Search

Introduction: Obesity is an increasing public health concern worldwide and can lead to more complications in pregnancy and childbirth. Women with obesity more often require induction of labor for various indications. The aim of this study is to assess which method of induction of labor is safest and most effective in women with obesity., Material and Methods: This is a secondary analysis of two randomized controlled trials about induction of labor. Women with a term singleton pregnancy in cephalic presentation, an unfavorable cervix, intact membranes and without a previous cesarean section were randomly allocated to cervical priming with a Foley catheter or vaginal prostaglandin-E2-gel (PROBAAT-I) or a Foley catheter or oral misoprostol (PROBAAT-II). The inclusion and exclusion criteria for the studies were identical. Induction methods were compared in women with obesity (body mass index ≥30.0). Main outcomes were cesarean section and postpartum hemorrhage (blood loss >1000 mL)., Results: A total of 2664 women, were included in the trials, 517 of whom were obese: 254 women with obesity received a Foley catheter, 176 oral misoprostol and 87 prostaglandin E2 (PGE2). A cesarean section was performed in 29.1% of women allocated to Foley vs 22.2% in the misoprostol and 23.0% in the PGE2 groups. Comparisons between groups revealed no statistically significant differences: the relative risk [RR] was 1.31 (95% confidence interval [CI] 0.94-1.84) in the Foley vs misoprostol group and 1.27 (95% CI 0.83-1.95) in the Foley vs PGE2 group. The rates of postpartum hemorrhage were comparable (10.6%, 11.4% and 6.9%, respectively; P = 0.512). In women with obesity, more often a switch to another method occurred in the Foley group, (20.1% vs 6.3% in misoprostol vs 1.1% in the PGE2 group; P < 0.001). The risk of a failed Foley placement was higher in women with obesity than in women without obesity (8.3% vs 3.2%; adjusted odds ratio 3.12, 95% CI 1.65-5.90)., Conclusions: In women with obesity we found a nonsignificant trend towards an increased rate of cesarean sections in the group induced with a Foley catheter compared to oral misoprostol; however, the study lacked power for this subgroup analysis. The finding of a higher risk of failed placement of a Foley catheter in women with obesity can be used in shared decision making., (© 2024 The Authors. Acta Obstetricia et Gynecologica Scandinavica published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd on behalf of Nordic Federation of Societies of Obstetrics and Gynecology (NFOG).)

Objective: To evaluate the safety aspects of different induction methods in pregnancies with small-for-gestational-age neonates., Study Design: This was a secondary analysis of two previously reported multicenter, randomized controlled trials conducted in the Netherlands. In the original trials, women were randomized to either a 30 cc Foley catheter, vaginal prostaglandin E2 (PROBAAT-1) or oral misoprostol (PROBAAT-2). A total of 425 patients with a term, singleton pregnancy in cephalic presentation with an indication for labor induction and a small-for-gestational-age neonate were included in this secondary analysis. Our primary outcome was a composed adverse neonatal outcome of Apgar score < 7 after 5 min and/or a pH in the umbilical artery < 7.05 and/or NICU admission. Secondary outcomes were mode of birth, operative birth for fetal distress and pH < 7.10 in the umbilical artery. For these outcome measures, multivariate as well as bivariate analyses were performed., Results: An adverse neonatal outcome occurred in 4.7 % (10/214) induction with a Foley catheter, versus 12.8 % (19/149) after misoprostol (RR 0.36; 95 % CI 0.17-0.76) and 4.7 % (3/64) after Prostaglandin E2 (RR 0.98; 95 %CI 0.28-3.51). For individual components of the composed outcome of adverse events, a difference was found between a Foley catheter and misoprostol for Apgar score < 7 at 5 min (0.5 % versus 3.4; RR 0.14; 95 %CI 0.02-1.16) and NICU admission (1.9 % versus 6.1 %; RR 0.31; 0.10-0.97). No differences were found for mode of birth., Conclusions: For women who gave birth to a small-for-gestational-age neonate, a Foley catheter is probably a safer induction method compared to oral misoprostol., Competing Interests: Declaration of Competing Interest The authors declare that they have no known competing financial interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence the work reported in this paper., (Copyright © 2023 The Authors. Published by Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.)

Objective: To evaluate the rate of preterm birth (PTB) in a subsequent pregnancy in women who had undergone term induction using a Foley catheter compared with prostaglandins., Methods: This was a follow-up study of two large randomized controlled trials (PROBAAT-1 and PROBAAT-2). In the original trials, women with a term singleton pregnancy with the fetus in cephalic presentation and with an indication for labor induction were randomized to receive either a 30-mL Foley catheter or prostaglandins (vaginal prostaglandin E2 in PROBAAT-1 and oral misoprostol in PROBAAT-2). Data on subsequent ongoing pregnancies > 16 weeks' gestation were collected from hospital charts from clinics participating in this follow-up study. The main outcome measure was preterm birth < 37 weeks' gestation in a subsequent pregnancy., Results: Fourteen hospitals agreed to participate in this follow-up study. Of the 1142 eligible women, 572 had been allocated to induction of labor using a Foley catheter and 570 to induction of labor using prostaglandins. Of these, 162 (14%) were lost to follow-up. In total, 251 and 258 women had a known subsequent pregnancy > 16 weeks' gestation in the Foley catheter and prostaglandin groups, respectively. There were no differences in baseline characteristics between the groups. The overall rate of PTB in a subsequent pregnancy was 9/251 (3.6%) in the Foley catheter group vs 10/258 (3.9%) in the prostaglandin group (relative risk (RR), 0.93; 95% CI, 0.38-2.24), and the rate of spontaneous PTB was 5/251 (2.0%) vs 5/258 (1.9%) (RR, 1.03; 95% CI, 0.30-3.51)., Conclusion: In women with term singleton pregnancy, induction of labor using a 30-mL Foley catheter is not associated with an increased risk of PTB in a subsequent pregnancy, as compared to induction of labor using prostaglandins. © 2020 The Authors. Ultrasound in Obstetrics & Gynecology published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd on behalf of International Society of Ultrasound in Obstetrics and Gynecology., (© 2020 The Authors. Ultrasound in Obstetrics & Gynecology published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd on behalf of International Society of Ultrasound in Obstetrics and Gynecology.)

Introduction: Labor induction rates have increased over the last decades, and in many high‐income countries, more than one in four labors are induced. Outpatient management of labor induction has been suggested in low‐risk pregnancies to improve women's birth experiences while also promoting a more efficient use of healthcare resources. The primary aim of this paper was to assess the proportion of women in a historical cohort that would have been eligible for outpatient labor induction with oral misoprostol. Second, we wanted to report safety outcomes and assess efficacy outcomes for mothers and infants in pregnancies that met the criteria for outpatient care. Material and methods: Criteria for outpatient labor induction with oral misoprostol were applied to a historical cohort of women with induction of labor at two Norwegian tertiary hospitals in the period January 1, through July 31, 2021. The criteria included low‐risk women with an unscarred uterus expecting a healthy, singleton baby in cephalic position at term. The primary outcome was the proportion of women eligible for outpatient labor induction. Secondary outcomes included reasons for ineligibility and, for eligible women, safety and efficacy outcomes. Results: Overall, 29.7% of the 1320 women who underwent labor induction in a singleton term pregnancy met the criteria for outpatient labor induction. We identified two serious adverse events that potentially could have occurred outside the hospital if the women had received outpatient care. The mean duration from initiation of labor induction to administration of the last misoprostol was 22.4 h. One in 14 multiparous women gave birth within 3 h after the last misoprostol dose. Conclusions: In this historical cohort, three in ten women met the criteria for outpatient management of labor induction with oral misoprostol. Serious adverse events were rare. The average time span from the initiation of labor induction to the last misoprostol was nearly 24 h. This suggests a potential for low‐risk women with an induced labor to spend a substantial period of time at home before labor onset. However, larger studies testing or evaluating labor induction with oral misoprostol as an outpatient procedure are needed to draw conclusions. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Introduction: Induction methods are many such as intravaginal misoprostol, intracervical Foley catheter, intracervical dinoprostone, etc. Presently, a very limited number of studies are available for comparing all three popular methods intravaginal misoprostol, intracervical Foley catheter, and intracervical dinoprostone. Aims and objectives: Comparison of efficacy of pervaginal misoprostol, intracervical Foley catheter, and intracervical dinoprostone on induction of labor and fetomaternal outcome. Materials and methods: It is a prospective study conducted on 273 patients divided into 3 groups, and each group included 90 study subjects. • Group I - Foley catheter of No. 18 introduced in the cervical canal. The Foley catheter balloon is filled with 50 mL of normal saline. • Group II - Dinoprostone 2.5 mL of 0.5 mg injected into the cervical canal below the internal os under aseptic precautions. • Group III - Tablet misoprostol 25-µg pervaginally put in the posterior fornix. Continuous observation of the patients will be done in all groups. Results: Success of induction was 100% in the Foley catheter, 92.3% in dinoprostone gel, and 90% in the misoprostol group, respectively. Vaginal delivery occurred--83.51% in Foley catheter, 59.34% in dinoprostone gel, and 73.62% in the misoprostol groups, respectively. The mean induction to delivery interval time was 16.78 ± 6.5 hours in the Foley catheter group, 12.87 ± 6.41 hours in the dinoprostone gel group, and 11.16 ± 5.97 in the misoprostol group. Conclusion: Foley catheter is superior to dinoprostone gel and misoprostol in achieving vaginal delivery. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objective: Preterm induction of labor can be necessary for maternal and fetal wellbeing. Duration of cervical ripening balloon (CRB) use has been studied in only term inductions. Our study investigated duration of time in hours for CRB expulsion and vaginal delivery in preterm inductions of labor. Methods: This was a single-institution retrospective cohort study of preterm (< 37 weeks) and term (≥ 37 weeks) inductions with CRB between 2010 and 2021. Cesarean deliveries were excluded. Primary outcome was insertion to expulsion time of CRB. Secondary outcomes included induction to delivery time, cervical dilation after expulsion, misoprostol, and Pitocin use. Institutional review board (IRB) approval was obtained prior to the study. Results: Ninety-eight patients with vaginal delivery after preterm CRB use were identified and matched 1:1 on baseline characteristics (p > 0.05) to term patients with vaginal delivery after CRB use. Mean insertion to expulsion time was significantly shorter for term than preterm inductions (mean 7.2 ± 3.09 h versus 8.5 ± 3.38 h; p < 0.01). Mean induction to delivery time was significantly shorter for term than preterm inductions (18.4 ± 7.6 h versus 22.5 ± 9.01 h; p < 0.01). Increased use of misoprostol, Pitocin, and second CRB were noted among the preterm cohort. Among term patients, more CRB placement at start of induction and greater cervical dilation post-balloon were found in comparison to preterm patients. Conclusion: Among patients undergoing preterm induction, longer insertion to expulsion time of CRB, longer induction to delivery time, and increased interventions should be expected. Different standards for labor management should be considered for achieving vaginal delivery in preterm inductions. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objective: To evaluate vaginal delivery in obese women who underwent cervical ripening at term using a dinoprostone vaginal insert or a cervical ripening balloon (CRB), and to assess maternal and neonatal morbidity according to the method., Methods: A prospective cohort study including obese women with a live singleton fetus in cephalic presentation who required cervical ripening at term (≥37 weeks) for maternal and/or fetal disease using a dinoprostone vaginal insert or a CRB. The primary outcome was vaginal delivery. Secondary outcomes were a favorable cervix (Bishop score >6) after 24 h, the time from device insertion to delivery, and composite maternal and neonatal morbidity., Results: In total, 135 consecutive women were analyzed (107 CRB, 79.3%; 28 dinoprostone vaginal insert, 20.7%). Vaginal delivery (86 [80.4%] after CRB vs 19 [67.9%] after dinoprostone vaginal insert; P = 0.248), favorable cervix within 24 h after device placement (52 [48.6%] vs 17 [60.7%]; P = 0.264), and maternal morbidity (12 [11.2%] vs 4 [14.3%]; P = 0.646) were similar between the groups. The time from device insertion to delivery also did not differ between the groups. Neonatal morbidity was significantly higher after the dinoprostone vaginal insert (11 [39.3%] vs 20 [18.7%]; P = 0.030). Cervical ripening using the dinoprostone vaginal insert, compared with the CRB, was significantly associated with neonatal morbidity (adjusted odds ratio 4.00, 95% confidence interval 1.34-12.5), but not with maternal morbidity (adjusted odds ratio 1.23, 95% confidence interval 0.30-4.38)., Conclusions: Vaginal delivery, a favorable cervix after 24 h, the time from device insertion to delivery, and maternal morbidity did not significantly differ between the CRB and the dinoprostone vaginal insert for cervical ripening in obese women at term. Nevertheless, neonatal morbidity was significantly associated with the dinoprostone vaginal insert, compared with the CRB, among obese women who required cervical ripening at term., (© 2024 International Federation of Gynecology and Obstetrics.)

Objectives: Labor induction is one of the most common procedures in modern obstetrics. One in five pregnant women and 30-40% of women delivering vaginally undergo this procedure. If the cervical status is unfavorable, a ripening process is used prior to induction to shorten the duration of oxytocin administration and maximize the possibility of vaginal birth. The aim of this study was to compare the duration of labor induced with dinoprostone vaginal insert to spontaneous labor. Material and methods: It was a retrospective study conducted between May 2019 and February 2021 in the tertiary reference center, the Obstetrics and Perinatology Department of the Jagiellonian University Hospital in Krakow. The research group involved 182 patients in singleton pregnancy at term, qualified for cervical ripening procedure. The control group consisted of 178 patients that were delivering spontaneously and admitted to the delivery ward in the first stage of labor. Statistical analysis was performed to compare the duration of labor between groups. To find factors affecting the procedure we compared different models consisting of maternal and fetal characteristics. Results: Successful vaginal delivery in the dinoprostone group was achieved in the group of 88% of patients. There was no significant difference in labor duration between the groups: 315 minutes in the study group and 300 min in the control group. Only being primipara was a factor related to longer labor in both groups. Conclusions: Pre-induction with dinoprostone insert and additional foley catheter, if indicated, does not make labor longer in comparison with spontaneous labor. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Introduction: Evidence comparing double‐balloon vs single‐balloon catheter for induction of labor is divided. We aim to compare the efficacy and safety of double‐vs single‐balloon catheters using individual participant data. Material and methods: A search of Ovid MEDLINE, Embase, Ovid Emcare, CINAHL Plus, Scopus, and clinicaltrials.gov was conducted for randomized controlled trials published from March 2019 until April 13, 2021. Earlier trials were identified from the Cochrane Review on Mechanical Methods for Induction of Labour. Randomized controlled trials that compared double‐balloon with single‐balloon catheters for induction of labor in singleton gestations were eligible. Participant‐level data were sought from trial investigators and an individual participant data meta‐analysis was performed. The primary outcomes were rates of vaginal birth achieved, a composite measure of adverse maternal outcomes and a composite measure of adverse perinatal outcomes. We used a two‐stage random‐effects model. Data were analyzed from the intention‐to‐treat perspective. Results: Of the eight eligible randomized controlled trials, three shared individual‐level data with a total of 689 participants, 344 women in the double‐balloon catheter group and 345 women in the single‐balloon catheter group. The difference in the rate of vaginal birth between double‐balloon catheter and single‐balloon catheter was not statistically significant (relative risk [RR] 0.93, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.86–1.00, p = 0.050; I2 0%; moderate‐certainty evidence). Both perinatal outcomes (RR 0.81, 95% CI 0.54–1.21, p = 0.691; I2 0%; moderate‐certainty evidence) and maternal composite outcomes (RR 0.65, 95% CI 0.15–2.87, p = 0.571; I2 55.46%; low‐certainty evidence) were not significantly different between the two groups. Conclusions: Single‐balloon catheter is at least comparable to double‐balloon catheter in terms of vaginal birth rate and maternal and perinatal safety outcomes. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Patient-Reported Outcomes or Experience Measures (PROMS / PREMS) are routinely used in clinical studies to assess participants' views and experiences of trial interventions and related quality of life. Purely quantitative approaches lack the necessary detail and flexibility to understand the real-world impact of study interventions on participants, according to their own priorities. Conversely, purely qualitative assessments are time consuming and usually restricted to a small, possibly unrepresentative, sub-sample. This paper, which reports a pilot study within a randomised controlled trial of induction of labour, reports the feasibility, and acceptability of the Participant-Generated Experience and Satisfaction (PaGES) Index, a new mixed qualitative / quantitative PREM tool. Methods: The single-sheet PaGES Index was completed by hypertensive pregnant women in two hospitals in Nagpur, India before and after taking part in the 'Misoprostol or Oxytocin for Labour Induction' (MOLI) randomised controlled trial. Participants recorded aspects of the impending birth they considered most important, and then ranked them. After the birth, participants completed the PaGES Index again, this time also scoring their satisfaction with each item. Forms were completed on paper in the local language or in English, supported by Research Assistants. Following translation (when needed), responses were uploaded to a REDCap database, coded in Excel and analysed thematically. A formal qualitative evaluation (qMOLI) was also conducted to obtain stakeholder perspectives of the PaGES Index and the wider trial. Semi-structured interviews were conducted with participants, and focus groups with researchers and clinicians. Data were managed using NVivo 12 software and analysed using the framework approach. Results: Participants and researchers found the PaGES Index easy to complete and administer; mothers valued the opportunity to speak about their experience. Qualitative analysis of the initial 68 PaGES Index responses identified areas of commonality and difference among participants and also when comparing antenatal and postnatal responses. Theme citations and associated comments scores were fairly stable before and after the birth. The qMOLI phase, comprising 53 one-to-one interviews with participants and eight focus groups involving 83 researchers and clinicians, provided support that the PaGES Index was an acceptable and even helpful means of capturing participant perspectives. Conclusions: Subjective participant experiences are an important aspect of clinical trials. The PaGES Index was found to be a feasible and acceptable measure that unites qualitative research's explanatory power with the comparative power of quantitative designs. It also offers the opportunity to conduct a before-and-after evaluation, allowing researchers to examine the expectations and actual experiences of all clinical trial participants, not just a small sub-sample. This study also shows that, with appropriate research assistant input, the PaGES Index can be used in different languages by participants with varying literacy levels. Trial registration: Clinical Trials.gov (21/11/2018) (NCT03749902). [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objectives: to evaluate the success rate of labor induction and determinants of successful outcome. Methods: retrospective cohort study of parturients that undergone labor induction between 2006 and 2015. Data was retrieved from the medical records and multivariate logistic regression was used to evaluate the determinants of successful labor induction. Results: the rate of labor induction was 10.9%. Out of the 940 women analysed, six hundred and fifty-six women (69.8%) had successful vaginal delivery. Labor induction at 39-40 weeks (OR=2.70; CI95%=1.17-6.36), 41 weeks (OR=2.44; CI95%=1.14-5.28), estimated fetal weight between 2.5 and 3.4kg (OR=4.27, CI95%=1.96-5.59) and estimated fetal weight of 3.5-3.9kg (OR=5.45; CI95%=2.81-10.60) increased the odds of achieving vaginal delivery. Conclusions: our findings suggest that 39, 40 and 41 weeks are optimal gestational ages for labor induction with respect to successful vaginal delivery. Also, estimated fetal weight between 2.5kg and 3.9kg favours successful vaginal delivery. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

We aimed to assess the efficacy of three different labor induction methods for non-viable third-trimester fetuses. This retrospective cohort study included women who had an intra-uterine fetal death or termination of pregnancy at or after 28 weeks of gestation and underwent labor induction by either transcervical foley catheter and concomitant oxytocin infusion or regular doses of vaginal Prostin© or Propess©.The primary outcome was induction to the delivery interval. Secondary outcomes included the rate of women who delivered within 24 h, time spent in the delivery room, failed induction, adverse outcomes and reported occurrence of moderate to severe pain. Between January 2017 to June 2020, 107 women met the inclusion criteria. 25 women underwent induction of labor using transcervical foley catheter, 44 using Propess©, and 58 by Prostin©. The three groups were found to be demographically similar. The rate of women who delivered within 24 h was higher in the transcervical foley catheter group compared to the Propess© and Prostin© groups (72% vs 25% vs 29.3%, p <.001 respectively). Time to delivery was shorter among the transcervical foley catheter group compared to the Propess© and Prostin© groups (16.97 h vs 39.4 vs 39.3, p <.001 respectively). When comparing the Foley catheter group to both Propess© and Prostin©, moderate to severe pain was significantly more commonly reported in the prostaglandins groups (36.0% vs 50.0% vs 65.62%, p =.04). No difference was found in adverse outcomes, defined as intrapartum fever, post-partum hemorrhage and retained placenta. Cervical foley catheter with concomitant oxytocin infusion is the most effective method for induction of labor in third trimester non-viable in fetus compared to PGE2. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: In 2019, WHO prioritized updating recommendations relating to three labour induction topics: labour induction at or beyond term, mechanical methods for labour induction, and outpatient labour induction. As part of this process, we aimed to review the evidence addressing factors beyond clinical effectiveness (values, human rights and sociocultural acceptability, health equity, and economic and feasibility considerations) to inform WHO Guideline Development Group decision-making using the WHO-INTEGRATE evidence-to-decision framework, and to reflect on how methods for identifying, synthesizing and integrating this evidence could be improved.Methods: We adapted the framework to consider the key criteria and sub-criteria relevant to our intervention. We searched for qualitative and other evidence across a variety of sources and mapped the eligible evidence to country income setting and perspective. Eligibility assessment and quality appraisal of qualitative evidence syntheses was undertaken using a two-step process informed by the ENTREQ statement. We adopted an iterative approach to interpret the evidence and provided both summary and detailed findings to the decision-makers. We also undertook a review to reflect on opportunities to improve the process of applying the framework and identifying the evidence.Results: Using the WHO-INTEGRATE framework allowed us to explore health rights and equity in a systematic and transparent way. We identified a lack of qualitative and other evidence from low- and middle-income settings and in populations that are most impacted by structural inequities or traditionally excluded from research. Our process review highlighted opportunities for future improvement, including adopting more systematic evidence mapping methods and working with social science researchers to strengthen theoretical understanding, methods and interpretation of the evidence.Conclusions: Using the WHO-INTEGRATE evidence-to-decision framework to inform decision-making in a global guideline for induction of labour, we identified both challenges and opportunities relating to the lack of evidence in populations and settings of need and interest; the theoretical approach informing the development and application of WHO-INTEGRATE; and interpretation of the evidence. We hope these insights will be useful for primary researchers as well as the evidence synthesis and health decision-making communities, and ultimately contribute to a reduction in health inequities. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Plain language summary: Increasingly, births around the world are started artificially using medications or other methods. This process is known as induction of labour. As it becomes more common, methods are needed to meet the different clinical needs and birth preferences of women. Induction of labour typically includes a combination of the medication dinoprostone inserted into the vagina, artificial rupture of membranes ('releasing the waters'), and synthetic oxytocin (hormone given via a drip). This paper reviews some of the methods less commonly used for induction in the UK, namely a drug called misoprostol, which can be given orally or vaginally, and 'mechanical' methods, where labour is started by stretching the cervix (neck of the womb), most commonly with a soft silicone tube with a balloon near the tip, filled with water. Low‐dose oral misoprostol tablets are now commercially available in the UK. Other methods for labour induction are not reviewed in detail in this paper. The evidence suggests mechanical induction of labour (using a balloon catheter) and misoprostol are both at least as safe and effective as using the standard drug, dinoprostone. There is evidence to suggest a balloon catheter may reduce the chance of serious negative outcomes for babies when compared with dinoprostone, and that giving low‐dose oral misoprostol results in fewer caesarean births. Where possible and after informed consent, the method of induction of labour should be personalised to suit the individual woman, her clinical condition, and the setting in which she is giving birth. Local contexts and resources also need to be taken into account. To date, research into women's perspectives and experiences of induction of labour have been significantly lacking. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Various methods exist for the induction of labor (IOL), and there is limited consensus as to optimal methods. Off-label misoprostol is recommended by the World Health Organization (WHO) for IOL but preparing it into doses suitable for IOL lacks precision, with potential adverse outcomes if dosing is inaccurate. This study explores potential outcomes and costs associated with increased uptake of a low-dose (25 µg) oral misoprostol formulation (Angusta; Norgine BV, Amsterdam) approved for IOL, in France, Belgium, and the Netherlands. A literature review was undertaken to derive probabilities of delivery outcomes (vaginal, instrumental, and cesarean sections) for IOL methods, from published meta-analyses. Outcomes for oral misoprostol tablets (25 µg) were unavailable in the meta-analyses, so were estimated using data from two published retrospective cohort studies. A model was developed to predict the frequency of IOL outcomes and associated costs at the national level, across multiple scenarios. Scenarios were tested using a moderate, medium, and high increase in oral misoprostol tablet (25 µg) uptake. Market shares, costs, and induction rates were defined for each country using multiple data sources. Increased uptake of oral misoprostol tablets (25 µg) was estimated to be associated with a slightly increased rate of routine vaginal deliveries, and concurrent decreases in instrumental vaginal deliveries and cesarean sections. Since routine vaginal deliveries are less costly than other delivery outcomes, increased uptake of oral misoprostol tablets (25 µg) within the IOL market has the potential to be cost-saving. These trends were predicted using 25 µg oral misoprostol tablet outcomes informed by both retrospective studies. Preliminary outcomes suggest that oral misoprostol tablets at 25 µg per dose may improve outcomes in IOL and be cost-saving. Further study is required to validate these findings and assess the comparative efficacy of IOL methods, including oral misoprostol tablets (25 µg). [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objective: To evaluate the safety in the first 12 h, efficacy and maternal satisfaction of a double balloon catheter (DBC) with vaginal prostaglandin (PGE) for induction of labour (IOL). Methods: We conducted a multicentre randomised controlled study of 420 patients from 1st January 2016 to 31st December 2017 to evaluate the use of DBC in IOL in an Asian population looking at the adverse effects in the first 12 h after insertion. Women were assigned randomly to cervical ripening with either a DBC or a prostaglandin pessary. The adverse events in the 12 h after DBC or first prostaglandin inserted, the efficacy of a DBC to a prostaglandin in labour induction and maternal satisfaction were evaluated. Results: There were significantly less women with uterine hyperstimulation in the DBC (2 vs 24, p ≤ 0.0001) compared to the prostaglandin group. There were no women with uterine hyperstimulation and non-reassuring foetal status in the DBC while there were 5 women with uterine hyperstimulation and foetal distress in the prostaglandin group. Use of entonox was significantly less in the DBC group (p = 0.009). There were no significant differences in both groups in caesarean section, vaginal deliveries and time to delivery, although significant less time was needed to achieve cervical os dilation more than 4 cm in the DBC group (p ≤ 0.0001). Neonatal birth outcomes were similar. Women's pain scores were similar for both methods. 80.1% of women allocated the DBC and 76.8% of women allocated the PGE were keen to recommend their method of induction. Conclusion: Double balloon catheter remains a good alternative method for inducing women in view of a good safety profile with low risk of hyperstimulation and high maternal satisfaction. Clinical trial registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT02620215. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Purpose: Induction of labour has become more common over the last decade, together with an increase in the number of systematic reviews of the subject. However, with multiple systematic reviews it is necessary to evaluate the methodological rigor to ensure the reliability of conclusions and recommendations for clinical practice. Therefore, the aim of this study was to appraise the quality of systematic reviews that examined the efficacy and/or safety of labour induction methods.Methods: An electronic search of MEDLINE, Embase, and the Cochrane Library from 2000 to 2020 was conducted. Study selection, data extraction and quality assessment were conducted using A Measurement Tool to Assess Systematic Reviews (AMSTAR) by two independent reviewers, in duplicate.Results: The search identified 387 publications, of which 48 studies (13%) met the a priori inclusion criteria. No significant relationships were found between study quality and number of citations, journal impact factor, or publication year.Conclusion: Methodological quality for systematic reviews on the induction of labour were ranked as moderate with no significant changes in quality over the past 2 decades. Publication characteristics are not significantly associated with methodological quality, indicating that healthcare professionals should critically appraise studies before applying them to practice. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Introduction: Induction of labor is increasing. A common indication for induction of labor is late term and postterm pregnancy at 41 weeks or more. We aimed to evaluate if there are any differences regarding efficacy, safety, and women's childbirth experience between oral misoprostol and transvaginal balloon catheter for cervical ripening in women with a low‐risk singleton pregnancy and induction of labor at 41+0 to 42+0 to 1 weeks of gestation. Material and methods: In this observational study, based on data from the Swedish Postterm Induction Study (SWEPIS), a multicenter randomized controlled trial, a total of 1213 women with a low‐risk singleton pregnancy at 41 to 42 weeks of gestation were induced with oral misoprostol (n = 744) or transvaginal balloon catheter (n = 469) at 15 Swedish delivery hospitals. The primary efficacy outcome was vaginal delivery within 24 h and primary safety outcomes were neonatal and maternal composite adverse outcomes. Secondary outcomes included time to vaginal delivery and mode of delivery. Women's childbirth experience was assessed with the Childbirth Experience Questionnaire (CEQ 2.0) and visual analog scale. We present crude and adjusted mean differences and relative risks (RR) with 95% CI. Adjustment was performed for a propensity score based on delivery hospital and baseline characteristics including Bishop score. Results: Vaginal delivery within 24 h was significantly lower in the misoprostol group compared with the balloon catheter group (46.5% [346/744] vs 62.7% [294/469]; adjusted RR 0.76 95% CI 0.640.89]). Primary neonatal and maternal safety outcomes did not differ between groups (neonatal composite 3.5% [36/744] vs 3.2% [15/469]; adjusted RR 0.77 [95% CI 0.31–1.89]; maternal composite 2.3% [17/744] vs 1.9% [9/469]; adjusted RR 1.70 [95% CI 0.58–4.97]). Adjusted mean time to vaginal delivery was increased by 3.8 h (95% CI 1.3–6.2 h) in the misoprostol group. Non‐operative vaginal delivery and cesarean delivery rates did not differ. Women's childbirth experience was positive overall and similar in both groups. Conclusions: Induction of labor with oral misoprostol compared with a transvaginal balloon catheter was associated with a lower probability of vaginal delivery within 24 h and a longer time to vaginal delivery. However, primary safety outcomes, non‐operative vaginal delivery, and women's childbirth experience were similar in both groups. Therefore, both methods can be recommended in women with low‐risk postdate pregnancies. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Introduction: The aim of this study was to compare vaginal dinoprostone and mechanical methods for induction of labor (IOL) in pregnancies complicated by late fetal growth restriction. Material and methods: Multicenter, retrospective, cohort study involving six referral centers in Italy and Spain. Inclusion criteria were pregnancies complicated by late fetal growth restriction as defined by Delphi consensus criteria. The primary outcome was the occurrence of uterine tachysystole; secondary outcomes were either cesarean delivery or operative vaginal delivery for non‐reassuring fetal status, a composite score of adverse neonatal outcome and admission to neonatal intensive care unit (NICU). Univariate and multivariate logistic regression analysis was used to analyze the data. Results: A total of 571 pregnancies complicated by late fetal growth restriction undergoing IOL (391 with dinoprostone and 180 with mechanical methods) were included in the analysis. The incidence of uterine tachysystole (19.2% vs. 5.6%; p = 0.001) was higher in women undergoing IOL with dinoprostone than in those undergoing IOL with mechanical methods. Similarly, the incidence of cesarean delivery or operative delivery for non‐reassuring fetal status (25.6% vs. 17.2%; p = 0.027), composite adverse neonatal outcome (26.1% vs. 16.7%; p = 0.013) and NICU admission (16.9% vs. 5.6%; p < 0.001) was higher in women undergoing IOL with dinoprostone than in those undergoing IOL with mechanical methods. At logistic regression analysis, IOL with mechanical methods was associated with a significantly lower risk of uterine tachysystole (odds ratio 0.26, 95% confidence interval 0.13‐0.54; p < 0.001). Conclusions: In pregnancies complicated by late fetal growth restriction, IOL with mechanical methods is associated with a lower risk of uterine tachysystole, cesarean delivery or operative delivery for non‐reassuring fetal status, and adverse neonatal outcome compared with pharmacological methods. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Post-term pregnancy is associated with an increased risk of maternal complications, respiratory distress and trauma to the neonate. Amniotic membrane sweeping has been recommended as a simple procedure to promote the spontaneous onset of labour. However, despite its widespread use, there is an absence of evidence on (a) its effectiveness and (b) its optimal timing and frequency. The primary aim of the MILO Study is to inform the optimal design of a future definitive randomised trial to evaluate the effectiveness (including optimal timing and frequency) of membrane sweeping to prevent post-term pregnancy. We will also assess the acceptability and feasibility of the proposed trial interventions to clinicians and women (through focus group interviews).Methods/design: Multicentre, pragmatic, parallel-group, pilot randomised controlled trial with an embedded factorial design. Pregnant women with a live, singleton foetus ≥ 38 weeks gestation; cephalic presentation; longitudinal lie; intact membranes; English speaking and ≥ 18 years of age will be randomised in a 2:1 ratio to membrane sweep versus no membrane sweep. Women allocated randomly to a sweep will then be randomised further (factorial component) to early (from 39 weeks) versus late (from 40 weeks) sweep commencement and a single versus weekly sweep. The proposed feasibility study consists of four work packages, i.e. (1) a multicentre, pilot randomised trial; (2) a health economic analysis; (3) a qualitative study; and (4) a study within the host trial (a SWAT). Outcomes to be collected include recruitment and retention rates, compliance with protocol, randomisation and allocation processes, attrition rates and cost-effectiveness. Focus groups will be held with women and clinicians to explore the acceptability and feasibility of the proposed intervention, study procedures and perceived barriers and enablers to recruitment.Discussion: The primary aim of the MILO Study is to inform the optimal design of a future definitive randomised trial to evaluate the effectiveness (including optimal timing and frequency) of membrane sweeping to prevent post-term pregnancy. Results will inform whether and how the design of the definitive trial as originally envisaged should be delivered or adapted.Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT04307199 . Registered on 12 March 2020. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Increasingly, births around the world are started artificially using medications or other methods. This process is known as induction of labour. As it becomes more common, methods are needed to meet the different clinical needs and birth preferences of women. Induction of labour typically includes a combination of the medication dinoprostone inserted into the vagina, artificial rupture of membranes ('releasing the waters'), and synthetic oxytocin (hormone given via a drip). This paper reviews some of the methods less commonly used for induction in the UK, namely a drug called misoprostol, which can be given orally or vaginally, and 'mechanical' methods, where labour is started by stretching the cervix (neck of the womb), most commonly with a soft silicone tube with a balloon near the tip, filled with water. Low-dose oral misoprostol tablets are now commercially available in the UK. Other methods for labour induction are not reviewed in detail in this paper. The evidence suggests mechanical induction of labour (using a balloon catheter) and misoprostol are both at least as safe and effective as using the standard drug, dinoprostone. There is evidence to suggest a balloon catheter may reduce the chance of serious negative outcomes for babies when compared with dinoprostone, and that giving low-dose oral misoprostol results in fewer caesarean births. Where possible and after informed consent, the method of induction of labour should be personalised to suit the individual woman, her clinical condition, and the setting in which she is giving birth. Local contexts and resources also need to be taken into account. To date, research into women's perspectives and experiences of induction of labour have been significantly lacking., (© 2022 John Wiley & Sons Ltd.)

Introduction: Approximately every fourth labor is induced. In Finland, when labor is induced, it is commonly carried out with a catheter in the inpatient (IP) setting. However, in uncomplicated, full-term pregnancies, induction of labor (IOL) in the outpatient (OP) setting is also possible. Nevertheless, there is only a limited amount of information about the experiences of IOL in OP setting. Our study compared the experiences of catheter IOL in OP and IP settings., Material and Methods: We performed a prospective randomized study, including 113 women with uncomplicated full-term pregnancies with planned IOL. After catheter insertion, women were randomized into OP or IP settings: after dropouts, there were 53 women in the OP group and 54 in the IP. The experiences of IOL were evaluated with three sets of visual analog scale (VAS) questionnaires: the general experience questionnaire (eight questions), the concurrent induction experience questionnaire (1, 5, 9, 13 hours; nine questions) and the postpartum experience questionnaire (14 questions)., Results: Both groups had low VAS scores, indicating good experiences of IOL. Women in the OP group were less satisfied (mean VAS difference Δ = 7.8, P = .015) and more anxious (Δ = 4.8, P = .008) than were women in the IP group. In the course of the IOL, all women became less satisfied (Δ = 8.4, P = .001), had more contraction pain (Δ = 8.9, P = .020) and had a higher frequency of contractions (Δ = 9.9, P = .004) but they were more relaxed and experienced less fear (Δ = 6.9, P = .036, Δ = 5.3, P = .001, respectively). There was no interaction between group and time. According to the postpartum experience questionnaire, both groups had a similar good general experience of IOL (P = .736) but the OP group had more fear (Δ = 9.5, P = .009) and was more anxious (Δ = 9.0, P = .007). Most of the women would choose catheter IOL in a subsequent pregnancy (OP 82.6%, IP 87.0%)., Conclusions: The women in the OP setting were less satisfied and more anxious than were the women in the IP setting. However, the differences were marginal and the general experience after IOL was good. IOL in an OP setting is thus a viable option in low-risk full-term pregnancies. Therefore, when using catheter IOL, both setting options should be available., (© 2020 Nordic Federation of Societies of Obstetrics and Gynecology (NFOG). Published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd.)

The article offers information on mechanical methods of induction of labor safe and effective in the third trimester. Topics icnlude the balloon catheters reduce the risk of cesarean delivery has compared with oxytocin, and the balloon catheters demonstrated inferiority to low-dose oral misoprostol in several outcomes.