert. The main outcomes were incidence of vaginal delivery within 24 h and caesarean section, and neonatal outcomes.

RESULTS

Five randomized trials (603 women; 305 with a double-balloon catheter and 298 with a dinoprostone insert) were eligible for inclusion. No differences were observed between the two groups in terms of vaginal delivery within 24 h [relative risk (RR) 1.21, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.93-1.59] and incidence of caesarean section (RR 0.99, 95% CI 0.77-1.27). Compared with the double-balloon catheter, the dinoprostone insert was associated with a reduced need for oxytocin administration in the process of labour induction (RR 1.95, 95% CI 1.45-2.62). However, there was a higher incidence of excessive uterine activity (RR 0.17, 95% CI 0.06-0.54) and neonatal umbilical cord arterial blood pH < 7.1 (RR 0.36, 95% CI 0.15-0.84) in the dinoprostone insert group.

CONCLUSION

This review showed that the efficacy of labour induction using both the double-balloon catheter and dinoprostone insert was similar. However, the double-balloon catheter seemed to be a safer method.

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.

Double balloon catheters: A promising tool for induction of labor in multiparous women with unfavorable cervices

Objective:

To compare the effectiveness and safety of oxytocin and a cervical ripening balloon in women with unfavorable cervices for inducing labor.

Material and Methods:

A total of eighty pregnant women between 37-41 gestational weeks having singleton pregnancies and intact membranes with unfavorable cervices were randomized into two groups, cervical ripening balloon (n=40) and oxytocin infusion (n=40). The primary outcomes were the labor time and the route of delivery. Secondary outcomes were the effect of parity on time of labor, and obstetric and perinatal outcomes.

Results:

The median time to delivery was 9.45 hours in cervical ripening balloon group and 13.2 hours in the oxytocin group in multiparous women. The differences were statistically significant (p<0.001). The median time until delivery was 11.48 hours in cervical ripening balloon group and 13.46 hours in the oxytocin group; the differences were statistically significant (p<0.001). Cesarean delivery ratios were similar in both groups (p=0.431).

Conclusion:

The results of the present study are promising for balloon use, especially in multiparous women. It is beneficial to support these data with wide ranging population-based studies.

Double-balloon catheter versus prostaglandin E2 for cervical ripening and labour induction: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials

BACKGROUND

Induction of labour has become an increasingly common procedure. Ripening methods, including mechanical devices and pharmacological agents, improve the success rate of labour induction.

OBJECTIVE

To compare the efficacy and safety of the double-balloon catheter with prostaglandin E2 agents used for labour induction.

SEARCH STRATEGY

We searched electronic sources from MEDLINE, Embase and Web of Science, the Cochrane Library Database of Systematic Reviews, and ClinicalTrials.gov website.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Only randomised controlled trials comparing the PGE2 agents with the double-balloon catheter for cervical ripening and labour induction in women with unfavourable cervices were included in the analysis.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

The main outcomes included the vaginal delivery rate within 24 hours and risk of caesarean section. We calculated relative risks and mean differences using fixed- and random-effects models.

MAIN RESULTS

Nine studies (1866 patients) were included in this systematic review. Both the double-balloon catheter and PGE2 agents were comparable with regard to rate of caesarean section (RR 0.92; 95% CI 0.79, 1.07), vaginal delivery within 24 hours (RR 0.95; 95% CI 0.78, 1.16) and maternal adverse events, but the risk of excessive uterine activity (RR 10.02; 95% CI 3.99, 25.17) and need for neonatal intensive care unit admissions (RR 1.31; 95% CI 1.01, 1.69) were significantly increased in women who received PGE2 agents.

CONCLUSIONS

The double-balloon catheter demonstrated greater safety and cost-effectiveness than PGE2 agents for cervical ripening and labour induction. The efficacy profiles of both methods were similar.

TWEETABLE ABSTRACT

Double-balloon catheter versus prostaglandin E2 for cervical ripening and labour induction.

The Renaissance of Transcervical Balloon Catheters for Cervical Ripening and Labour Induction

Due to rising rates of labour induction in industrialised countries, safe and effective methods of induction have once again become a focus of interest and research. Prostaglandins are effective for cervical ripening and induction of uterine contractions. They do, however, cause overstimulation of the uterus in up to 20 % of cases, sometimes causing changes in fetal heart rate. Transcervical balloon catheters provide an alternative to prostaglandins for labour induction and have been used for this purpose for almost 50 years. This induction method has experienced a recent renaissance in clinical practice that is reflected in an annually rising number of publications on its use. Balloon catheters allow gentle ripening of the cervix without causing uterine overstimulation. The two catheters available are the Foley catheter (off-label use) and the double balloon catheter, which is licensed for use in induction of labour. Both are as effective as prostaglandins, and do not increase the risk of infection to mother or child. Catheter induction also requires less monitoring compared to prostaglandins resulting in improved patient satisfaction. Balloon catheters provide a useful and promising option to achieve vaginal delivery despite failed prostaglandin induction. Intravenous oxytocin is nevertheless required in up to 85 % of cases for adequate induction/augmentation of contractions. Balloon catheters, vaginal PGE₂ and misoprostol are equally effective in the context of an unripe/unfavourable cervix, the rate of uterine hyperstimulation being significantly lower, and the need for oxytocin significantly higher for catheters. Balloon catheters are increasingly being used in combination or sequentially with oral/vaginal misoprostol, although there is currently inadequate published data on the subject. International guidelines recommend the use of balloon catheters for labour induction with an unripe cervix (also following previous caesarean section) as an alternative to prostaglandins, particularly when these are not available or are contraindicated.

Other mechanical methods for pre-induction cervical ripening

Pre-induction cervical ripening is an important part of the labor induction process in women with an unfavorable cervix. This can be achieved either by pharmacologic or mechanical methods of cervical ripening. While the Foley catheter is the most commonly used mechanical method for labor induction, other mechanical methods are also available. This article reviews the safety profiles of osmotic dilators, extra-amniotic saline infusion, double-balloon catheters, and also compares their efficacy to that of other mechanical and pharmacologic cervical ripening methods. While mechanical methods have been shown to be safe and effective for cervical ripening, none of these alternatives has been shown to be superior to the Foley catheter.

Controlled-release dinoprostone insert versus Foley catheter for labor induction: a meta-analysis

OBJECTIVE

To compare the effectiveness and safety of controlled-release dinoprostone insert with Foley catheter balloon for cervical ripening and labor induction.

METHODS

PubMed, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, Web of Science, and China Knowledge Resource Integrated Database were searched. Only randomized controlled trials comparing controlled-release dinoprostone insert with Foley catheter balloon were included. Risk ratio (RR) or mean difference (MD) with 95% confidence interval (CI) was calculated.

RESULTS

Six studies were included with 731 women received dinoprostone insert and 722 Foley catheter. Time from induction to delivery was significantly shortened in dinoprostone insert group compared to Foley catheter group (MD 5.73 h, 95% CI 1.26-10.20). There were no significant differences in vaginal delivery within 24 h (RR 0.75, 95% CI 0.43-1.30) or cesarean section (RR 0.94, 95% CI 0.80-1.12) between two ripening methods. Dinoprostone insert was related with increased rate of excessive uterine contraction (RR 0.07, 95% CI 0.03-0.19), but less oxytocin use (RR 1.86, 95% CI 1.25-2.77) when compared with Foley catheter.

CONCLUSIONS

Induction of labor with controlled-release dinoprostone insert seems to be more effective than Foley catheter. However, the former method causes excessive uterine contraction more frequently.

Failed induction of labor

Induction of labor will affect almost a quarter of all pregnancies, but historically there has been no generally accepted definition of failed induction of labor. Only recently have studies analyzed the lengths of latent labor that are associated with successful labor induction ending in a vaginal delivery, and recommendations for uniformity in the diagnosis of failed induction have largely resulted from this data. This review assesses the most recent and inclusive definition for failed induction, risk factors associated with failure, complications, and special populations that may be at risk for a failed induction.