PDF herunterladen
Am J Perinatol
DOI: 10.1055/a-2308-2220
SMFM Fellows Research Series

Buccal Versus Vaginal Misoprostol Combined with a Foley Catheter among Individuals with Obesity Undergoing Induction

Helen B. Gomez Slagle 
1   Department of Maternal Fetal Medicine, Columbia University Irving Medical Center, New York, New York
,
Tetsuya Kawakita
2   Division of Maternal Fetal Medicine, Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Eastern Virginia Medical School, Norfolk, Virginia
,
Matthew K. Hoffman 
3   Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, ChristianaCare, Newark, Delaware
,
Anthony C. Sciscione
3   Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, ChristianaCare, Newark, Delaware
4   Delaware Center for Maternal Fetal Medicine, Division of Maternal Fetal Medicine, Newark, Delaware
,
Marwan Ma'ayeh
2   Division of Maternal Fetal Medicine, Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Eastern Virginia Medical School, Norfolk, Virginia
› Institutsangaben Funding None.
› Weitere Informationen
    Lizenzen und Reprints

Abstract

Background Combining pharmacologic agents with mechanical ripening achieves the shortest labor duration, yet there is no clear evidence on route of drug administration in obese individuals. The use of buccal misoprostol has shown greater patient acceptance but remains understudied.

Objective Our objective was to evaluate the difference in time to delivery of buccal compared with vaginal misoprostol in combination with a Foley catheter (FC) for induction of labor (IOL) in the obese population.

Study Design This was a secondary analysis of a randomized controlled trial comparing identical dosages (25 μg) of buccal and vaginal misoprostol in combination with a FC. The parent trial was an institutional review board-approved, randomized clinical trial conducted from June 2019 through January 2020. Labor management was standardized among participants. Women undergoing IOL at ≥37 weeks with a singleton gestation and cervical dilation ≤2 cm were included. Body mass index (BMI, kg/m2) was stratified. The primary outcome was time to delivery.

Results A total of 215 participants were included. Demographic characteristics were similar between the three groups. Vaginal drug administration achieved a faster median time to delivery than the buccal route among patients with a body mass index greater than or equal to 30 kg/m2 (vaginal misoprostol–FC: 21.3 hours vs. buccal misoprostol–FC: 25.2 hours, p = 0.006). There was no difference in the cesarean delivery rate between the two groups. Furthermore, patients with a BMI greater than or equal to 30 kg/m2 receiving vaginal misoprostol delivered 1.2 times faster than women who received buccal misoprostol after censoring for cesarean delivery and adjusting for parity (hazard ratio: 1.2, 95% confidence interval: 1.1–1.7). There were no significant differences in maternal and neonatal outcomes.

Conclusion We found that vaginal misoprostol was superior to buccal misoprostol when combined with a FC among individuals with a BMI greater than or equal to 30 kg/m2. Vaginal misoprostol should be the preferred route of drug administration for term IOL in this population.

Key Points

  • Vaginal misoprostol was superior to buccal route among patients with obesity.

  • There was no difference in the cesarean delivery rate between the two groups.

  • Vaginal misoprostol should be the preferred route of administration among patients with obesity.

Keywords

labor induction - obesity - misoprostol - buccal - Foley - cervical ripening - vaginal

Note

Vaginal misoprostol leads to faster delivery compared with buccal dosing in combination with mechanical ripening among individuals with obesity. Buccal misoprostol is commonly used for cervical ripening but route of misoprostol administration for term IOL remains understudied in individuals with obesity. Individuals with a body mass index greater than or equal to 30 kg/m2 receiving vaginal misoprostol combined with Foley catheter had faster time to delivery by any mode, shorter time to vaginal delivery, and active labor compared with individuals receiving buccal misoprostol with Foley. Vaginal misoprostol is superior to buccal misoprostol for preinduction cervical ripening at term in individuals with a body mass index greater than 30 kg/m2.


Prior Presentation

Poster Presentation at SMFM's 43rd Annual Pregnancy Meeting, February 6–11, 2023.


Clinical Trial Registration

ClinicalTrials.gov NCT03976037.




Publikationsverlauf

Eingereicht: 22. Februar 2024

Angenommen: 09. April 2024

Accepted Manuscript online:
17. April 2024

Artikel online veröffentlicht:
10. Mai 2024

© 2024. Thieme. All rights reserved.

Thieme Medical Publishers, Inc.
333 Seventh Avenue, 18th Floor, New York, NY 10001, USA

 

  • References

  • 1 Martin JA, Hamilton BE, Osterman MJK, Driscoll AK. Births: final data for 2018. Natl Vital Stat Rep 2019; 68 (13) 1-47
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 2 Levine LD, Downes KL, Elovitz MA, Parry S, Sammel MD, Srinivas SK. Mechanical and pharmacologic methods of labor induction: a randomized controlled trial. Obstet Gynecol 2016; 128 (06) 1357-1364
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 3 Haas DM, Daggy J, Flannery KM. et al. A comparison of vaginal versus buccal misoprostol for cervical ripening in women for labor induction at term (the IMPROVE trial): a triple-masked randomized controlled trial. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2019; 221 (03) 259.e1-259.e16
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 4 Towns R, Quinney SK, Pierson RC, Haas DM. Survey of provider preferences regarding the route of misoprostol for induction of labor at term. AJP Rep 2017; 7 (03) e158-e162
    Artikel in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 5 ACOG Practice Bulletin No. 107: Induction of labor. Obstet Gynecol 2009; 114 (2, Pt 1): 386-397
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 6 Hamm RF, Teefey CP, Dolin CD, Durnwald CP, Srinivas SK, Levine LD. Risk of cesarean delivery for women with obesity using a standardized labor induction protocol. Am J Perinatol 2021; 38 (14) 1453-1458
    Artikel in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 7 Ellis JA, Brown CM, Barger B, Carlson NS. Influence of maternal obesity on labor induction: a systematic review and meta-analysis. J Midwifery Womens Health 2019; 64 (01) 55-67
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 8 Roloff K, Peng S, Sanchez-Ramos L, Valenzuela GJ. Cumulative oxytocin dose during induction of labor according to maternal body mass index. Int J Gynaecol Obstet 2015; 131 (01) 54-58
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 9 Wolfe KB, Rossi RA, Warshak CR. The effect of maternal obesity on the rate of failed induction of labor. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2011; 205 (02) 128.e1-128.e7
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 10 Gomez HB, Hoffman MK, Caplan R, Ruhstaller K, Young MHH, Sciscione AC. Buccal vs vaginal misoprostol combined with Foley catheter for cervical ripening at term (the BEGIN trial): a randomized controlled trial. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2021; 224 (05) 524.e1-524.e8
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 11 ACOG. Methods for estimating the due date. ACOG Committee Opinion 700. Obstet Gynecol 2017; 129 (05) e150-e154
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 12 Harris PA, Taylor R, Thielke R, Payne J, Gonzalez N, Conde JG. Research electronic data capture (REDCap)–a metadata-driven methodology and workflow process for providing translational research informatics support. J Biomed Inform 2009; 42 (02) 377-381
    Google Scholar
  • 13 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 (2, Pt 1): 247-252
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 14 Carlan SJ, Blust D, O'Brien WF. Buccal versus intravaginal misoprostol administration for cervical ripening. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2002; 186 (02) 229-233
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 15 Allen R, O'Brien BM. Uses of misoprostol in obstetrics and gynecology. Rev Obstet Gynecol 2009; 2 (03) 159-168
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 16 Dorr ML, Pierson RC, Daggy J, Quinney SK, Haas DM. Buccal versus vaginal misoprostol for term induction of labor: a retrospective cohort study. Am J Perinatol 2019; 36 (07) 765-772
    Artikel in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 17 Selin L, Wennerholm UB, Jonsson M. et al. High-dose versus low-dose of oxytocin for labour augmentation: a randomised controlled trial. Women Birth 2019; 32 (04) 356-363
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 18 Gomez Slagle HB, Fonge YN, Caplan R, Pfeuti CK, Sciscione AC, Hoffman MK. Early vs expectant artificial rupture of membranes following Foley catheter ripening: a randomized controlled trial. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2022; 226 (05) 724.e1-724.e9
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 19 Moynihan AT, Hehir MP, Glavey SV, Smith TJ, Morrison JJ. Inhibitory effect of leptin on human uterine contractility in vitro. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2006; 195 (02) 504-509
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 20 Jie Zhang, Kendrick A, Quenby S, Wray S. Contractility and calcium signaling of human myometrium are profoundly affected by cholesterol manipulation: implications for labor?. Reprod Sci 2007; 14 (05) 456-466
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 21 Wozniak SE, Gee LL, Wachtel MS, Frezza EE. Adipose tissue: the new endocrine organ? A review article. Dig Dis Sci 2009; 54 (09) 1847-1856
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 22 Falcão-Pires I, Castro-Chaves P, Miranda-Silva D, Lourenço AP, Leite-Moreira AF. Physiological, pathological and potential therapeutic roles of adipokines. Drug Discov Today 2012; 17 (15–16): 880-889
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 23 Barrichon M, Hadi T, Wendremaire M. et al. Dose-dependent biphasic leptin-induced proliferation is caused by non-specific IL-6/NF-κB pathway activation in human myometrial cells. Br J Pharmacol 2015; 172 (12) 2974-2990
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 24 Mumtaz S, AlSaif S, Wray S, Noble K. Inhibitory effect of visfatin and leptin on human and rat myometrial contractility. Life Sci 2015; 125: 57-62
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 25 O'Brien M, Earley P, Morrison JJ, Smith TJ. Ghrelin in the human myometrium. Reprod Biol Endocrinol 2010; 8: 55
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 26 Lim R, Barker G, Riley C, Lappas M. Apelin is decreased with human preterm and term labor and regulates prolabor mediators in human primary amnion cells. Reprod Sci 2013; 20 (08) 957-967
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar