Abstract
Objective: We sought to compare the efficacy of the double-balloon catheter and dinoprostone for induction of labor among nulliparous women with an unfavorable cervix.
Study design: Nulliparous women with a Bishop score <6 were randomized to receive a 10-mg intra-vaginal dinoprostone insert or a double-balloon catheter. Primary outcome was time to delivery. Statistical analyses were performed by intention to treat using the chi-square, Fisher’s exact, and Student’s t-test, as appropriate.
Results: The mean induction-to-delivery time was shorter in the double-balloon group as compared to the dinoprostone group (17.9±5.8 vs. 26.3±9.7 h) as was the time from induction to vaginal delivery (19.13±5 vs. 24.45±8.7 h, respectively). More women in the catheter group were delivered within 24 h compared to the dinoprostone group (87.1% vs. 47.4%). Approximately 50% of women in both groups delivered by cesarean section.
Conclusion: Induction of labor with the double-balloon catheter in nulliparous women with an unfavorable cervix is associated with a shorter time to delivery compared to dinoprostone.
References
[1] Bishop EH. Pelvic scoring for elective induction. Obstet Gynecol. 1964;24:266–8.Search in Google Scholar
[2] Carbone JF, Tuuli MG, Fogertey PJ, Roehl KA, Macones GA. Combination of Foley bulb and vaginal misoprostol compared with vaginal misoprostol alone for cervical ripening and labor induction: a randomized controlled trial. Obstet Gynecol. 2013;121:247–52.10.1097/AOG.0b013e31827e5dcaSearch in Google Scholar
[3] Cromi A, Ghezzi F, Uccella S, Agosti M, Serati M, Marchitelli G, et al. A randomized trial of preinduction cervical ripening: dinoprostone vaginal insert versus double-balloon catheter. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2012;207:125.e1–7.10.1016/j.ajog.2012.05.020Search in Google Scholar
[4] Gibbins J, Thomson AM. Women’s expectations and experiences of childbirth. Midwifery. 2001;17:302–13.10.1054/midw.2001.0263Search in Google Scholar
[5] Herbst A, Kallen K. Time between membrane rupture and delivery and septicemia in term neonates. Obstet Gynecol. 2007;110:612–8.10.1097/01.AOG.0000277632.36186.84Search in Google Scholar
[6] Miller AM, Rayburn WF, Smith CV. Patterns of uterine activity after intravaginal prostaglandin E2 during preinduction cervical ripening. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 1991;165:1006–9.10.1016/0002-9378(91)90459-5Search in Google Scholar
[7] Obstetrics ACoPB. ACOG Practice Bulletin No. 107: Induction of labor. Obstet Gynecol. 2009;114:386–97.10.1097/AOG.0b013e3181b48ef5Search in Google Scholar PubMed
[8] Salim R, Zafran N, Nachum Z, Garmi G, Kraiem N, Shalev E. Single-balloon compared with double-balloon catheters for induction of labor: a randomized controlled trial. Obstet Gynecol. 2011;118:79–86.10.1097/AOG.0b013e318220e4b7Search in Google Scholar PubMed
[9] Shetty A, Burt R, Rice P, Templeton A. Women’s perceptions, expectations and satisfaction with induced labour – a questionnaire-based study. Eur J Obstet, Gynecol Reprod Biol. 2005;123:56–61.10.1016/j.ejogrb.2005.03.004Search in Google Scholar PubMed
[10] Tran SH, Cheng YW, Kaimal AJ, Caughey AB. Length of rupture of membranes in the setting of premature rupture of membranes at term and infectious maternal morbidity. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2008;198:700.e1–5.10.1016/j.ajog.2008.03.031Search in Google Scholar PubMed
[11] Vahratian A, Hoffman MK, Troendle JF, Zhang J. The impact of parity on course of labor in a contemporary population. Birth. 2006;33:12–7.10.1111/j.0730-7659.2006.00069.xSearch in Google Scholar PubMed
[12] Vahratian A, Zhang J, Troendle JF, Sciscione AC, Hoffman MK. Labor progression and risk of cesarean delivery in electively induced nulliparas. Obstet Gynecol. 2005;105:698–704.10.1097/01.AOG.0000157436.68847.3bSearch in Google Scholar PubMed
[13] Wikland M, Lindblom B, Wiqvist N. Myometrial response to prostaglandins during labor. Gynecol Obstet Investig. 1984;17:131–8.10.1159/000299136Search in Google Scholar PubMed
The authors stated that there are no conflicts of interest regarding the publication of this article.
Article note: Selected paper from the New York Perinatal Society papers presented at the 36th Annual Scientific Meeting, Monday April 15, 2013.
©2014 by Walter de Gruyter Berlin Boston
