Assessment of fetomaternal outcome following common induction methods (Foley’s catheter, dinoprostone and misoprostol) for induction of labor in low risk women with term pregnancy
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.18203/2320-1770.ijrcog20243941Keywords:
Dinoprostone, Foley catheter, Induction of labor, MisoprostolAbstract
Background: Various mechanical and pharmacological approaches available for induction of labor (IOL), have varying effectiveness. This study compared the efficacy of three common IOL methods: intracervical Foley catheter, dinoprostone, and misoprostol, in achieving timely and safe vaginal deliveries.
Methods: A 12 month (March 2022 to March 2023) prospective observational study at Vydehi Institute of Medical Science and Research Centre on 60 term pregnant women undergoing IOL compared induction-to-delivery interval, post-induction Bishop scores, mode of delivery, oxytocin requirements, maternal and fetal morbidities with Foley catheter, dinoprostone gel and misoprostol induction to determine the efficacy and safety of each method.
Results: The study revealed notable differences in the effectiveness of the induction methods. Dinoprostone demonstrated the shortest induction-to-delivery interval (8.13 hours) and the highest rate of vaginal deliveries (90%). Misoprostol, while slightly slower with a 12.35-hour interval, achieved 85% vaginal deliveries. While, Foley catheter group had the longest induction-to-delivery time (18.12 hours) and a lower rate of vaginal deliveries (70%). Additionally, oxytocin augmentation was required more in the Foley catheter group. Maternal and fetal complications were significantly lower in the dinoprostone and misoprostol groups, focussing their superior safety profiles.
Conclusions: Pharmacological methods proved more efficient than Foley catheter in reducing induction time, improving cervical ripening, and increasing the likelihood of successful vaginal deliveries. Dinoprostone, in particular, emerged as the most efficient method with the fewest complications. However, careful monitoring is necessary to mitigate potential risks like uterine hyperstimulation, especially with misoprostol.
Metrics
References
Shields LE, Goffman D, Caughey AB. ACOG practice bulletin: clinical management guidelines for obstetrician-gynecologists. Obstet Gynecol. 2017;130(4):e168-86.
Landon MB, Galan HL, Jauniaux ERM, Driscoll DA, Berghella V, Grobman WA, Kilpatrick SJ, Cahill AG. Gabbe's Obstetrics: normal and problem pregnancies. vol. 53. 8th ed. Elsevier; 2013:1689-1699.
Marconi AM. Recent advances in the induction of labor. F1000Res. 2019;8 (F1000 Faculty Rev):1829.
World Health Organization. WHO recommendations: induction of labour at or beyond term, 2018. Available at: https://iris.who.int/handle/10665/277233. Accessed 01 May 2024.
Cheng TS, Zahir F, Carolin SV, Verma A, Rao S, Choudhury SS, et al. Risk factors for labour induction and augmentation: a multicentre prospective cohort study in India. The Lancet Regional Health - Southeast Asia 2024;25:100417.
Košec V, Djaković I, Sabolović Rudman S. Cervical ripening balloon as a method of pre induction - one center study. Acta Clin Croat. 2018;57(4):762-7.
Segni H, Haleke W. Research & reviews: effectiveness and safety of low dose vaginal misoprostol compared to trans-cervical foley catheter for cervical ripening and induction of labor in post term pregnant. J Med Health Sci. 2015;4(4):47-53.
Kufelnicka-Babout M, Pałczyńska M, Tęcza P, Baczyńska M, Kalinka J. Evaluation and comparison of efficacy and safety of foley catheter with and without traction in pre induction of labour. Austin J Obstetr Gynecol. 2018;5(4):4-7.
Yimer NB, Gedefaw ZTA. Pregnancy outcomes in grand multiparous women: does parity matter? A comparative study. Ethio J Reproduct Health. 2020;12(1):35-41.
Khan SM, Jadoon S, Muslim F, Qadir M, Khan H. Misoprostol versus dinoprostone for induction of labor in PROM: a randomized controlled trial. J Soc ObstetGynaecol Pak. 2020;10(3):149-53.
Perry KG Jr, Larmon JE, May WL, Robinette LG, Martin RW. Cervical ripening: a randomized comparison between intravaginal misoprostol and an intracervical balloon catheter combined with intravaginal dinoprostone. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 1998;178(6):1333-40.
Barrilleaux PS, Bofill JA, Terrone DA, Magann EF, May WL, Morrison JC. Cervical ripening and induction of labor with misoprostol, dinoprostone gel, and a Foley catheter: a randomized trial of 3 techniques. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2002;186(6):1124-9.
Garg R, Bagga R, Kumari A, Kalra J, Jain V, Saha SC. Comparison of intracervical Foley catheter combined with a single dose of vaginal misoprostol tablet or intracervical dinoprostone gel for cervical ripening: a randomised study. J Obstet Gynaecol. 2022;42(2):232-8.