Concurrent use of <scp>F</scp>oley catheter and misoprostol for induction of labor: A randomized clinical trial of efficacy and safety

Lanka, Sreelakshmi; Surapaneni, Tarakeswari; Nirmalan, Praveen K

doi:10.1111/jog.12396

Cited by 26 publications

(38 citation statements)

References 12 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The trial [26] considered to be of low quality had four criteria judged to be at risk for important bias. Results from a meta‐analysis of the remaining six high‐quality studies [9–12,24,25] showed a significant reduction in the mean time to delivery in the combination group compared with the misoprostol group (mean difference –2.36 hours, 95% CI –4.07 to –0.66; P = 0.007) (Fig. 3).…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Four [15–18] were excluded because the treatment allocation was not randomized, one [19] was excluded because the full text could not be obtained, two [20,21] were excluded because they involved induction of labor in pregnancies with a nonviable fetus, and one [22] was excluded because misoprostol was not used concurrently with a Foley catheter in the combination treatment group. Therefore, eight eligible studies [9–12,23–26] with a total of 1153 patients were included in the present meta‐analysis (Table 1).…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Among the included studies, seven [9–12,23–25] had a low risk of random sequence generation and allocation concealment and were judged to be of high quality (Table 2). One study [26] was judged to be of low quality.…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Five studies reported the outcome of tachysystole with FHR changes [9,10,12,24,25]. Among them, four studies [9,10,12,25] defined tachysystole with FHR changes as six or more contractions in two successive 10‐minute intervals with non‐reassuring fetal heart rate changes. The other study [24] used a definition of “more than five uterine contractions in 5 minutes with heart rate decelerations requiring terbutaline use.”…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…We hypothesized that the combination of Foley catheter and misoprostol used simultaneously would achieve better results because the combined use of cervical ripening agents with differing mechanisms of action might have a synergistic effect. Several studies have compared the combination of Foley catheter and misoprostol with misoprostol alone for cervical ripening [9–12]. However, the results have been inconsistent and some studies were underpowered to detect a difference between the groups.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 4 more Smart Citations

Meta‐analysis of Foley catheter plus misoprostol versus misoprostol alone for cervical ripening

Chen

Xue

Gaudet

et al. 2015

Intl J Gynecology & Obste

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 3 more Smart Citations

Meta‐analysis of Foley catheter plus misoprostol versus misoprostol alone for cervical ripening

Chen

Xue

Gaudet

et al. 2015

Intl J Gynecology & Obste

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

Mechanical methods for induction of labour

Vaan

Eikelder

Jozwiak

et al. 2019

Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews

100

117

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

BackgroundMechanical methods were the first methods developed to ripen the cervix and induce labour. During recent decades they have been substituted by pharmacological methods. Potential advantages of mechanical methods, compared with pharmacological methods may include reduction in side effects that could improve neonatal outcomes. This is an update of a review first published in 2001, last updated in 2012.ObjectivesTo determine the effectiveness and safety of mechanical methods for third trimester (> 24 weeks' gestation) induction of labour in comparison with prostaglandin E2 (PGE2) (vaginal and intracervical), low‐dose misoprostol (oral and vaginal), amniotomy or oxytocin.Search methodsFor this update, we searched Cochrane Pregnancy and Childbirth’s Trials Register, , the WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (), and reference lists of retrieved studies (9 January 2018). We updated the search in March 2019 and added the search results to the awaiting classification section of the review.Selection criteriaClinical trials comparing mechanical methods used for third trimester cervical ripening or labour induction with pharmacological methods.Mechanical methods include: (1) the introduction of a catheter through the cervix into the extra‐amniotic space with balloon insufflation; (2) introduction of laminaria tents, or their synthetic equivalent (Dilapan), into the cervical canal; (3) use of a catheter to inject fluid into the extra‐amniotic space (EASI).This review includes the following comparisons: (1) specific mechanical methods (balloon catheter, laminaria tents or EASI) compared with prostaglandins (different types, different routes) or with oxytocin; (2) single balloon compared to a double balloon; (3) addition of prostaglandins or oxytocin to mechanical methods compared with prostaglandins or oxytocin alone.Data collection and analysisTwo review authors independently assessed trials for inclusion and assessed risk of bias. Two review authors independently extracted data and assessed the quality of the evidence using the GRADE approach.Main resultsThis review update includes a total of 113 trials (22,373 women) contributing data to 21 comparisons. Risk of bias of trials varied. Overall, the evidence was graded from very‐low to moderate quality. All evidence was downgraded for lack of blinding and, for many comparisons, the effect estimates were too imprecise to make a valid judgement.Balloon versus vaginal PGE2: there may be little or no difference in vaginal deliveries not achieved within 24 hours (average risk ratio (RR) 1.01, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.82 to 1.26; 7 studies; 1685 women; I² = 79%; low‐quality evidence) and there probably is little or no difference in caesarean sections (RR 1.00, 95% CI 0.92 to 1.09; 28 studies; 6619 women; moderate‐quality evidence) between induction of labour with a balloon catheter and vaginal PGE2. A balloon catheter probably reduces the risk of uterine hyperstimulation with fetal heart rate (FHR) changes (RR 0.35, 95% CI 0.18 to 0.67; 6 studies; 1966 ...

show abstract

Mechanical methods for induction of labour

Vaan

Eikelder

Jozwiak

et al. 2023

Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

Concurrent use of Foley catheter and misoprostol for induction of labor: A randomized clinical trial of efficacy and safety

Abstract: The addition of Foley catheter to misoprostol did not cause any statistically significant benefit in reducing the induction-to-delivery time. However, it reduced the incidence of uterine hyperstimulation and meconium-stained liquor.

Cited by 26 publications

References 12 publications

Meta‐analysis of Foley catheter plus misoprostol versus misoprostol alone for cervical ripening

Meta‐analysis of Foley catheter plus misoprostol versus misoprostol alone for cervical ripening

Mechanical methods for induction of labour

Mechanical methods for induction of labour

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About