Labor induction in nulliparous women with an unfavorable cervix: double balloon catheter versus dinoprostone

Suffecool, Katarzyna; Rosenn, Barak; Kam, Stefanie; Mushi, Juliet; Foroutan, Janelle; Herrera, Kimberly

doi:10.1515/jpm-2013-0152

Cited by 30 publications

(35 citation statements)

References 11 publications

(14 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Figure summarised the identification and selection process. Of the 152 studies, nine articles were included in the systematic review and meta‐analysis . Details of the characteristics of the included individual studies are demonstrated in Table S1.…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The inclusion criteria varied across the records, some studies included only the primiparous, whereas others recruited those who were primiparous or multiparous. Several studies excluded women with twin pregnancy, pre‐eclampsia, oligohydramnios, or history of caesarean section; others did not exclude them . In addition, there were differences between studies with regard to the minimal gestational ages and maximal Bishop scores used for inclusion criteria.…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Overall, the methodological assessment of included studies was of good quality. Both random sequence generation and adequate allocation concealment were performed in four of nine studies . Two studies did not describe the method of randomisation clearly and three studies did not adequately conduct the concealed allocation.…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Blinding of participants, personnel and outcome assessment were not likely to influence the outcomes of interest. Attrition and selective reporting bias was detailed in four trials . The overall large proportion of studies with low risk of bias reflects the relatively high quality of the reporting.…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 3 more Smart Citations

Double‐balloon catheter versus prostaglandin E2 for cervical ripening and labour induction: a systematic review and meta‐analysis of randomised controlled trials

Zhu

Cui

et al. 2016

BJOG

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%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Double‐balloon catheter versus prostaglandin E2 for cervical ripening and labour induction: a systematic review and meta‐analysis of randomised controlled trials

Zhu

Cui

et al. 2016

BJOG

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The Cook Cervical Ripening Balloon was approved by the United States Food and Drug Administration in 2013 and its mechanism is identical to that of the Atad catheter . Single‐balloon (Foley) or double‐balloon (Atad or Cook) catheters are effective mechanical methods for cervical ripening . In a Cochrane meta‐analysis use of a balloon catheter (Foley or COOK) compared to prostaglandins (including misoprostol) for cervical ripening had been found to have decreased tachysystole with fetal heart rate changes .…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Double‐balloon versus single‐balloon catheter for cervical ripening and labor induction: A systematic review and meta‐analysis

Yang

Huang

Long

et al. 2017

J of Obstet and Gynaecol

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

We searched Embase, PubMed and the Cochrane Library for randomized or quasi-randomized controlled trials to compare the use of single-balloon to double-balloon catheters. The risk ratio (RR) or mean difference (MD) with a 95% confidence interval (CI) was calculated using fixed-effects or random-effects models. Four studies involving a total of 793 pregnant women were included. There were no significant differences in the rate of cesarean (RR 1.09, 95% CI 0.86, 1.38; P = 0.48), or vaginal deliveries within 24 h (RR 0.94, 95% CI 0.82, 1.09; P = 0.42), the mean time to delivery (MD 0.39, 95% CI −0.90, 1.68 h; P = 0.55) or Bishop score improvement (MD 0.62, 95%CI −0.18, 1.42; P = 0.13) between the groups. Women who received the doubleballoon catheter had a similar risk of maternal intrapartum fever and post-partum hemorrhage. Pain during ripening was only reported in one trial and was significantly higher with the double balloon, whereas pain during device insertion was measured in two trials: one reported no difference while the other reported significantly increased pain with the double balloon. The double-balloon and single-balloon (Foley) catheters had similar effectiveness and safety. The Foley catheter is significantly cheaper, widely available and accessible, has a longer history of use and remains the logical choice over the double-balloon catheter for cervical ripening.

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

Labor induction in nulliparous women with an unfavorable cervix: double balloon catheter versus dinoprostone

Abstract: Induction of labor with the double-balloon catheter in nulliparous women with an unfavorable cervix is associated with a shorter time to delivery compared to dinoprostone.

Cited by 30 publications

References 11 publications

Double‐balloon catheter versus prostaglandin E2 for cervical ripening and labour induction: a systematic review and meta‐analysis of randomised controlled trials

Double‐balloon catheter versus prostaglandin E2 for cervical ripening and labour induction: a systematic review and meta‐analysis of randomised controlled trials

Double‐balloon versus single‐balloon catheter for cervical ripening and labor induction: A systematic review and meta‐analysis

Mechanical methods for induction of labour

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About