The objective of the study was to test the hypothesis that Dilapan-S is not inferior to the Foley balloon for preinduction cervical ripening at term. STUDY DESIGN: Pregnant women !37 weeks scheduled for induction with unfavorable cervix (3 cm dilated and 60% effaced) were randomly assigned to 12 hours of either Foley balloon inflated with 60 mL saline or Dilapan-S for cervical ripening. If the cervix remained unfavorable, then 1 more round of the assigned dilator was used. Management following ripening was left up to the clinical providers. The primary outcome was vaginal delivery. A satisfaction survey was also obtained after the preinduction period. Sample size was based on a noninferiority margin of 10%, 90% power, and an estimated frequency of vaginal delivery of 71% in Foley balloon and 76% in Dilapan-S. RESULTS: From November 2016 through February 2018, 419 women were randomized (209 to Foley balloon; 210 to Dilapan-S). In the intent-totreat analysis, vaginal delivery was more common in Dilapan-S vs Foley balloon (81.3% vs 76.1%), with an absolute difference with respect to the Foley balloon of 5.2% (95% confidence interval, e2.7% to 13.0%) indicating noninferiority for the prespecified margin. The difference was not large enough to show superiority. Noninferiority was confirmed in the per-protocol population (n ¼ 204 in the Foley balloon, n ¼ 188 in Dilapan-S), supporting the robustness of the results. Secondary outcomes were not different between groups, except for a longer time the device remained in place in Dilapan-S compared with the Foley balloon. Maternal and neonatal adverse events were not significantly different between groups. A priori interaction analyses showed no difference in the effect on vaginal delivery by cervical dilation at randomization, parity, or body mass index >30 kg/m 2. Patients with Dilapan-S were more satisfied than patients with the Foley balloon as far as sleep (P ¼ .01), relaxing time (P ¼ .001), and performance of desired daily activities (P ¼ .001). CONCLUSION: Dilapan-S is not inferior to the Foley balloon for preinduction cervical ripening at term. Advantages of Dilapan-S over Foley include Food and Drug Administration approval, safe profile, no protrusion from the introitus, no need to keep under tension, and better patient satisfaction.
Background Microbial invasion of the intraamniotic cavity and intraamniotic inflammation are factors associated with spontaneous preterm birth. Understanding the route and kinetics of infection, sites of colonization, and mechanisms of host inflammatory response is critical to reducing preterm birth risk. Objectives This study developed an animal model of ascending infection and preterm birth with live bacteria (E. coli) in pregnant CD-1 mice with the goal of better understanding the process of microbial invasion of the intraamniotic cavity and intraamniotic inflammation. Study design Multiple experiments were conducted in this study. To determine the dose of E. coli required to induce preterm birth, CD-1 mice were injected vaginally with four different doses of E. coli (103, 106, 1010, or 1011 colony forming units [CFU]) in 40 μL of nutrient broth or broth alone (control) on an embryonic day (E)15. Preterm birth (defined as delivery before E18.5) was monitored using live video. E. coli ascent kinetics were measured by staining the E. coli with lipophilic tracer DiD for visualization through intact tissue with an in vivo imaging system (IVIS) after inoculation. The E. coli were also directly visualized in reproductive tissues by staining the bacteria with carboxyfluorescein succinimidyl ester (CFSE) prior to administration and via immunohistochemistry (IHC) by staining tissues with anti-E. coli antibody. Each pup’s amniotic fluid was cultured separately to determine the extent of microbial invasion of the intraamniotic cavity at different time points. Intraamniotic inflammation resulting from E. coli invasion was assessed with IHC for inflammatory markers (TLR-4, P-NF-κB) and neutrophil marker (Ly-6G) for chorioamnionitis at 6- and 24-h post-inoculation. Results Vaginally administered E. coli resulted in preterm birth in a dose-dependent manner with higher doses causing earlier births. In ex vivo imaging and IHC detected uterine horns proximal to the cervix had increased E. coli compared to the distal uterine horns. E. coli were detected in the uterus, fetal membranes (FM), and placenta in a time-dependent manner with 6 hr having increased intensity of E. coli positive signals in pups near the cervix and in all pups at 24 hr. Similarly, E. coli grew from the cultures of amniotic fluid collected nearest to the cervix, but not from the more distal samples at 6 hr post-inoculation. At 24 hr, all amniotic fluid cultures regardless of distance from the cervix, were positive for E. coli. TLR-4 and P-NF-κB signals were more intense in the tissues where E. coli was present (placenta, FM and uterus), displaying a similar trend toward increased signal in proximal gestational sacs compared to distal at 6 hr. Ly-6G+ cells, used to confirm chorioamnionitis, were increased at 24 hr compared to 6 hr post-inoculation and control. Conclusion We report the development of mouse model of ascending infection and the associated inflammation of preterm birth. Clinically, these models can help to understand mechanisms of infection associated preterm birth, determine targets for intervention, or identify potential biomarkers that can predict a high-risk pregnancy status early in pregnancy.
OBJECTIVE: To test the hypothesis that digital placement of a balloon catheter is not inferior to the speculum method in terms of rate of maternal infection. METHODS: In an open-label noninferiority randomized trial, pregnant women who were undergoing induction of labor with unfavorable cervix (less than 3 cm dilated and less than 60% effaced) were randomly assigned to balloon catheter that was placed either digitally or using a sterile speculum. The primary outcome was a composite of maternal infection, defined by occurrence of fever (temperature 38°C or higher), chorioamnionitis, or endometritis (diagnoses were made by the managing obstetric physician or midwife). Prespecified secondary outcomes included outcomes in the primary composite, cesarean delivery rates, and maternal and neonatal outcomes. A patient satisfaction survey was also obtained. On the basis of a noninferiority margin of 10% and an expected primary outcome frequency of 10%, a sample size of 372 women was needed (90% power to confirm noninferiority with 90% protocol adherence). RESULTS: From February 2018 through February 2019, 372 women were randomized (185 digital placement, 187 sterile speculum). Baseline characteristics were similar between groups. The composite maternal infection rate was not different between groups (digital placement arm: 15.7% vs speculum arm: 12.8%), with an absolute difference with respect to the sterile speculum arm of 2.8% (95% CI −4.3 to 9.9%), indicating noninferiority for the prespecified margin. Secondary outcomes were not different between groups, except for a higher need for a second balloon catheter in the sterile speculum arm. Maternal and neonatal adverse events were not different between groups. Irrespective of method of placement, women were equally satisfied with the explanation of the method before placement, anxiety regarding the procedure, and pain during placement. More women in the sterile speculum group would choose the digital placement method for the subsequent pregnancy (37.6% vs 25.7%; P=.02.) CONCLUSION: Digital placement of a balloon catheter for preinduction cervical ripening is noninferior to the sterile speculum method, in terms of maternal infection. Women in the sterile speculum group more frequently required a second round of the mechanical dilator. The blind digital approach is a reasonable option for balloon placement for cervical ripening. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT03450408.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
hi@scite.ai
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.