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
  • [31] Buccal vs vaginal misoprostol combined with Foley catheter for cervical ripening at term (the BEGIN trial): a randomized controlled trial
    Gomez, Helen B.
    Hoffman, Matthew K.
    Caplan, Richard
    Ruhstaller, Kelly
    Young, Matthew H. H.
    Sciscione, Anthony C.
    AMERICAN JOURNAL OF OBSTETRICS AND GYNECOLOGY, 2021, 224 (05)
  • [32] Labor induction with combined foley bulb plus oral misoprostol versus misoprostol alone: a cluster-randomized trial
    Adhikari, Emily H.
    Nelson, David B.
    Moseley, Mary Ann Kelly Lisa
    Wafford, Melissa
    Cox, Andranecia
    McIntire, Donald D.
    Leveno, Kenneth J.
    AMERICAN JOURNAL OF OBSTETRICS AND GYNECOLOGY, 2020, 222 (01) : S27 - S28
  • [34] A randomized trial of intracervical foley catheter with concurrent oxytocin compared to vaginal misoprostol for labor induction in nulliparous women
    Culver, J
    Strauss, R
    Brody, S
    Dorman, K
    Timlin, S
    McMahon, M
    AMERICAN JOURNAL OF OBSTETRICS AND GYNECOLOGY, 2001, 185 (06) : S203 - S203
  • [35] A comparison of misoprostol to dinoprostone vaginal insert for cervical ripening in labor induction
    Bennett, Carrie
    Yao, Meng
    Farrell, Ruth
    Goje, Oluwatosin
    AMERICAN JOURNAL OF OBSTETRICS AND GYNECOLOGY, 2020, 222 (01) : S145 - S146
  • [36] Effect of vaginal pH on efficacy of misoprostol for cervical ripening and labor induction
    Ramsey, PS
    Ogburn, PL
    Harris, DY
    Heise, RH
    Ramin, KD
    AMERICAN JOURNAL OF OBSTETRICS AND GYNECOLOGY, 2000, 182 (06) : 1616 - 1619
  • [37] Oral Misoprostol and Vaginal Isosorbide Mononitrate for Labor Induction A Randomized Controlled Trial
    Collingham, Justin P.
    Fuh, Katherine C.
    Caughey, Aaron B.
    Pullen, Kristin M.
    Lyell, Deirdre J.
    El-Sayed, Yasser Y.
    OBSTETRICS AND GYNECOLOGY, 2010, 116 (01): : 121 - 126
  • [38] Comparison of oral and vaginal misoprostol for induction of labor at term: A randomized controlled trial
    Paungmora, N
    Herabutya, Y
    O-Prasertsawat, P
    Punyavachira, P
    JOURNAL OF OBSTETRICS AND GYNAECOLOGY RESEARCH, 2004, 30 (05) : 358 - 362
  • [39] Misoprostol vaginal insert compared with dinoprostone vaginal insert a randomized controlled trial
    Wing, Deborah A.
    OBSTETRICS AND GYNECOLOGY, 2008, 112 (04): : 801 - 812
  • [40] Safety profile of a controlled-release misoprostol vaginal insert for cervical ripening and labor induction
    Powers, Barbara L.
    Rayburn, William F.
    Wing, Deborah
    Byrne, James
    Mercer, Brian
    Alfirevic, Zarko
    OBSTETRICS AND GYNECOLOGY, 2006, 107 (04): : 2S - 2S