PDF herunterladen
Am J Perinatol 2023; 40(10): 1061-1070
DOI: 10.1055/s-0041-1732379
Original Article

Maternal and Neonatal Outcomes in Nulliparous Participants Undergoing Labor Induction by Cervical Ripening Method

Maria Andrikopoulou 
1   Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Columbia University, New York, New York
,
Elisa T. Bushman
2   Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, University of Alabama at Birmingham, Birmingham, Alabama
,
Madeline M. Rice
3   The George Washington University Biostatistics Center, Washington, District of Columbia
,
William A. Grobman
4   Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Northwestern University, Chicago, Illinois
,
Uma M. Reddy
5   The Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development, Bethesda, Maryland
,
Robert M. Silver
6   Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, University of Utah Health Sciences Center, Salt Lake City, Utah
,
Yasser Y. El-Sayed
7   Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Stanford University, Stanford, California
,
Dwight J. Rouse
8   Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Brown University, Providence, Rhode Island
,
George R. Saade
9   Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, University of Texas Medical Branch, Galveston, Texas
,
John M. Thorp Jr.
10   Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill, North Carolina
,
Suneet P. Chauhan
11   Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, University of Texas Health Science Center at Houston-Children's Memorial Hermann Hospital, Houston, Texas
,
Maged M. Costantine
12   Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, The Ohio State University, Columbus, Ohio
,
Edward K. Chien
13   Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, MetroHealth Medical Center-Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, Ohio
,
Brian M. Casey
14   Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas, Texas
,
Sindhu K. Srinivas
15   Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania
,
Geeta K. Swamy
16   Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Duke University, Durham, North Carolina
,
Hyagriv N. Simhan
17   Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, University of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania
,
for the Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health Human Development (NICHD) Maternal-Fetal Medicine Units (MFMU) Network › Institutsangaben Funding Supported by grants from the Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development (NICHD; grant nos.: HD40512, U10 HD36801, HD27869, HD34208, HD68268, HD40485, HD40500, HD53097, HD40560, HD40545, HD27915, HD40544, HD34116, HD68282, HD87192, HD68258, and HD87230) and the National Center for Advancing Translational Sciences (UL1TR001873). The content is solely the responsibility of the authors and does not necessarily represent the official views of the National Institutes of Health.
› Weitere Informationen
    Lizenzen und Reprints

Abstract

Objective This study aimed to evaluate maternal and neonatal outcomes by method of cervical ripening for labor induction among low-risk nulliparous individuals.

Study Design This is a secondary analysis of a multicenter randomized trial of labor induction at 39 weeks versus expectant management in low-risk nulliparous participants. Participants undergoing cervical ripening for labor induction in either group were included. Participants were excluded for preripening membrane rupture, abruption, chorioamnionitis, fetal demise, or cervical dilation ≥3.5 cm. Cervical ripening was defined by the initial method used: prostaglandin only (PGE; referent), Foley with concurrent prostaglandin (Foley-PGE), Foley only (Foley), and Foley with concurrent oxytocin (Foley-oxytocin). Coprimary outcomes were adverse maternal and neonatal composites. Secondary outcomes included cesarean delivery and length of labor and delivery (L&D) stay. Multivariable analysis was used to adjust for patient characteristics.

Results Of 6,106 participants included in the trial, 2,376 (38.9%) met criteria for this analysis. Of these, 1,247 (52.4%) had cervical ripening with PGE, 290 (12.2%) had Foley-PGE, 385 (16.2%) had Foley, and 454 (19.1%) had Foley-oxytocin. The maternal composite outcome was similar among participants who received Foley-PGE (24.1%, adjusted relative risk [aRR] = 1.21, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.96–1.52), Foley (21.3%, aRR = 1.16, 95% CI: 0.92–1.45), or Foley-oxytocin (19.4%, aRR = 1.04, 95% CI: 0.83–1.29), compared with PGE (19.7%). The neonatal composite outcome was less frequent in participants who received the Foley-PGE (2.4%, aRR = 0.35, 95% CI: 0.16–0.75) or Foley (3.6%, aRR = 0.51, 95% CI: 0.29–0.89) but did not reach statistical significance for participants who received Foley-oxytocin (4.6%, aRR = 0.63, 95% CI: 0.40–1.01) compared with PGE only (6.8%). Participants who received Foley-PGE or Foley-oxytocin had a shorter L&D stay (adjusted mean difference = −1.97 hours, 95% CI: −3.45 to −0.49 and −5.92 hours, 95% CI: −7.07 to −4.77, respectively), compared with PGE.

Conclusion In term low-risk nulliparous participants, Foley alone or concurrent with PGE is associated with a lower risk of adverse neonatal outcomes than with PGE alone. Length of L&D stay was the shortest with concurrent Foley-oxytocin.

Key Points

  • Adverse maternal outcomes are similar among different methods of cervical ripening in low-risk women.

  • Adverse neonatal outcomes are less frequent with use of Foley alone or in combination with PGE.

  • The use of Foley alone, or in combination with other agents, appears to be beneficial.

Keywords

induction methods - prostaglandin - Foley - oxytocin - nulliparous

* A list of other members of the NICHD MFMU Network is available in the [ Supplementary Appendix ] (available in the online version).


Supplementary Material



Publikationsverlauf

Eingereicht: 08. Februar 2021

Angenommen: 17. Juni 2021

Artikel online veröffentlicht:
05. August 2021

© 2021. 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 2011. Natl Vital Stat Rep 2013; 62 (01) 1-69 , 72
    Google Scholar
  • 2 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
  • 3 Chen W, Xue J, Peprah MK. et al. A systematic review and network meta-analysis comparing the use of Foley catheters, misoprostol, and dinoprostone for cervical ripening in the induction of labour. BJOG 2016; 123 (03) 346-354
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 4 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
  • 5 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
  • 6 Kramer RL, Gilson GJ, Morrison DS, Martin D, Gonzales JL, Qualls CR. A randomized trial of misoprostol and oxytocin for induction of labor: safety and efficacy. Obstet Gynecol 1997; 89 (03) 387-391
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 7 Wing DA, Ortiz-Omphroy G, Paul RH. A comparison of intermittent vaginal administration of misoprostol with continuous dinoprostone for cervical ripening and labor induction. Am J Obstet Gynecol 1997; 177 (03) 612-618
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 8 Abramovici D, Goldwasser S, Mabie BC, Mercer BM, Goldwasser R, Sibai BM. A randomized comparison of oral misoprostol versus Foley catheter and oxytocin for induction of labor at term. Am J Obstet Gynecol 1999; 181 (5, pt 1): 1108-1112
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 9 Garry D, Figueroa R, Kalish RB, Catalano CJ, Maulik D. Randomized controlled trial of vaginal misoprostol versus dinoprostone vaginal insert for labor induction. J Matern Fetal Neonatal Med 2003; 13 (04) 254-259
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 10 de Aquino MM, Cecatti JG. Misoprostol versus oxytocin for labor induction in term and post-term pregnancy: randomized controlled trial. Sao Paulo Med J 2003; 121 (03) 102-106
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 11 Nigam A, Singh VK, Dubay P, Pandey K, Bhagoliwal A, Prakash A. Misoprostol vs. oxytocin for induction of labor at term. Int J Gynaecol Obstet 2004; 86 (03) 398-400
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 12 Wing DA, Fassett MJ, Guberman C, Tran S, Parrish A, Guinn D. A comparison of orally administered misoprostol to intravenous oxytocin for labor induction in women with favorable cervical examinations. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2004; 190 (06) 1689-1694 , discussion 1694–1696
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 13 Fonseca L, Wood HC, Lucas MJ. et al. Randomized trial of preinduction cervical ripening: misoprostol vs oxytocin. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2008; 199 (03) 305.e1-305.e5
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 14 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
  • 15 Aalami-Harandi R, Karamali M, Moeini A. Induction of labor with titrated oral misoprostol solution versus oxytocin in term pregnancy: randomized controlled trial. Rev Bras Ginecol Obstet 2013; 35 (02) 60-65
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 16 Benjamini Y, Hochberg Y. Controlling the false discovery rate: a practical and powerful approach to multiple testing. J R Stat Soc B 1995; 57: 289-300
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 17 Jozwiak M, Bloemenkamp KW, Kelly AJ, Mol BW, Irion O, Boulvain M. Mechanical methods for induction of labour. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2012; (03) CD001233
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 18 Vaknin Z, Kurzweil Y, Sherman D. Foley catheter balloon vs locally applied prostaglandins for cervical ripening and labor induction: a systematic review and metaanalysis. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2010; 203 (05) 418-429
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 19 Fox NS, Saltzman DH, Roman AS, Klauser CK, Moshier E, Rebarber A. Intravaginal misoprostol versus Foley catheter for labour induction: a meta-analysis. BJOG 2011; 118 (06) 647-654
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 20 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
  • 21 Sciscione AC, McCullough H, Manley JS, Shlossman PA, Pollock M, Colmorgen GH. A prospective, randomized comparison of Foley catheter insertion versus intracervical prostaglandin E2 gel for preinduction cervical ripening. Am J Obstet Gynecol 1999; 180 (1, pt 1): 55-60
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 22 Jonsson M, Hellgren C, Wiberg-Itzel E, Akerud H. Assessment of pain in women randomly allocated to speculum or digital insertion of the Foley catheter for induction of labor. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand 2011; 90 (09) 997-1004
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 23 Maslovitz S, Lessing JB, Many A. Complications of trans-cervical Foley catheter for labor induction among 1,083 women. Arch Gynecol Obstet 2010; 281 (03) 473-477
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 24 Henry A, Madan A, Reid R. et al. Outpatient Foley catheter versus inpatient prostaglandin E2 gel for induction of labour: a randomised trial. BMC Pregnancy Childbirth 2013; 13 (01) 25
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar