Effectiveness of combined use of misoprostol with intracervical catheter for induction of labour: a randomized control trial

Munira Ferdausi; Aurin Rahman; Shahreen Geeti; Shinthia Shoma Chockroborty; Nasreen Zaman; Ayesha Siddika

doi:10.18203/2320-1770.ijrcog20230778

Authors

Munira Ferdausi Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Shaheed Suhrawardy Medical College Hospital, Dhaka, Bangladesh
Aurin Rahman Research Assistant, East Tennessee State University, Tennessee, United States of America
Shahreen Geeti Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Shaheed Suhrawardy Medical College Hospital, Dhaka, Bangladesh
Shinthia Shoma Chockroborty Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Shaheed Suhrawardy Medical College Hospital, Dhaka, Bangladesh
Nasreen Zaman Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Shaheed Suhrawardy Medical College Hospital, Dhaka, Bangladesh
Ayesha Siddika Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Shaheed Suhrawardy Medical College Hospital, Dhaka, Bangladesh

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.18203/2320-1770.ijrcog20230778

Keywords:

Catheter, Effectiveness, Induction, Intracervical, Misoprostol

Abstract

Background: Labor induction methods are continuously evolving to ensure safer and more effective outcomes for both mother and neonate. The present study aimed to assess the effectiveness and safety of combined use of misoprostol with intracervical catheter for labor induction.

Methods: This single-blinded, parallel-group randomized control trial conducted at Shaheed Suhrawardy Medical College, Dhaka, Bangladesh, included 200 women with term gestation and Bishop score ≤6. Participants were divided into two groups: the intervention group (group B) received misoprostol juice and Foley’s catheter, while the control group (group A) received misoprostol in the posterior fornix.

Results: In Group A, 58% had vaginal deliveries, while in Group B, 65% had vaginal deliveries. Group B experienced a longer mean length of labor in the 1st stage (13.25±1.095) compared to Group A (12.98±1.982, p=0.008). The 3rd stage was shorter for Group B (10.00±0.000) than Group A (12.02±2.469, p<0.001). The most common induction reason was labor pain with an unfavorable cervix (31 in Group A and 33 in Group B). Group B had a higher percentage of inductions at less than 12 hours and a lower percentage at more than 24 hours. Neonatal outcomes were generally better for Group B. The Cox regression hazard model showed a lower likelihood of positive outcomes in Group B (hazard ratio 0.337, 95% CI 0.243-0.469, p=0.000), indicating a statistically significant difference between the groups.

Conclusions: The combined use of misoprostol with Foley’s catheter for labor induction is safe and effective, resulting in shorter labor duration and higher rates of vaginal delivery compared to misoprostol alone.

Metrics

Metrics Loading ...

References

Noor N, Ansari M, Ali SM, Parveen S. Foley catheter vs vaginal misoprostol for labour induction. Int J Reprod Med. 2015;2015.

Marciniak B, Bartosiewicz J. Effectiveness of intracervical catheter as a labour pre-induction method. Ginekol Polska. 2010;81(1):31-6.

Patabendige M, Jayawardane A. Foley catheter for cervical priming in induction of labour at University Obstetrics Unit, Colombo, Sri Lanka: a clinical audit with a patient satisfaction survey. BMC Res Notes. 2017;10(1):1-7.

Davalagi V, Lakshmikantha G. Efficacy of vaginal misoprostol vs transcervical Foley’s catheter and vaginal misoprostol in the induction of labour. Int J Reprod Contracept Obstet Gynecol. 2019;8(4):1341-7.

Greenberg V, Khalifeh A. Intracervical Foley balloon catheter for cervical ripening and labour induction: A review. Semin Perinatol. 2015;39(6):441-3.

Roudsari FV, Ayati S, Ghasemi M, Mofrad MH, Shakeri MT, Farshidi F, et al. Comparison of vaginal misoprostol with Foley catheter for cervical ripening and induction of labour. Iran J Pharm Res. 2011;10(1):149-54.

El-Kelani OA, El-Halaby AE, El-Shamy ES, Abd El-Fattah TN. Comparison between intracervical Foley catheter plus misoprostol and misoprostol alone for labour induction. Menoufia Med J. 2019;32(4):1393-6.

Nazneen S, Sultana F, Nahaer K. Intravaginal misoprostol vs transcervical Foley catheter for pre-induction cervical ripening and their outcome- a comparative study. Bangladesh J Obstet Gynaecol. 2012;27(2):72-8.

Deshmukh VL, Rajamanya AV, Yelikar KA. Oral misoprostol solution for induction of labour. J Obstet Gynecol India. 2017;67(2):98-103.

Tabowei TO, Oboro VO. Low-dose intravaginal misoprostol vs intracervical balloon catheter for pre-induction cervical ripening. East Afr Med J. 2003;80(2):91-4.

Fekrat M, Kassanian M, Hashem-Alavi SM, Ali-Nezhad S. Comparing labour induction and cervical ripening methods including vaginal misoprostol, traction by Foley catheter and a combination of the two. J Reprod Infertil. 2007;8(2):149-54.

Kashanian M, Bahasadri S, Dehkordy AN, Sheikhansari N, Eshraghi N. A comparison between induction of labour with 3 methods of titrated oral misoprostol, constant dose of oral misoprostol, and Foley catheter with extra amniotic saline infusion (EASI) in women with an unfavorable cervix. Med J Islam Repub Iran. 2019;33:115.

Jozwiak M, Rengerink KO, Benthem M, Van Beek E, Dijksterhuis MG, De Graaf IM, 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):2095-103.

Chung JH, Huang WH, Rumney PJ, Garite TJ, Nageotte MP. A prospective randomized controlled trial that compared misoprostol, Foley catheter, and combination misoprostol–Foley catheter for labour induction. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2003;189(4):1031-5.

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):1443-50.

Schoen CN, Grant G, Berghella V, Hoffman MK, Sciscione A. Intracervical Foley catheter with and without oxytocin for labour induction: a randomized controlled trial. Obstet Gynecol. 2017;129(6):1046-53.

Maslovitz S, Lessing JB, Many A. Complications of trans-cervical Foley catheter for labour induction among 1,083 women. Arch Gynecol Obstet. 2010;281:473-7.

Henry A, Madan A, Reid R, Tracy SK, Austin K, Welsh A, et al. Outpatient Foley catheter versus inpatient prostaglandin E2 gel for induction of labour: a randomised trial. BMC Pregnancy Childbirth. 2013;13:1-1.

Chowdhary A, Bagga R, Kalra J, Jain V, Saha SC, Kumar P. Comparison of intracervical Foley catheter used alone or combined with a single dose of dinoprostone gel for cervical ripening: a randomised study. J Obstet Gynaecol. 2019;39(4):461-7.

Owolabi AT, Kuti O, Ogunlola IO. Randomised trial of intravaginal misoprostol and intracervical Foley catheter for cervical ripening and induction of labour. J Obstet Gynaecol. 2005;25(6):565-8.