Prostaglandin insert dinoprostone versus trans-cervical balloon catheter for outpatient labour induction: a randomised controlled trial of feasibility (PROBIT-F)

被引:9
|
作者
Bhide, Amarnath [1 ,2 ,3 ]
Sedgwick, Philip [2 ]
Barrett, Barbara [4 ]
Cupples, Georgina [1 ]
Coates, Rose [5 ]
Goode, Rosie [6 ]
Linton, Sandra [1 ]
McCourt, Christine [5 ]
机构
[1] St Georges Univ Hosp Fdn Trust, Fetal Med Unit, Blackshaw Rd, London SW17 0QT, England
[2] St Georges Univ London, London, England
[3] UiT Arctic Univ Norway, Tromso, Norway
[4] Kings Clin Trials Unit, London, England
[5] City Univ London, London, England
[6] St Georges Univ Hosp Fdn Trust, Matern Voices Partnership Chair, London, England
基金
美国国家卫生研究院;
关键词
Labour; induced; Cervical ripening; Randomised controlled trial; Cook cervical ripening balloon; Outpatients; feasibility;
D O I
10.1186/s40814-020-00661-7
中图分类号
R-3 [医学研究方法]; R3 [基础医学];
学科分类号
1001 ;
摘要
BackgroundThe aim was to assess the feasibility of conducting a randomised controlled trial (RCT) of induction of labour comparing use of two methods in the outpatient setting.MethodsAn open-label feasibility RCT was conducted in two UK maternity units from October 2017 to March 2019. Women aged >= 16years, undergoing induction of labour (IOL) at term, with intact membranes and deemed suitable for outpatient IOL according to local guidelines were considered eligible. They were randomised to cervical ripening balloon catheter (CRB) or vaginal dinoprostone (Propess). The participants completed a questionnaire and a sub-group underwent detailed interview. Service use and cost data were collected via the Adult Service Use Schedule (AD-SUS). Women who declined to participate were requested to complete a decliners' questionnaire.ResultsDuring the study period, 274 eligible women were identified. Two hundred thirty (83.9%) were approached for participation of whom 84/230 (36.5%) agreed and 146 did not. Of these, 38 were randomised to Propess (n = 20) and CRB (n = 18). Decliner data were collected for 93 women. The reasons for declining were declining IOL (n = 22), preference for inpatient IOL (n = 22) and preference for a specific method, Propess (n = 19). The intended sample size of 120 was not reached due to restrictive criteria for suitability for outpatient IOL, participant preference for Propess and shortage of research staff.The intervention as randomised was received by 29/38 (76%) women. Spontaneous vaginal delivery was observed in 9/20 (45%) women in the dinoprostone group and 11/18 (61%) women in the CRB group. Severe maternal adverse events were recorded in one woman in each group. All babies were born with good condition and all except one (37/38, 97.4%) remained with the mother after delivery. No deaths were recorded. -21% of women in the dinoprostone group were re-admitted prior to diagnosis of active labour compared to 12% in the CRB group.ConclusionsA third of the approached eligible women agreed for randomisation. An RCT is not feasible in the current service context. Modifications to the eligibility criteria for outpatient IOL, better information provision and round the clock availability of research staff would be needed to reach sufficient numbers.Trial registrationNCT03199820. Registered on June 27, 2017
引用
收藏
页数:9
相关论文
共 48 条
  • [1] Prostaglandin insert dinoprostone versus trans-cervical balloon catheter for outpatient labour induction: a randomised controlled trial of feasibility (PROBIT-F)
    Amarnath Bhide
    Philip Sedgwick
    Barbara Barrett
    Georgina Cupples
    Rose Coates
    Rosie Goode
    Sandra Linton
    Christine McCourt
    Pilot and Feasibility Studies, 6
  • [2] Outpatient balloon catheter vs inpatient prostaglandin for induction of labour (OBLIGE): a randomised controlled trial
    Wise, Michelle R.
    Marriott, Joy
    Battin, Malcolm
    Thompson, John M. D.
    Stitely, Michael
    Sadler, Lynn
    TRIALS, 2020, 21 (01)
  • [3] Outpatient balloon catheter vs inpatient prostaglandin for induction of labour (OBLIGE): a randomised controlled trial
    Michelle R. Wise
    Joy Marriott
    Malcolm Battin
    John M. D. Thompson
    Michael Stitely
    Lynn Sadler
    Trials, 21
  • [4] Induction of labour using prostaglandin E2 as an inpatient versus balloon catheter as an outpatient: a multicentre randomised controlled trial
    Beckmann, M.
    Gibbons, K.
    Flenady, V
    Kumar, S.
    BJOG-AN INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF OBSTETRICS AND GYNAECOLOGY, 2020, 127 (05) : 571 - 579
  • [5] A randomised controlled trial of intravaginal dinoprostone, intravaginal misoprostol and transcervical balloon catheter for labour induction
    Prager, M.
    Eneroth-Grimfors, E.
    Edlund, M.
    Marions, L.
    BJOG-AN INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF OBSTETRICS AND GYNAECOLOGY, 2008, 115 (11) : 1443 - 1450
  • [6] Double-balloon catheter versus dinoprostone insert for labour induction: a meta-analysis
    Liu, Yi-Ran
    Pu, Cai-Xiu
    Wang, Xiao-Yan
    Wang, Xue-Yan
    ARCHIVES OF GYNECOLOGY AND OBSTETRICS, 2019, 299 (01) : 7 - 12
  • [7] Double-balloon catheter versus dinoprostone insert for labour induction: a meta-analysis
    Yi-Ran Liu
    Cai-Xiu Pu
    Xiao-Yan Wang
    Xue-Yan Wang
    Archives of Gynecology and Obstetrics, 2019, 299 : 7 - 12
  • [8] Randomised trial of synthetic osmotic cervical dilator versus dinoprostone for labour induction
    Gupta, Janesh
    Maher, Alisha
    Stubbs, Clive
    Brocklehurst, Peter
    Daniels, Jane
    Hardy, Pollyanna
    BJOG-AN INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF OBSTETRICS AND GYNAECOLOGY, 2022, 129 : 73 - 74
  • [9] Prospective multi-centre randomised trial comparing induction of labour with a double-balloon catheter versus dinoprostone
    Lokkegaard, E.
    Lundstrom, M.
    Kjaer, M. M.
    Christensen, I. J.
    Pedersen, H. B.
    Nyholm, H.
    JOURNAL OF OBSTETRICS AND GYNAECOLOGY, 2015, 35 (08) : 797 - 802
  • [10] 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