• 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
    • GYN
    • Sexual Health
  • Primary Care
  • Your Practice
  • GrandRounds
  • My Bookshelf
  • Now@ObG
  • Media
Grand Rounds

Cochrane Review Update: Safety and Effectiveness of Mechanical vs Pharmacological Methods of Labor Induction

image_pdfFavoriteLoadingFavorite

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE:

  • de Vaan et al. (Cochrane Reviews, 2019) compared mechanical to pharmacological methods for labor induction (third trimester)

METHODS:

  • Systematic review and meta-analysis update
  • Data sources
    • Cochrane Pregnancy and Childbirth’s Trials Register, ClinicalTrials.gov, the WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP), and reference lists of retrieved studies in 2018
  • Inclusion criteria
    • Clinical trials that compared mechanical vs cervical ripening methods for labor induction in the third trimester
  • Data synthesis and analysis
    • Two independent authors provided study reviews
    • GRADE criteria were followed
  • Mechanical methods included
    • balloon catheter
    • Laminaria or synthetic equivalent
    • Catheter to inject fluid into the extra-amniotic space (EASI)
  • Comparisons
    • Specific mechanical methods vs with prostaglandins or with oxytocin
    • Single balloon compared to a double balloon
    • Addition of prostaglandins or oxytocin to mechanical methods compared with prostaglandins or oxytocin alone

RESULTS:

  • Total of 113 trials | 22,373 women | 21 comparisons | All studies were RCTs
  • Quality of evidence
    • Overall evidence was of very-low to moderate quality
    • All evidence was downgraded due to lack of blinding and imprecise effect estimates

Balloon vs Vaginal PGE2

  • Little or no difference in vaginal deliveries not achieved within 24 hours (low-quality evidence)
    • Average risk ratio (RR) 1.01 (95% CI, 0.82 to 1.26)
  • Probably little or no difference in caesarean delivery not achieved within 24 hours (moderate-quality evidence)
    • RR 1.00 (95% CI, 0.92 to 1.09)
  • Balloon catheter probably reduces the risk of
    • Uterine hyperstimulation with FHR changes
      • RR 0.35 (95% CI, 0.18 to 0.67)
    • Serious neonatal morbidity or perinatal death
      • RR 0.48 (95% CI, 0.25 to 0.93)
  • Balloon catheter may slightly reduce the risk of NICU admission
    • RR 0.82 (95% CI, 0.65 to 1.04)
  • Uncertain whether there is a difference in
    • Serious maternal morbidity or death
    • Five-minute Apgar score < 7

Balloon vs Low-dose Vaginal Misoprostol

  • Uncertain whether there is a difference in vaginal deliveries not achieved within 24 hours
    • RR 1.09 (95% CI, 0.85 to 1.39)
  • A balloon catheter probably reduces the risk of uterine hyperstimulation with FHR changes
    • RR 0.39 (95% CI 0.18 to 0.85)
  • Balloon catheter may increase the risk of a caesarean section
    • RR 1.28 (95% CI, 1.02 to 1.60)
  • Uncertain whether there is a difference in
    • Serious neonatal morbidity or perinatal death
    • Serious maternal morbidity or death
    • Five-minute Apgar score < 7
    • NICU admissions

Balloon versus Low-dose Oral Misoprostol

  • Balloon catheter probably increases the risk of a vaginal delivery not achieved within 24 hours
    • RR 1.28 (95% CI, 1.13 to 1.46)
  • Balloon catheter probably slightly increases the risk of a cesarean section
    • RR 1.17 (95% CI, 1.04 to 1.32)
  • It is uncertain whether there is a difference in
    • Uterine hyperstimulation with FHR changes
    • Serious neonatal morbidity or perinatal death
    • Serious maternal morbidity or death
    • Five-minute Apgar scores < 7
    • NICU admissions

Additional Comparisons

  • No difference between single and double balloon devices
  • Laminaria comparisons resulted in uncertain results, expect for comparison vs vaginal prostaglandin E2, which probably reduces risk of uterine hyperstimulation with FHR changes
  • Mechanical method and low dose misoprostol versus misoprostol alone
    • Uncertain results for primary outcomes, including probabilities for vaginal delivery, uterine hyperstimulation, cesarean section, serious maternal and perinatal morbidity and mortality
      • Combining mechanical method and misoprostol probably reduces risk of unfavorable cervix at 24 hours and meconium stained fluid

CONCLUSION:

  • Mechanical induction with balloon catheter is probably as effective as vaginal PGE2 (low to moderate-quality evidence)
    • Balloon catheter seems to be the safer method of induction
    • The authors conclude that more research is probably not warranted
  • Balloon catheter may be slightly less effective than oral misoprostol (moderate-quality evidence)
    • Safety comparison between the two methods remains unclear
  • Balloon catheter may be less effective that vaginal misoprostol (Low-quality evidence)
    • Balloon catheter is probably the safer of the two methods
  • The authors conclude

The advantages of mechanical methods are their wide availability and the low cost of the devices, especially Foley catheters. Storage and preservation of mechanical devices is less problematic than PGE2, which should be kept refrigerated. However, special attention should be paid to contraindications (e.g. low‐lying placenta) when inserting these devices.

Learn More – Primary Sources:

Mechanical methods for induction of labour

Now You Can Get ObG Clinical Research Summaries Direct to Your Phone, with ObGFirst

Learn More  »

image_pdfFavoriteLoadingFavorite
< Previous
All Grand Rounds Posts
Next >

Related ObG Topics:

Mechanical and Misoprostol Ripening vs Misoprostol Alone
Cochrane Review 2017: Outpatient Cervical Ripening and Labor Induction
Double-Balloon Catheter or Prostaglandin E2 for Cervical Ripening

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

Are you an
ObG Insider?

Get specially curated clinical summaries delivered to your inbox every week for free

  • 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

Already a Member of ObGFirst®?

Please log in to ObGFirst to access the 2T US Atlas

Password Trouble?

Not an ObGFirst® Member Yet?

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