• About Us
    • Contact Us
    • Login
    • ObGFirst
  • COVID-19
  • Alerts
  • OB
  • 2T US Atlas
  • The Genome
  • GYN
    • GYN
    • Sexual Health
  • Primary Care
  • Your Practice
  • #GrandRounds
  • My Bookshelf
  • Now@ObG
  • Media
About Us Contact Us Login ObGFirst
  • COVID-19
  • Alerts
  • OB
  • 2T US Atlas
  • The Genome
  • GYN
    • 0 CME Hours
    • GYN
    • Sexual Health
  • Primary Care
  • Your Practice
  • #GrandRounds
  • My Bookshelf
  • Now@ObG
  • Media
#Grand Rounds

Cochrane Review 2017: Outpatient Cervical Ripening and Labor Induction

image_pdfFavoriteLoadingFavorite

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE:

  • Labor induction rates in US and UK now over 20%
  • For a woman with low risk for delivery complications, certain methods of labor induction or cervical ripening could be used in outpatient settings
  • Vogel et al. (Cochrane Database Syst Rev., 2017) compared methods of labor induction or cervical ripening in outpatient settings, measuring their effectiveness, maternal satisfaction, healthcare costs and, where information is available, safety.

METHODS:

  • Performed meta-analysis, incorporating randomized controlled trials (RCT)
  • Two review authors independently assessed trials for inclusion and risk of bias, extracted data and checked them for accuracy
  • Researchers included women who received treatment at home or sent home after treatment and initial monitoring in hospital
    • Most recent Cochrane review (2013) that compared the same treatment outpatient vs inpatient could not reach a conclusion due to limited data
    • Current approach allows for pooling of patients treated in outpatient setting in studies that were assessing treatment options vs setting
  • Main outcomes
    • Vaginal birth not achieved within 24 hours
    • Additional induction agents required
    • Length of hospital stay
    • Use of emergency services
    • Maternal satisfaction
    • Caregiver satisfaction
    • Serious neonatal morbidity or perinatal death (composite outcome will include, for example, seizures, birth asphyxia defined by trialists, neonatal encephalopathy, disability in childhood)
    • Serious maternal morbidity or death (composite outcome will include, for example, uterine rupture, admission to intensive care unit, septicemia)
    • GRADE methods used to assess result quality

RESULTS:

  • 5,003 women were pooled from 34 RCTs
  • Limited quality data was available and overall evidence was graded low with some moderate quality studies
  • Most studies looked at women at term, low risk

Vaginal PGE₂ versus expectant management or placebo

  • Fewer women in the vaginal PGE₂ group needed additional induction agents
    • Wide confidence intervals (risk ratio [RR] 0.52, 95% CI 0.27 to 0.99)
  • No difference between groups in
    • uterine hyperstimulation (RR 3.76, 95% CI 0.64 to 22.24)
    • caesarean section (RR 0.80, 95% CI 0.49 to 1.31)
    • admission to NICU (RR 0.32, 95% CI 0.10 to 1.03)

Intracervical PGE₂ versus expectant management or placebo

  • No clear difference between groups for:
    • Need for additional induction agents (RR 0.98, 95% CI 0.74 to 1.32)
    • Vaginal birth not achieved within 48 to 72 hours (RR 0.83, 95% CI 0.68 to 1.02)
    • Uterine hyperstimulation with FHR changes (RR 2.66, 95% CI 0.63 to 11.25)
    • Cesarean section (RR 0.90, 95% CI 0.72 to 1.12)
    • Babies admitted to NICU (RR 1.61, 95% CI 0.43 to 6.05)

Vaginal misoprostol versus placebo

  • One small study reported on the rate of perinatal death with no clear differences between groups
  • There were no deaths in the treatment group compared with one stillbirth (reason not reported) in the control group (RR 0.34, 95% CI 0.01 to 8.14)
  • There was no clear difference between groups in rates of:
    • Uterine hyperstimulation with FHR changes (RR 1.97, 95% CI 0.43 to 9.00)
    • Cesarean section (RR 0.94, 95% CI 0.61 to 1.46)
    • Babies admitted to NICU (RR 0.89, 95% CI 0.54 to 1.47)

Additional Notes

  • Women who received oral misoprostol were more likely to give birth within 24 hours (RR 0.65, 95% CI 0.48 to 0.86) and were less likely to require additional induction agents (RR 0.60, 95% CI 0.37 to 0.97)
  • Women who received mifepristone were also less likely to require additional induction agents (average RR 0.59, 95% CI 0.37 to 0.95) but high heterogeneity noted in these studies
  • There was no information on vaginal birth within 24, 48 or 72 hours, length of hospital stay, use of emergency services, maternal caregiver satisfaction or serious maternal and neonatal morbidity or deaths as well as maternal or neonatal morbidity in many of the studies

CONCLUSION:

  • Induction of labor in the outpatient setting or sending women home after initial treatment in the hospital setting appears to be a management option
  • Important adverse events seem rare but evidence my be insufficient to make firm conclusions regarding differences
  • Additional induction treatments do not appear to be required

Learn More – Primary Sources:

Pharmacological and mechanical interventions for labour induction in outpatient settings.

image_pdfFavoriteLoadingFavorite

< Previous
All #Grand Rounds Posts
Next >

Related ObG Topics:

Practical info on evidence based medicine for your women's healthcare practice
Labor induction and an unripe cervix: does it result in more C-sections?
Foley vs Misoprotol:  What is the Most Cost-Effective Way to Induce Labor?
Induction to Prevent Stillbirths for Age 35 and Older: Impact on Cesarean Rates?
The FIAT-M study: Simultaneous or Sequential Foley and Oxytocin for Induction in Multiparous Women

Sections

  • COVID-19
  • Alerts
  • OB
  • GYN
    • GYN
    • Sexual Health
  • 2T US Atlas
  • The Genome
  • Primary Care
  • Your Practice
  • #Grand Rounds
  • My Bookshelf
  • Now@ObG
  • Media

ObG Library

  • Hysteroscopy
  • Fertility
  • Site Map/
  • © ObG Project/
  • Terms and Conditions/
  • Privacy/
  • Contact Us/
© ObG Project
SSL Certificate


  • Already an ObGFirst Member?
    Welcome back

    Log In

    Want to sign up?
    Get guideline notifications
    CME Included

    Sign Up

Get Guideline Alerts Direct to Your Phone
Try ObGFirst Free!

Sign In

Lost your password?

Sign Up for ObGFirst and Stay Ahead

  • - Professional guideline notifications
  • - Daily summary of a clinically relevant
    research paper
  • - Includes 1 hour of CME every month

ObGFirst Free Trial

Log In to ObG First

Please log in to access OBGFirst and the 2T Ultrasound Atlas

Password Trouble?

Sign Up for ObGFirst

  • - Access 2T US Atlas
  • - Guideline notifications
  • - Daily research paper summaries
  • - And lots more!

ObG First Free Trial

Media - Internet

Computer System Requirements

OBG Project CME requires a modern web browser (Internet Explorer 10+, Mozilla Firefox, Apple Safari, Google Chrome, Microsoft Edge). Certain educational activities may require additional software to view multimedia, presentation, or printable versions of their content. These activities will be marked as such and will provide links to the required software. That software may be: Adobe Flash, Apple QuickTime, Adobe Acrobat, Microsoft PowerPoint, Windows Media Player, or Real Networks Real One Player.

Disclosure of Unlabeled Use

This educational activity may contain discussion of published and/or investigational uses of agents that are not indicated by the FDA. The planners of this activity do not recommend the use of any agent outside of the labeled indications.

The opinions expressed in the educational activity are those of the faculty and do not necessarily represent the views of the planners. Please refer to the official prescribing information for each product for discussion of approved indications, contraindications, and warnings.

Disclaimer

Participants have an implied responsibility to use the newly acquired information to enhance patient outcomes and their own professional development. The information
presented in this activity is not meant to serve as a guideline for patient management. Any procedures, medications, or other courses of diagnosis or treatment discussed or suggested in this activity should not be used by clinicians without evaluation of their patient’s conditions and possible contraindications and/or dangers in use, review of any applicable manufacturer’s product information, and comparison with recommendations of other authorities.

Jointly provided by

NOT ENOUGH CME HOURS

It appears you don't have enough CME Hours to take this Post-Test. Feel free to buy additional CME hours or upgrade your current CME subscription plan

Subscribe

JOIN OBGFIRST AND GET CME/CE CREDITS

One of the benefits of an ObGFirst subscription is the ability to earn CME/CE credits from the ObG entries you read. Tap the button to learn more about ObGFirst

Learn More
Leaving ObG Website

You are now leaving the ObG website and on your way to PRIORITY at UCSF, an independent website. Therefore, we are not responsible for the content or availability of this site