Outpatient Induction of Labor - Are Balloon Catheters an Appropriate Method?

Synthetic Osmotic Dilators for Pre-Induction Cervical Ripening - an Evidence-Based Review

Mechanical methods have gained growing interest for pre-induction cervical ripening in women with an unripe cervix, since they have a better safety profile compared to prostaglandins. Balloon catheters have been the gold standard method for decades, while there was a lack of data on synthetic osmotic cervical dilators. Not until 2015, when Dilapan-S was approved by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) for induction of labor, numerous studies have been published on the use of Dilapan-S in this field. The rate of vaginal deliveries associated with the use of Dilapan-S ranges from 61.6 to 81.7%, and no serious complications needing further interventions have been reported to this date. Dilapan-S was shown to be as effective as the Foley balloon catheter as well as the 10 mg PGE 2 vaginal insert and orally applied misoprostol (25 µg every 2 hours) in achieving vaginal delivery, but patient's satisfaction during the cervical ripening process was significantly higher compared to the other methods and the rate of uterine hyperstimulation was significantly lower compared to prostaglandins (PGs). Minor complications (e.g. vaginal bleeding) associated with the use of Dilapan-S were < 2%, and maternal infectious morbidity was not higher compared to Foley balloon and vaginal PGE 2 or misoprostol. Due to these beneficial properties Dilapan-S might be an ideal option for outpatient cervical ripening, as shown in a recent randomized clinical trial comparing inpatient to outpatient cervical ripening. Furthermore, according to the manufacturers' product information, Dilapan-S is the only cervical ripening method that is not contraindicated for induction of labor in women with a previous cesarean section. Upcoming guidelines should consider synthetic osmotic cervical dilators as an effective and safe method for cervical ripening/induction of labor acknowledging that more evidence-based data are mandatory, particularly in patients with a previous cesarean section.

Outpatient vs inpatient induction of labor with oral misoprostol: A retrospective study

INTRODUCTION

Induction of labor is one of the most common obstetrical procedures today, with a successively rising rate. With a limited number of hospital beds, the option of starting induction at home has gained increasing attention. The primary aim of this study was to compare the proportion of women achieving vaginal delivery and the duration of hospital stay before delivery in induction of labor with oral misoprostol starting at home and induction with oral misoprostol at the hospital, in a low-risk population.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

Women with home induction (n = 282) were individually matched to controls induced at the hospital during the same time period regarding parity, age, body mass index, labor unit and indication for induction.

RESULTS

The rates of vaginal birth were similar in outpatients and inpatients (84.8% vs 86.2%; p = 0.5). Time from hospital admission to delivery in the outpatient group was significantly shorter than in the inpatient group (12.8 vs 20.6 h; p < 0.001), as was total hospital stay (2 vs 3 days; p < 0.001). There were no significant differences between the groups in neonatal or maternal outcomes. One patient undergoing outpatient induction had an unplanned home birth.

CONCLUSIONS

Starting induction at home reduced the time spent in hospital without affecting the vaginal delivery rate. Although underpowered to assess safety, this study did not show any differences in adverse maternal and perinatal outcomes between inpatients and outpatients. Further research is needed to evaluate the safety of outpatient induction of labor with misoprostol.

Cervical ripening as an outpatient procedure in the pandemic - minimizing the inpatient days and lowering the socioeconomic costs

OBJECTIVES

With an increasing incidence of labor induction the socioeconomic costs are increasing and the burden on hospital capacities is rising. In addition, the worldwide SARS-CoV-2 pandemic asks for improvements in patient care during pregnancy and delivery while decreasing the patient-staff contact. Here, we are retrospectively analyzing and comparing a mechanical ripening device that is utilized as an outpatient procedure to misoprostol and dinoprostone as inpatient induction methods in a low risk cohort.

METHODS

This is a retrospective comparative analysis of obstetric data on patients who presented for cervical ripening and labor induction. Ninety-six patients received a mechanical ripening agent as an outpatient procedure. As a control group, we used 99 patients with oral misoprostol (PGE1) and 42 patients with vaginal dinoprostone (PGE2) for cervical ripening in an inpatient setting. Data from 2016 until 2020 were analysed.

RESULTS

Baseline characteristics showed no significant differences. Delivery modes were similar in all groups. The time period from patient admission to onset of labor was significantly shorter in the outpatient group (p<0.001): 10.9 h/0.5 days (±13.6/0.6) for osmotic dilator vs. 17.9 h/0.7 days (±13.1/0.5) for oral misoprostol vs. 21.8 h/0.8 days (±15.9/0.7) for vaginal dinoprostone. With 20.4 h/0.8 days (±14.3/0.6) the osmotic dilator group displayed significantly the shortest inpatient stay from admission to delivery (p=0.027). The patient subgroup of misoprostol had 25.7 h/1.1 days (±14.9/0.6) of inpatient stay from admission to delivery and the patient group of dinoprostone 27.5 h/1.1 days (±16.0/0.7). There were fewer hospital days in the outpatient group: 84.9 h/3.5 days vs. 88.9 h/3.7 days vs. 93.6 h/3.9 days (outpatient osmotic dilator vs. inpatient misoprostol and dinoprostone, respectively).

CONCLUSIONS

New approaches are required to decrease individual contacts between patients and staff while maintaining a high quality patient care in obstetrics. This analysis reveals that outpatient mechanical cervical ripening can be as safe and effective as inpatient cervical ripening with PGE1/PGE2, while lowering patient-staff contact and total hospital stays and therefore decreasing the socioeconomic costs.

Preterm Premature Rupture of Membranes – Inpatient Versus Outpatient Management: an Evidence-Based Review

According to current guidelines, inpatient management until birth is considered standard in pregnant women with preterm premature rupture of membranes (PPROM). With the increasing burden on obstetric departments and the growing importance of satisfaction and right to self-determination in pregnant women, outpatient management in PPROM is a possible alternative to inpatient monitoring. The most important criterion for this approach is to ensure the safety of both the mother and the child. Due to the small number of cases (n = 116), two randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing inpatient and outpatient management were unable to draw any conclusions. By 2020, eight retrospective comparative studies (cohort/observational studies) yielded the following outcomes: no significant differences in the rate of maternal complications (e.g., chorioamnionitis, premature placental abruption, umbilical cord prolapse) and in neonatal morbidity, significantly prolonged latency period with higher gestational age at birth, higher birth weight of neonates, and significantly shorter length of stay of preterm infants in neonatal intensive care, shorter hospital stay of pregnant women, and lower treatment costs with outpatient management. Concerns regarding this approach are mainly related to unpredictable complications with the need for rapid obstetric interventions, which cannot be performed in time in an outpatient setting. Prerequisites for outpatient management are the compliance of the expectant mother, the adherence to strict selection criteria and the assurance of adequate monitoring at home. Future research should aim at more accurate risk assessment of obstetric complications through studies with higher case numbers and standardisation of outpatient management under evidence-based criteria.

Mechanical Methods for the Induction of Labour After Previous Caesarean Section – An Updated, Evidence-based Review

There are currently no up-to-date evidence-based recommendations on the preferred method to induce labour after previous Caesarean section, especially for patients with unripe cervix, as randomised controlled studies are lacking. Intravenous oxytocin and misoprostol are contraindicated in these women because of the high risk of uterine rupture. In women with ripe cervix (Bishop Score > 6), intravenous administration of oxytocin is an effective procedure with comparable rates of uterine rupture to those with spontaneous onset of labour. Vaginal prostaglandin E ₂ (PGE ₂ ) and mechanical methods (balloon catheters, hygroscopic cervical dilators) are effective methods to induce labour in pregnant women with unripe cervix and previous Caesarean section. According to current guidelines, the administration of PGE ₂ is associated with a higher rate of uterine rupture compared to balloon catheters. Balloon catheters are therefore a suitable alternative to PGE ₂ to induce labour after previous Caesarean section, even though this is an off-label use. In addition to two meta-analyses published in 2016, 12 mostly retrospective cohort/observational studies with low to moderate levels of evidence have been published on mechanical methods of cervical ripening after previous Caesarean section. But because of the significant heterogeneity of the studies, substantial differences in study design, and insufficient numbers of pregnant women included in the studies, it is not possible to make any evidence-based recommendations based on these studies. According to a recent meta-analysis, the average rate using balloon catheters is approximately 53% and the average rate after spontaneous onset of labour is 72%. The uterine rupture rate was 0.2–0.9% for vaginal PGE ₂ and 0.56–0.94% for balloon catheters and is therefore comparable to the uterine rupture rate associated with spontaneous onset of labour. According to the product informations, hygroscopic cervical dilators (Dilapan-S) are currently the only method which is not contraindicated for cervical ripening/induction of labour in women with previous Caesarean section, although data are insufficient. Well-designed, randomised, controlled studies with sufficient case numbers comparing balloon catheters and hygroscopic cervical dilators with mechanical methods and vaginal prostaglandin E ₂ /oral misoprostol are therefore necessary to allow proper decision-making.