Download PDF
Am J Perinatol 2021; 38(S 01): e57-e63
DOI: 10.1055/s-0040-1705113
Original Article

Controlled Release Dinoprostone Insert and Foley Compared to Foley Alone: A Randomized Pilot Trial

Rodney K. Edwards
1   Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, University of Oklahoma College of Medicine, Oklahoma City, Oklahoma
,
Michelle L. Norris
1   Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, University of Oklahoma College of Medicine, Oklahoma City, Oklahoma
,
Mitchell D. West
2   Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Louisiana State University Health Sciences Center, Shreveport, Louisiana
,
Christina Zornes
1   Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, University of Oklahoma College of Medicine, Oklahoma City, Oklahoma
,
Katherine A. Loeffler
3   School of Public Health, University of Oklahoma Health Sciences Center, Oklahoma City, Oklahoma
,
Jennifer D. Peck
3   School of Public Health, University of Oklahoma Health Sciences Center, Oklahoma City, Oklahoma
› Author Affiliations Funding The study is supported by grant funding from Ferring Pharmaceuticals (IIT-2016-100752). Partial funding was provided by National Institutes of Health, National Institute of General Medical Sciences, grant 1 U54GM104938.
› Further Information
    Permissions and Reprints

Abstract

Objective The aim of study is to compare, in a pilot study, combined dinoprostone vaginal insert and Foley catheter (DVI + Foley) with Foley alone (Foley) for cervical ripening and labor induction at term.

Study Design In this open-label pilot randomized controlled trial, women not in labor, with intact membranes, no prior uterine incision, an unfavorable cervix, gestational age ≥37 weeks, and a live, nonanomalous singleton fetus in cephalic presentation were randomly assigned, stratified by parity, to DVI + Foley or Foley. Oxytocin was used in both groups after cervical ripening. Primary outcome was time to vaginal delivery.

Results From April 2017 to January 2018, 100 women were randomized. Median (25–75th percentile) time to vaginal delivery for nulliparous women was 21.2 (16.6–38.0) hours with DVI + Foley (n = 26) compared with 31.3 (23.3–46.9) hours with Foley (n = 24) (Wilcoxon p = 0.05). Median time to vaginal delivery for parous women was 17.1 (13.6–21.9) hours with DVI + Foley (n = 25) compared with 14.8 (12.7–19.5) hours with Foley (n = 25) (Wilcoxon p = 0.21). Results were also analyzed to consider the competing risk of cesarean using cumulative incidence functions.

Conclusion Compared with Foley alone, combined use of the dinoprostone vaginal insert and Foley for cervical ripening may shorten time to vaginal delivery for nulliparous but not parous women.

Keywords

cervical ripening - cumulative incidence function - labor - labor induction

Note

The study was presented at the 39th annual meeting of the Society for Maternal–Fetal Medicine in Las Vegas, Nevada, held on February 11–16, 2019.




Publication History

Received: 16 August 2019

Accepted: 23 January 2020

Article published online:
02 March 2020

© 2020. Thieme. All rights reserved.

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

 

  • References

  • 1 Martin JA, Hamilton BE, Ventura SJ, Osterman MJ, Wilson EC, Mathews TJ. Births: final data for 2010. Natl Vital Stat Rep 2012; 61 (01) 1-72
    Google Scholar
  • 2 Ventura SJ, Martin JA, Curtin SC, Menacker F, Hamilton BE. Births: final data for 1999. Natl Vital Stat Rep 2001; 49 (01) 1-100
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 3 Grobman WA, Rice MM, Reddy UM. et al; Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development Maternal–Fetal Medicine Units Network. Labor induction versus expectant management in low-risk nulliparous women. N Engl J Med 2018; 379 (06) 513-523
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 4 Alfirevic Z, Kelly AJ, Dowswell T. Intravenous oxytocin alone for cervical ripening and induction of labour. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2009; (04) CD003246
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 5 Facchinetti F, Fontanesi F, Del Giovane C. Pre-induction of labour: comparing dinoprostone vaginal insert to repeated prostaglandin administration: a systematic review and meta-analysis. J Matern Fetal Neonatal Med 2012; 25 (10) 1965-1969
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 6 Edwards RK, Szychowski JM, Berger JL. et al. Foley catheter compared with the controlled-release dinoprostone insert: a randomized controlled trial. Obstet Gynecol 2014; 123 (06) 1280-1287
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 7 Aduloju OP, Akintayo AA, Adanikin AI, Ade-Ojo IP. Combined Foley's catheter with vaginal misoprostol for pre-induction cervical ripening: a randomised controlled trial. Aust N Z J Obstet Gynaecol 2016; 56 (06) 578-584
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 8 Lanka S, Surapaneni T, Nirmalan PK. Concurrent use of Foley catheter and misoprostol for induction of labor: a randomized clinical trial of efficacy and safety. J Obstet Gynaecol Res 2014; 40 (06) 1527-1533
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 9 American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists; Society for Maternal-Fetal Medicine. Obstetric care consensus no. 1: safe prevention of the primary cesarean delivery. Obstet Gynecol 2014; 123 (03) 693-711
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 10 Varadhan R, Weiss CO, Segal JB, Wu AW, Scharfstein D, Boyd C. Evaluating health outcomes in the presence of competing risks: a review of statistical methods and clinical applications. Med Care 2010; 48 (6, Suppl): S96-S105
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 11 Gooley TA, Leisenring W, Crowley J, Storer BE. Estimation of failure probabilities in the presence of competing risks: new representations of old estimators. Stat Med 1999; 18 (06) 695-706
    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
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle 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 Chen W, Xue J, Gaudet L, Walker M, Wen SW. Meta-analysis of Foley catheter plus misoprostol versus misoprostol alone for cervical ripening. Int J Gynaecol Obstet 2015; 129 (03) 193-198
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 15 Al-Ibraheemi Z, Brustman L, Bimson BE, Porat N, Rosenn B. Misoprostol with Foley bulb compared with misoprostol alone for cervical ripening: a randomized controlled trial. Obstet Gynecol 2018; 131 (01) 23-29
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 16 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
  • 17 Pettker CM, Pocock SB, Smok DP, Lee SM, Devine PC. Transcervical Foley catheter with and without oxytocin for cervical ripening: a randomized controlled trial. Obstet Gynecol 2008; 111 (06) 1320-1326
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 18 Bauer AM, Lappen JR, Gecsi KS, Hackney DN. Cervical ripening balloon with and without oxytocin in multiparas: a randomized controlled trial. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2018; 219 (03) 294.e1-294.e6
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 19 Schoen CN, Grant G, Berghella V, Hoffman MK, Sciscione A. Intracervical Foley catheter with and without oxytocin for labor induction: a randomized controlled trial. Obstet Gynecol 2017; 129 (06) 1046-1053
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar