دورية أكاديمية
Outpatient cervical ripening with balloon catheters: A Bayesian network meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.
| العنوان: | Outpatient cervical ripening with balloon catheters: A Bayesian network meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. |
|---|---|
| المؤلفون: | Zhao G; Department of Obstetrics, The First Hospital of China Medical University, Shenyang, China., Song G; Department of Ultrasound, Shengjing Hospital of China Medical University, Shenyang, China., Liu J; Department of Obstetrics, The First Hospital of China Medical University, Shenyang, China. |
| المصدر: | International journal of gynaecology and obstetrics: the official organ of the International Federation of Gynaecology and Obstetrics [Int J Gynaecol Obstet] 2024 Aug; Vol. 166 (2), pp. 607-616. Date of Electronic Publication: 2024 Feb 06. |
| نوع المنشور: | Journal Article; Meta-Analysis |
| اللغة: | English |
| بيانات الدورية: | Publisher: Wiley Country of Publication: United States NLM ID: 0210174 Publication Model: Print-Electronic Cited Medium: Internet ISSN: 1879-3479 (Electronic) Linking ISSN: 00207292 NLM ISO Abbreviation: Int J Gynaecol Obstet Subsets: MEDLINE |
| أسماء مطبوعة: | Publication: 2017- : Malden, MA : Wiley Original Publication: [New York, NY] Hoeber Medical Division, Harper & Row, [c1969- |
| مواضيع طبية MeSH: | Bayes Theorem* , Cervical Ripening* , Cesarean Section*/statistics & numerical data , Labor, Induced*/methods , Network Meta-Analysis* , Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic*, Female ; Humans ; Pregnancy ; Ambulatory Care/methods ; Catheters ; Dinoprostone/administration & dosage ; Outpatients ; Oxytocics/administration & dosage |
| مستخلص: | Background: One in four labors are induced. The process of cervical ripening can be lengthy and pre-labor hospitalization is required. Outpatient cervical ripening can be an attractive alternative. Objectives: To evaluate the efficacy and safety of outpatient cervical ripening with a balloon catheter compared with inpatient balloon catheter or prostaglandin E Search Strategy: The PubMed, MEDLINE, Embase, ClinicalTrials.gov, and Cochrane Library databases were searched from their inception to October 15, 2022. Selection Criteria: Randomized controlled trials comparing the outpatient balloon catheter with inpatient balloon catheter or inpatient PGE Data Collection and Analysis: Bayesian network meta-analysis was performed. The primary outcome was the cesarean delivery rate. The secondary outcomes included instrumental delivery, the time from intervention-to-birth, oxytocin augmentation, total hospital duration, and maternal/neonatal adverse events. Main Results: Twenty-nine randomized controlled trials with a total of 6004 participants were identified. No difference in the cesarean delivery rate was revealed among the three interventions. Compared with inpatient balloon catheter, outpatient balloon catheter had shorter total hospital duration (mean difference -8.58, 95% confidence interval -17.02 to -1.10). No differences were revealed in the time from intervention-to-birth, instrumental delivery, postpartum hemorrhage, 5-min Apgar score less than 7, umbilical cord arterial pH less than 7.1, and neonatal intensive care unit admission among the three interventions. Conclusions: Outpatient balloon catheter in low-risk term pregnancies is an available option that could be considered for cervical ripening. The safety and effectiveness are comparable to inpatient cervical ripening methods. (© 2024 International Federation of Gynecology and Obstetrics.) |
| References: | Glantz JC. Labor induction rate variation in upstate New York: what is the difference? Birth. 2003;30(3):168‐174. Kirby RS. Trends in labor induction in the United States: is it true that what goes up must come down? Birth. 2004;31(2):148‐151. Society of Maternal‐Fetal Publications Committee. Electronic address pso: SMFM statement on elective induction of labor in low‐risk nulliparous women at term: the ARRIVE trial. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2019;221(1):B2‐B4. Bernardes TP, Broekhuijsen K, Koopmans CM, et al. Caesarean section rates and adverse neonatal outcomes after induction of labour versus expectant management in women with an unripe cervix: a secondary analysis of the HYPITAT and DIGITAT trials. BJOG. 2016;123(9):1501‐1508. Bartha JL, Romero‐Carmona R, Martinez‐Del‐Fresno P, Comino‐Delgado R. Bishop score and transvaginal ultrasound for preinduction cervical assessment: a randomized clinical trial. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2005;25(2):155‐159. Farmer KC, Schwartz WJ 3rd, Rayburn WF, Turnbull G. A cost‐minimization analysis of intracervical prostaglandin E2 for cervical ripening in an outpatient versus inpatient setting. Clin Ther. 1996;18(4):747‐756; discussion 702. Gynecologists ACoOa. ACOG Practice Bulletin No. 107: induction of labor. Obstet Gynecol. 2009;114(2 Pt 1):386‐397. 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(3):346‐354. Alfirevic Z, Keeney E, Dowswell T, et al. Which method is best for the induction of labour? A systematic review, network meta‐analysis and cost‐effectiveness analysis. Health Technol Assess. 2016;20(65):1‐584. Jozwiak M, Bloemenkamp KW, Kelly AJ, Mol BW, Irion O, Boulvain M. Mechanical methods for induction of labour. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2012;3:CD001233. Higgins JP, Altman DG, Gotzsche PC, et al. The Cochrane Collaboration's tool for assessing risk of bias in randomised trials. BMJ. 2011;343:d5928. Orhue AA. Induction of labour at term in primigravidae with low Bishop's score: a comparison of three methods. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol. 1995;58(2):119‐125. St Onge RD, Connors GT. Preinduction cervical ripening: a comparison of intracervical prostaglandin E2 gel versus the Foley catheter. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 1995;172(2 Pt 1):687‐690. Atad J, Hallak M, Auslender R, Porat‐Packer T, Zarfati D, Abramovici H. A randomized comparison of prostaglandin E2, oxytocin, and the double‐balloon device in inducing labor. Obstet Gynecol. 1996;87(2):223‐227. Sciscione AC, Muench M, Pollock M, Jenkins TM, Tildon‐Burton J, Colmorgen GH. Transcervical Foley catheter for preinduction cervical ripening in an outpatient versus inpatient setting. Obstet Gynecol. 2001;98(5 Pt 1):751‐756. Moini A, Riazi K, Honar H, Hasanzadeh Z. Preinduction cervical ripening with the Foley catheter and saline infusion vs. cervical dinoprostone. Int J Gynaecol Obstet. 2003;83(2):211‐213. Niromanesh S, Mosavi‐Jarrahi A, Samkhaniani F. Intracervical Foley catheter balloon vs. prostaglandin in preinduction cervical ripening. Int J Gynaecol Obstet. 2003;81(1):23‐27. Al‐Taani MI. Comparison of prostaglandin E2 tablets or Foley catheter for labour induction in grand multiparas. East Mediterr Health J. 2004;10(4–5):547‐553. Prager M, Eneroth‐Grimfors E, Edlund M, Marions L. A randomised controlled trial of intravaginal dinoprostone, intravaginal misoprostol and transcervical balloon catheter for labour induction. BJOG. 2008;115(11):1443‐1450. Deshmukh VL, Yelikar KA, Deshmukh AB. Comparative study of intra‐cervical Foley's catheter and PGE(2) gel for pre‐induction ripening (cervical). J Obstet Gynaecol India. 2011;61(4):418‐421. Jozwiak M, Oude Rengerink K, Benthem M, et al. Foley catheter versus vaginal prostaglandin E2 gel for induction of labour at term (PROBAAT trial): an open‐label, randomised controlled trial. Lancet. 2011;378(9809):2095‐2103. Ghanaie MM, Jafarabadi M, Milani F, Asgary SA, Karkan MF. A randomized controlled trial of foley catheter, extra‐amniotic saline infusion and prostaglandin e2 suppository for labor induction. J Family Reprod Health. 2013;7(2):49‐55. 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;13:25. Suffecool K, Rosenn BM, Kam S, Mushi J, Foroutan J, Herrera K. Labor induction in nulliparous women with an unfavorable cervix: double balloon catheter versus dinoprostone. J Perinat Med. 2014;42(2):213‐218. Wang W, Zheng J, Fu J, et al. Which is the safer method of labor induction for oligohydramnios women? Transcervical double balloon catheter or dinoprostone vaginal insert. J Matern Fetal Neonatal Med. 2014;27(17):1805‐1808. Shechter‐Maor G, Haran G, Sadeh‐Mestechkin D, Ganor‐Paz Y, Fejgin MD, Biron‐Shental T. Intra‐vaginal prostaglandin E2 versus double‐balloon catheter for labor induction in term oligohydramnios. J Perinatol. 2015;35(2):95‐98. Tan TL, Ng GYH, Lim SEL, Tagore S, Kyaw EEP, Yeo GSH. Cervical ripening balloon as an alternative for induction of labour: a randomized controlled trial. BJMP. 2015;8(1):6‐11. Wilkinson C, Adelson P, Turnbull D. A comparison of inpatient with outpatient balloon catheter cervical ripening: a pilot randomized controlled trial. BMC Pregnancy Childbirth. 2015;15:126. Policiano C, Pimenta M, Martins D, Clode N. Outpatient versus inpatient cervix priming with Foley catheter: a randomized trial. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol. 2017;210:1‐6. Barda G, Ganer Herman H, Sagiv R, Bar J. Foley catheter versus intravaginal prostaglandins E2 for cervical ripening in women at term with an unfavorable cervix: a randomized controlled trial. J Matern Fetal Neonatal Med. 2018;31(20):2777‐2781. Chai Y, Qu M, Jin M. Application effect of single balloon catheters in labor induction of pregnant women in late‐term pregnancy and their influences on stress and inflammatory responses. Exp Ther Med. 2018;15(4):3352‐3356. Kuper SG, Jauk VC, George DM, et al. Outpatient Foley catheter for induction of labor in parous women: a randomized controlled trial. Obstet Gynecol. 2018;132(1):94‐101. Ausbeck EB, Jauk VC, Xue Y, et al. Outpatient Foley catheter for induction of labor in nulliparous women: a randomized controlled trial. Obstet Gynecol. 2020;136(3):597‐606. Beckmann M, Gibbons K, Flenady V, Kumar S. Induction of labour using prostaglandin E(2) as an inpatient versus balloon catheter as an outpatient: a multicentre randomised controlled trial. BJOG. 2020;127(5):571‐579. Rahman RA, Mohamad A, Kalok AHM, et al. Prospective randomized controlled trial comparing inpatient and outpatient Foley catheter cervical ripening [preprint]. Research Square. 2020:1‐14. 10.21203/rs.21203.rs-39835/v21201. Diguisto C, Le Gouge A, Arthuis C, et al. Cervical ripening in prolonged pregnancies by silicone double balloon catheter versus vaginal dinoprostone slow release system: the MAGPOP randomised controlled trial. PLoS Med. 2021;18(2):e1003448. Haavisto H, Polo‐Kantola P, Anttila E, Kolari T, Ojala E, Rinne K. Experiences of induction of labor with a catheter ‐ a prospective randomized controlled trial comparing the outpatient and inpatient setting. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand. 2021;100(3):410‐417. Hamdan M, Shuhaina S, Hong JGS, et al. Outpatient vs inpatient Foley catheter induction of labor in multiparas with unripe cervixes: a randomized trial. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand. 2021;100(11):1977‐1985. Lauterbach R, Ben Zvi D, Dabaja H, et al. Vaginal dinoprostone insert versus cervical ripening balloon for term induction of labor in obese nulliparas‐a randomized controlled trial. J Clin Med. 2022;11(8):2138. Sulaiman S, Sivaranjani S, Razali N, Lim BK, Hamdan M, Tan PC. Foley catheter compared with controlled release dinoprostone vaginal insert for labor induction after one previous cesarean delivery: a randomized trial. Int J Gynaecol Obstet. 2022;160:814‐822. doi:10.1002/ijgo.14364. Wang H, Hong S, Liu Y, Duan Y, Yin H. Controlled‐release dinoprostone insert versus Foley catheter for labor induction: a meta‐analysis. J Matern Fetal Neonatal Med. 2016;29(14):2382‐2388. Du YM, Zhu LY, Cui LN, Jin BH, Ou JL. Double‐balloon catheter versus prostaglandin E2 for cervical ripening and labour induction: a systematic review and meta‐analysis of randomised controlled trials. BJOG. 2017;124(6):891‐899. Kelly AJ, Alfirevic Z, Ghosh A. Outpatient versus inpatient induction of labour for improving birth outcomes. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2013;11:CD007372. Wilkinson C, Bryce R, Adelson P, Turnbull D. A randomised controlled trial of outpatient compared with inpatient cervical ripening with prostaglandin E(2) (OPRA study). BJOG. 2015;122(1):94‐104. de Vaan MD, Ten Eikelder ML, Jozwiak M, et al. Mechanical methods for induction of labour. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2019;10:CD001233. Sciscione AC. Methods of cervical ripening and labor induction: mechanical. Clin Obstet Gynecol. 2014;57(2):369‐376. 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(5):418‐429. Thomas J, Fairclough A, Kavanagh J, Kelly AJ. Vaginal prostaglandin (PGE2 and PGF2a) for induction of labour at term. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2014;6:CD003101. Rauf Z, Alfirevic Z. 666: continuous remote fetal monitoring with MONICA AN24 during home induction of labor. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2011;204(1):S263. Sharp AN, Stock SJ, Alfirevic Z. Outpatient induction of labour in the UK: a survey of practice. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol. 2016;204:21‐23. Tassone SA, Pearman CR, Rayburn WF. Outpatient cervical ripening using a sustained‐release prostaglandin E2 vaginal insert. J Reprod Med. 2001;46(6):599‐600. Jozwiak M, Oude Rengerink K, Ten Eikelder ML, et al. Foley catheter or prostaglandin E2 inserts for induction of labour at term: an open‐label randomized controlled trial (PROBAAT‐P trial) and systematic review of literature. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol. 2013;170(1):137‐145. Pennell CE, Henderson JJ, O'Neill MJ, McChlery S, Doherty DA, Dickinson JE. Induction of labour in nulliparous women with an unfavourable cervix: a randomised controlled trial comparing double and single balloon catheters and PGE2 gel. BJOG. 2009;116(11):1443‐1452. Norman SM, Tuuli MG, Odibo AO, Caughey AB, Roehl KA, Cahill AG. The effects of obesity on the first stage of labor. Obstet Gynecol. 2012;120(1):130‐135. Merollini KMD, Beckmann M. Induction of labor using balloon catheter as an outpatient versus prostaglandin as an inpatient: a cost‐effectiveness analysis. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol. 2021;260:124‐130. Washburn MC, Washburn M, Hong C, Roth P, Richter P. Outpatient Foley catheter induction protocol provides clinical and cost benefits. Birth. 2021;48(4):574‐582. McMaster K, Sanchez‐Ramos L, Kaunitz AM. Evaluation of a transcervical Foley catheter as a source of infection: a systematic review and meta‐analysis. Obstet Gynecol. 2015;126(3):539‐551. |
| معلومات مُعتمدة: | 2022-MS-202 Liaoning Provincial Natural Science Foundation of China |
| فهرسة مساهمة: | Keywords: Dinoprostone; balloon catheter; cervical ripening; induced labor; meta‐analysis |
| المشرفين على المادة: | K7Q1JQR04M (Dinoprostone) 0 (Oxytocics) |
| تواريخ الأحداث: | Date Created: 20240207 Date Completed: 20240717 Latest Revision: 20240718 |
| رمز التحديث: | 20240718 |
| DOI: | 10.1002/ijgo.15409 |
| PMID: | 38321823 |
| قاعدة البيانات: | MEDLINE |
Full Text Finder | تدمد: | 1879-3479 |
|---|---|
| DOI: | 10.1002/ijgo.15409 |