Outpatient Foley catheter versus inpatient prostaglandin E2 gel for induction of labour: a randomised trial

被引:67
|
作者
Henry, Amanda [1 ,2 ]
Madan, Arushi [1 ]
Reid, Rachel [1 ,3 ]
Tracy, Sally K. [1 ,3 ]
Austin, Kathryn [2 ]
Welsh, Alec [1 ,2 ]
Challis, Daniel [1 ,2 ]
机构
[1] Univ New S Wales, Sch Womens & Childrens Hlth, Kensington, NSW 2033, Australia
[2] Royal Hosp Women, Dept Maternal Fetal Med, Sydney, NSW, Australia
[3] Univ Sydney, Midwifery & Womens Hlth Res Unit, Sydney, NSW 2006, Australia
来源
关键词
Induction of labour; Mechanical ripening; Prostaglandin; Foley catheter; Randomised controlled trial; Unfavourable cervix;
D O I
10.1186/1471-2393-13-25
中图分类号
R71 [妇产科学];
学科分类号
100211 ;
摘要
Background: Induction of labour (IOL) is one of the commonest obstetric interventions, with significant impact on both the individual woman and health service delivery. Outpatient IOL is an attractive option to reduce these impacts. To date there is little data comparing outpatient and inpatient IOL methods, and potential safety concerns (hyperstimulation) if prostaglandins, the standard inpatient IOL medications, are used in the outpatient setting. The purpose of this study was to assess feasibility, clinical effectiveness and patient acceptability of outpatient Foley catheter (OPC) vs. inpatient vaginal PGE2 (IP) for induction of labour (IOL) at term. Methods: Women with an unfavourable cervix requiring IOL at term (N = 101) were randomised to outpatient care using Foley catheter (OPC, n = 50) or inpatient care using vaginal PGE2 (IP, n = 51). OPC group had Foley catheter inserted and were discharged overnight following a reassuring cardiotocograph. IP group received 2 mg/1 mg vaginal PGE2 if nulliparous or 1 mg/1 mg if multiparous. Main outcome measures were inpatient stay (prior to birth, in Birthing Unit, total), mode of birth, induction to delivery interval, adverse reactions and patient satisfaction. Results: OPC group had shorter hospital stay prior to birth (21.3 vs. 32.4 hrs, p < .001), IP were more likely to achieve vaginal birth within 12 hours of presenting to Birthing Unit (53% vs. 28%, p = .01). Vaginal birth rates (66% OPC Vs. 71% IP), total induction to delivery time (33.5 hrs vs. 31.3 hrs) and total inpatient times (96 hrs OPC Vs. 105 hrs IP) were similar. OPC group felt less pain (significant discomfort 26% Vs 58%, p = .003), and had more sleep (5.8 Vs 3.4 hours, p < .001), during cervical preparation, but were more likely to require oxytocin IOL (88 Vs 59%, p = .001). Conclusions: OPC was feasible and acceptable for IOL of women with an unfavourable cervix at term compared to IP, however did not show a statistically significant reduction in total inpatient stay and was associated with increased oxytocin IOL.
引用
收藏
页数:11
相关论文
共 50 条
  • [21] The Transcervical Foley Catheter Versus the Vaginal Prostaglandin E-2 Gel in the Induction of Labour in a Previous One Caesarean Section - A Clinical Study
    Ziyauddin, Farah
    Hakim, Seema
    Beriwal, Sridevi
    JOURNAL OF CLINICAL AND DIAGNOSTIC RESEARCH, 2013, 7 (01) : 140 - 143
  • [22] Patient satisfaction during outpatient versus inpatient Foley catheter induction of labor
    Crosland, Adam
    Shrivastava, Vineet
    Naidoo, Devesh
    AMERICAN JOURNAL OF OBSTETRICS AND GYNECOLOGY, 2022, 226 (01) : S680 - S680
  • [23] A prospective, randomized comparison of Foley catheter insertion versus intracervical prostaglandin E2 gel for preinduction cervical ripening
    Sciscione, AC
    McCullough, H
    Manley, JS
    Shlossman, PA
    Pollock, M
    Colmorgen, GHC
    AMERICAN JOURNAL OF OBSTETRICS AND GYNECOLOGY, 1999, 180 (01) : 55 - 59
  • [24] Comparison of extraamniotic Foley catheter and intracervical prostaglandin E2 gel for preinduction cervical ripening
    Dalui, R
    Suri, V
    Ray, P
    Gupta, I
    ACTA OBSTETRICIA ET GYNECOLOGICA SCANDINAVICA, 2005, 84 (04) : 362 - 367
  • [25] Satisfaction survey: outpatient Foley catheter versus inpatient Prostin gel for cervical ripening
    Henry, A.
    Reid, R.
    Madan, A.
    Tracy, S.
    Sharpe, V
    Welsh, A.
    Challis, D.
    AUSTRALIAN & NEW ZEALAND JOURNAL OF OBSTETRICS & GYNAECOLOGY, 2011, 51 (05): : 474 - 474
  • [26] Cost-effectiveness of induction of labor at term with a Foley catheter compared to prostaglandin E2 gel (based on the PROBAAT trial; registration NTR 1646)
    van Baaren, Gert-Jan
    Jozwiak, Marta
    Rengerink, Katrien Oude
    Benthem, Marjan
    Dijksterhuis, Marja G. K.
    van Huizen, Marloes E.
    van der Salm, Paulien C. M.
    Schuitemaker, Nico W. E.
    Papatsonis, Dimitri N. M.
    Perquin, Denise A. M.
    Porath, Martina
    van der Post, Joris A. M.
    Rijnders, Robert J. P.
    Scheepers, Hubertina C. J.
    Spaanderman, Marc
    van Pampus, Marielle G.
    De Leeuw, Jan Willem
    Mol, Ben W. J.
    Bloemenkamp, Kitty W. M.
    AMERICAN JOURNAL OF OBSTETRICS AND GYNECOLOGY, 2012, 206 (01) : S139 - S140
  • [27] Induction of labour with intravaginal misoprostol and prostaglandin E2 gel:: a comparative study
    Nanda, Smiti
    Singhal, Savita Rani
    Papneja, Akta
    TROPICAL DOCTOR, 2007, 37 (01) : 21 - 24
  • [28] Foley catheter or prostaglandin E2 inserts for induction of labour at term: an open-label randomized controlled trial (PROBAAT-P trial) and systematic review of literature
    Jozwiak, Marta
    Rengerink, Katrien Oude
    Ten Eikelder, Mieke L. G.
    van Pampus, Maria G.
    Dijksterhuis, Marja G. K.
    de Graaf, Irene M.
    van der Post, Joris A. M.
    van der Salm, Paulien
    Scheepers, Hubertina C. J.
    Schuitemaker, Nico
    de Leeuwi, Jan Willem
    Mol, Ben W. J.
    Bloemenkamp, Kitty W. M.
    EUROPEAN JOURNAL OF OBSTETRICS & GYNECOLOGY AND REPRODUCTIVE BIOLOGY, 2013, 170 (01) : 137 - 145
  • [29] Outpatient Versus Inpatient Catheter Balloon Cervical Ripening - A Randomised Trial
    Chen, V.
    Sheehan, P.
    AUSTRALIAN & NEW ZEALAND JOURNAL OF OBSTETRICS & GYNAECOLOGY, 2019, 59 : 39 - 40
  • [30] PREINDUCTION CERVICAL RIPENING - A COMPARISON OF INTRACERVICAL PROSTAGLANDIN E(2) GEL VERSUS THE FOLEY CATHETER
    ONGE, RDS
    CONNORS, GT
    AMERICAN JOURNAL OF OBSTETRICS AND GYNECOLOGY, 1995, 172 (02) : 687 - 690