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
  • [11] Comparison of Vaginal Misoprostol with Foley Catheter for Cervical Ripening and Induction of Labor
    Roudsari, Fatemeh Vahid
    Ayati, Sedigheh
    Ghasemi, Marzieh
    Mofrad, Maliheh Hasanzadeh
    Shakeri, Mohamad Taghi
    Farshidi, Farnoush
    Shahabian, Masoud
    IRANIAN JOURNAL OF PHARMACEUTICAL RESEARCH, 2011, 10 (01): : 149 - 154
  • [12] Oral misoprostol versus combination of foley bulb catheter and oral misoprostol alone for induction of labor: A randomized controlled trial
    Graham, Kyle
    Maiuyen Nguyen
    Sit, Anita
    Morfin, Jussely
    Garabedian, Matthew
    AMERICAN JOURNAL OF OBSTETRICS AND GYNECOLOGY, 2018, 218 (01) : S254 - S255
  • [13] Vaginal misoprostol for induction of labor: A randomized controlled trial
    Mundle, WR
    Young, DC
    OBSTETRICS AND GYNECOLOGY, 1996, 88 (04): : 521 - 525
  • [14] A prospective randomized controlled trial that compared misoprostol, Foley catheter, and combination misoprostol-Foley catheter for labor induction
    Chung, JH
    Huang, WH
    Rumney, PJ
    Garite, TJ
    Nageotte, MP
    AMERICAN JOURNAL OF OBSTETRICS AND GYNECOLOGY, 2003, 189 (04) : 1031 - 1035
  • [15] Vaginal misoprostol administration for cervical ripening and labor induction
    Wing, Deborah A.
    Gaffaney, Cecilia A. Lyons
    CLINICAL OBSTETRICS AND GYNECOLOGY, 2006, 49 (03): : 627 - 641
  • [16] Oral and vaginal misoprostol compared with dinoprostone for induction of labor: A randomized controlled trial
    le Roux, PA
    Olarogun, JO
    Penny, J
    Anthony, J
    OBSTETRICS AND GYNECOLOGY, 2002, 99 (02): : 201 - 205
  • [17] Titrated oral compared with vaginal misoprostol for labor induction - A randomized controlled trial
    Cheng, Shi-Yann
    Ming, Ho
    Lee, Jui-Chi
    OBSTETRICS AND GYNECOLOGY, 2008, 111 (01): : 119 - 125
  • [18] Titrated oral compared with vaginal misoprostol for labor induction: A randomized controlled trial
    Nassar, Anwar H.
    Abdallah, Reem
    Usta, Ihab M.
    OBSTETRICS AND GYNECOLOGY, 2008, 111 (06): : 1444 - 1445
  • [19] Oral misoprostol, low dose vaginal misoprostol, and vaginal dinoprostone for labor induction: Randomized controlled trial
    Young, David C.
    Delaney, Tina
    Armson, B. Anthony
    Fanning, Cora
    PLOS ONE, 2020, 15 (01):
  • [20] Oral misoprostol vs. vaginal misoprostol for cervical ripening and labor induction
    Adam, I
    Hassan, OA
    Elhassan, EM
    INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF GYNECOLOGY & OBSTETRICS, 2005, 89 (02) : 142 - 143