Combination of Foley Bulb and Vaginal Misoprostol Compared With Vaginal Misoprostol Alone for Cervical Ripening and Labor Induction A Randomized Controlled Trial

被引:64
|
作者
Carbone, Jeanine F. [1 ]
Tuuli, Methodius G. [1 ]
Fogertey, Patricia J. [1 ]
Roehl, Kimberly A. [1 ]
Macones, George A. [1 ]
机构
[1] Washington Univ, St Louis Sch Med, St Louis, MO USA
来源
OBSTETRICS AND GYNECOLOGY | 2013年 / 121卷 / 02期
关键词
INTRAVAGINAL MISOPROSTOL; CATHETER; OXYTOCIN;
D O I
10.1097/AOG.0b013e31827e5dca
中图分类号
R71 [妇产科学];
学科分类号
100211 ;
摘要
OBJECTIVE: To test the hypothesis that use of the Foley bulb plus vaginal misoprostol will result in shorter induction-to-delivery time compared with vaginal misoprostol alone. METHODS: We randomized 123 women undergoing induction of labor with singleton pregnancies at 24 weeks of gestation or greater with an unfavorable cervix (Bishop score 6 or lower) to Foley bulb plus vaginal misoprostol (n=56) or vaginal misoprostol alone (n=61). Women with fetal malpresentation, multifetal gestation, spontaneous labor, contraindication to prostaglandins, nonreassuring fetal heart rate tracing, intrauterine growth restriction, anomalous fetus, fetal demise, or previous cesarean delivery or other significant uterine surgery were excluded. The primary outcome measure was induction-to-delivery time. Secondary outcomes were mode of delivery, tachysystole with fetal decelerations, terbutaline use, postpartum hemorrhage, chorioamnionitis, neonatal Apgar scores, and neonatal intensive care unit admission. Analysis followed the intention-to-treat principle. RESULTS: The mean induction-to-delivery time was shorter with the combination of the Foley bulb and vaginal misoprostol when compared with vaginal misoprostol alone (15.3 +/- 6.5 compared with 18.3 +/- 8.7 hours, difference -3.1 hours, 95% confidence interval [CI] -5.9 to -0.30). The combination also resulted in shorter induction to complete cervical dilation time (13.7 +/- 5.9 compared with 17.1 +/- 8.7 hours, difference 23.5 hours, 95% CI -6.7 to -0.4). There were no differences in labor complications or adverse neonatal and maternal outcomes. CONCLUSION: A combination of the Foley bulb and vaginal misoprostol resulted in a shorter induction- todelivery time when compared with vaginal misoprostol alone without increasing labor complications.
引用
收藏
页码:247 / 252
页数:6
相关论文
共 50 条
  • [1] Combination of Foley Bulb and Vaginal Misoprostol Compared With Vaginal Misoprostol Alone for Cervical Ripening and Labor Induction: A Randomized Controlled Trial
    Visser, Liesbeth
    de Graaf, Irene M.
    Mol, Ben Willem J.
    OBSTETRICS AND GYNECOLOGY, 2013, 122 (01): : 156 - 157
  • [2] Combination of Foley Bulb and Vaginal Misoprostol Compared With Vaginal Misoprostol Alone for Cervical Ripening and Labor Induction: A Randomized Controlled Trial Reply
    Tuuli, Methodius G.
    Macones, George A.
    OBSTETRICS AND GYNECOLOGY, 2013, 122 (01): : 157 - 157
  • [3] Misoprostol With Foley Bulb Compared With Misoprostol Alone for Cervical Ripening A Randomized Controlled Trial
    Al-Ibraheemi, Zainab
    Brustman, Lois
    Bimson, Brianne E.
    Porat, Natalie
    Rosenn, Barak
    OBSTETRICS AND GYNECOLOGY, 2018, 131 (01): : 23 - 29
  • [4] Effect of extra-amniotic Foley's catheter and vaginal misoprostol versus vaginal misoprostol alone on cervical ripening and induction of labor in Kenya, a randomized controlled trial
    Osoti, Alfred
    Kibii, Davies Kiprop
    Tong, Tito Mario Kual
    Maranga, Innocent
    BMC PREGNANCY AND CHILDBIRTH, 2018, 18
  • [5] Effect of extra-amniotic Foley’s catheter and vaginal misoprostol versus vaginal misoprostol alone on cervical ripening and induction of labor in Kenya, a randomized controlled trial
    Alfred Osoti
    Davies Kiprop Kibii
    Tito Mario Kual Tong
    Innocent Maranga
    BMC Pregnancy and Childbirth, 18
  • [6] A randomized clinical trial comparing vaginal misoprostol to cervical Foley plus oral misoprostol for cervical ripening and labor induction
    Thigpen, B
    Bofill, J
    Bufkin, L
    Woodring, T
    Moore, L
    Morrison, J
    AMERICAN JOURNAL OF OBSTETRICS AND GYNECOLOGY, 2004, 191 (06) : S18 - S18
  • [7] Foley catheter or vaginal misoprostol for cervical ripening: A randomized controlled trial
    Lemyre, Madeleine
    Verret, Nadine
    Turcot-Lemay, Lucile
    Brassard, Normand
    Morin, Valerie
    AMERICAN JOURNAL OF OBSTETRICS AND GYNECOLOGY, 2006, 195 (06) : S105 - S105
  • [8] Misoprostol with foley bulb vs. misoprostol alone for cervical ripening: a randomized controlled trial
    Al-Ibraheemi, Zainab
    Brustman, Lois
    Bimson, Brianne
    Porat, Natalie
    Rosenn, Barak
    AMERICAN JOURNAL OF OBSTETRICS AND GYNECOLOGY, 2017, 216 (01) : S473 - S473
  • [9] Cervical Foley catheter versus vaginal misoprostol for cervical ripening and induction of labor: a randomized clinical trial
    de Oliveira e Oliveira, Maria Virginia
    von Oberst, Priscilla
    Correa Leite, Guilherme Karam
    Aguemi, Adalberto
    Kenj, Grecy
    de Toledo Leme, Vera Denise
    Sass, Nelson
    REVISTA BRASILEIRA DE GINECOLOGIA E OBSTETRICIA, 2010, 32 (07): : 346 - 351
  • [10] A Randomized Clinical Trial Comparing Vaginal Misoprostol versus Cervical Foley Plus Oral Misoprostol for Cervical Ripening and Labor Induction
    Hill, James B.
    Thigpen, Brad D.
    Bofill, James A.
    Magann, Everett
    Moore, Lisa E.
    Martin, James N., Jr.
    AMERICAN JOURNAL OF PERINATOLOGY, 2009, 26 (01) : 33 - 38