Induction of labour using prostaglandin E2 as an inpatient versus balloon catheter as an outpatient: a multicentre randomised controlled trial

被引:28
|
作者
Beckmann, M. [1 ,2 ,3 ]
Gibbons, K. [3 ]
Flenady, V [3 ]
Kumar, S. [1 ,2 ,3 ]
机构
[1] Mater Hlth, Level 6 Duncombe Bldg,Raymond Terrace, South Brisbane, Qld 4101, Australia
[2] Univ Queensland, Sch Med, Brisbane, Qld, Australia
[3] Univ Queensland, Mater Res, Brisbane, Qld, Australia
关键词
Balloon; cervical ripening; labour; induced; mechanical methods; outpatient; prostaglandin; WOMEN;
D O I
10.1111/1471-0528.16030
中图分类号
R71 [妇产科学];
学科分类号
100211 ;
摘要
Objective To compare clinical outcomes following induction of labour (IOL) using a balloon catheter and going home, versus prostaglandin (PG) as an inpatient. Design Randomised controlled trial. Setting Eight Australian maternity hospitals. Population Women with uncomplicated term singleton pregnancies undergoing IOL for low-risk indications including post-term, advanced maternal age and 'social' reasons. Methods Between September 2015 and October 2018, 347 women were randomised to a balloon outpatient group and 348 to a PG inpatient group. The PG group received Dinoprostone, either 2 mg gel or 10 mg controlled-release tape. The balloon group had a double-balloon catheter inserted and went home. Main outcome measures The primary outcome was a composite neonatal measure comprising nursery admission, intubation/cardiac compressions, acidaemia, hypoxic ischaemic encephalopathy, seizure, infection, pulmonary hypertension, stillbirth or death. Clinical and process outcomes are reported. Results There were no statistically significant differences in the primary outcome comparing balloon with PG (18.6% versus 25.8%; relative risk = 0.77, 95% CI 0.51-1.02; P = 0.070), cord arterial pH <7.10 (3.5% versus 9.2%; P = 0.072), nursery admissions (12.6% versus 15.5%; P = 0.379), neonatal antibiotic use (12.1% versus 17.6%; P = 0.103), or mode of birth. Nulliparous women in the balloon group had lower rates of the primary outcome (20.4% versus 31.0%;P = 0.032); Parous women were less likely to have an unassisted vaginal birth (77.6% versus 92.3%; P = 0.045). Conclusions Balloon catheters may be a superior method of cervical priming for nulliparous women, whereas this may not be the case for parous women. It is feasible that nulliparous women go home after commencing balloon catheter IOL, and the likelihood of adverse outcomes is low. Tweetable abstract Multicentre trial shows outpatient induction using balloon catheter is safe and feasible for nulliparous women.
引用
收藏
页码:571 / 579
页数:9
相关论文
共 50 条
  • [31] Outpatient compared to inpatient cervical ripening with a double balloon catheter. A pilot randomised controlled trial
    Wilkinson, C.
    Adelson, P.
    Turnbull, D.
    BJOG-AN INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF OBSTETRICS AND GYNAECOLOGY, 2015, 122 : 231 - 231
  • [32] Double-balloon catheter and sequential vaginal prostaglandin E2 versus vaginal prostaglandin E2 alone for induction of labor after previous cesarean section
    Kehl, Sven
    Weiss, Christel
    Wamsler, Michael
    Beyer, Jana
    Dammer, Ulf
    Heimrich, Jutta
    Faschingbauer, Florian
    Suetterlin, Marc
    Beckmann, Matthias W.
    Schleussner, Ekkehard
    ARCHIVES OF GYNECOLOGY AND OBSTETRICS, 2016, 293 (04) : 757 - 765
  • [33] Double-balloon catheter and sequential vaginal prostaglandin E2 versus vaginal prostaglandin E2 alone for induction of labor after previous cesarean section
    Sven Kehl
    Christel Weiss
    Michael Wamsler
    Jana Beyer
    Ulf Dammer
    Jutta Heimrich
    Florian Faschingbauer
    Marc Sütterlin
    Matthias W. Beckmann
    Ekkehard Schleussner
    Archives of Gynecology and Obstetrics, 2016, 293 : 757 - 765
  • [34] Vaginal prostaglandin E2 versus double-balloon catheter for induction of labour for vaginal birth after caesarean section: A retrospective cohort study
    Bullough, Sian
    Southward, Jessica
    Sharp, Andrew
    EUROPEAN JOURNAL OF OBSTETRICS & GYNECOLOGY AND REPRODUCTIVE BIOLOGY, 2021, 259 : 90 - 94
  • [35] Women's experience of induction of labor using PGE2 as an inpatient versus balloon catheter as an outpatient
    Beckmann, Michael
    Acreman, Melissa
    Schmidt, Emily
    Merollini, Katharina M. D.
    Miller, Yvette
    EUROPEAN JOURNAL OF OBSTETRICS & GYNECOLOGY AND REPRODUCTIVE BIOLOGY, 2020, 249 : 1 - 6
  • [36] Intra-vaginal prostaglandin E2 versus double-balloon catheter for labor induction in term oligohydramnios
    G Shechter-Maor
    G Haran
    D Sadeh-Mestechkin
    Y Ganor-Paz
    M D Fejgin
    T Biron-Shental
    Journal of Perinatology, 2015, 35 : 95 - 98
  • [37] Intra-vaginal prostaglandin E2 versus double-balloon catheter for labor induction in term oligohydramnios
    Shechter-Maor, G.
    Haran, G.
    Sadeh-Mestechkin, D.
    Ganor-Paz, Y.
    Fejgin, M. D.
    Biron-Shental, T.
    JOURNAL OF PERINATOLOGY, 2015, 35 (02) : 95 - 98
  • [38] Sequential use of double-balloon catheter and oral misoprostol versus oral misoprostol alone for induction of labour at term (CRBplus trial): a multicentre, open-label randomised controlled trial
    Kehl, S.
    Ziegler, J.
    Schleussner, E.
    Tuschy, B.
    Berlit, S.
    Kirscht, J.
    Haegele, F.
    Weiss, C.
    Siemer, J.
    Suetterlin, M.
    BJOG-AN INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF OBSTETRICS AND GYNAECOLOGY, 2015, 122 (01) : 129 - 136
  • [39] A randomised comparison of oral misoprostol and vaginal prostaglandin E2 tablets in labour induction at term
    Shetty, A
    Livingstone, I
    Acharya, S
    Rice, P
    Danielian, P
    Templeton, A
    BJOG-AN INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF OBSTETRICS AND GYNAECOLOGY, 2004, 111 (05) : 436 - 440
  • [40] Cost-effectiveness of induction of labour at term with a Foley catheter compared to vaginal prostaglandin E2 gel (PROBAAT trial)
    van Baaren, G. J.
    Jozwiak, M.
    Opmeer, B. C.
    Rengerink, K. Oude
    Benthem, M.
    Dijksterhuis, M. G. K.
    van Huizen, M. E.
    van der Salm, P. C. M.
    Schuitemaker, N. W. E.
    Papatsonis, D. N. M.
    Perquin, D. A. M.
    Porath, M.
    van der Post, J. A. M.
    Rijnders, R. J. P.
    Scheepers, H. C. J.
    Spaanderman, M.
    van Pampus, M. G.
    de Leeuw, J. W.
    Mol, B. W. J.
    Bloemenkamp, K. W. M.
    BJOG-AN INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF OBSTETRICS AND GYNAECOLOGY, 2013, 120 (08) : 987 - 995