Mifepristone vs balloon catheter for labor induction in previous cesarean: a randomized controlled trial

Sharma, Chanderdeep; Soni, Anjali; Gupta, Amit; Verma, Ashok; Verma, Suresh

doi:10.1007/s00404-017-4431-8

Cited by 14 publications

(31 citation statements)

References 18 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Previous CS done in our study for fetal distress in group A and B was 41.7% and 38.9% respectively comparable to Sharma et al 36%, Hemalatha et al 36.6%. 12,13 Previous CS done in our study for malpresentation was 30.6% and 33.3% in the two groups comparable to Sharma et al 30%, Hemalatha et al 13.3%. 12,13 In all these studies including the present study change in BS was found to be significant (Table 5).…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 85%

“…In all these studies change in BS was found to be significant after mifepristone except the study by Sharma et al probably because in this study assessment was done after 24 hours unlike other studies (48 hours) ( Table 6). 12 In the present study 36% subjects in group A and 14% subjects in group B went into labour during the ripening phase. Group B was comparable to the study by Meetei et al (who had kept Foley's for 12 hours).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 42%

“…24 hours. 12,17 In the present study in group A where mifepristone was also used along with foleys catheter, 36% subjects went in labour as compared to 14% subjects in group B, this was statistically significant (p=0.049). This was also observed in study by Acharya et al, where 14% subjects entered in active phase of labour with mifepristone only and Sharma et al where 56% women had labour onset within 48 hours of mifepristone administration.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 49%

“…24 hours. 12 In group A combination of mifepristone with foley's catheter resulted in a shorter IDI. This could not be compared as there is no such study found in literature.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 94%

“…This was also observed in study by Acharya et al, where 14% subjects entered in active phase of labour with mifepristone only and Sharma et al where 56% women had labour onset within 48 hours of mifepristone administration. 15,12 Thus, it is concluded that in addition to Foleys catheter prior ripening with mifepristone had better success rate in IOL.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 96%

See 4 more Smart Citations

Comparison of the efficacy, safety, acceptability and fetomaternal outcomes of combination of mifepristone and foley’s catheter with foley’s catheter alone in induction of labour in term pregnancies with previous lower segment caesarean section

Thind¹,

Sood²,

Sood³

et al. 2020

Int J Reprod Contracept Obstet Gynecol

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background: Objective of the study was to compare the efficacy, safety, acceptability, fetomaternal outcomes of combination of mifepristone and Foley’s catheter with Foley’s catheter alone in induction of labor in term pregnancies with previous Lower segment caesarean section (LSCS).Methods: This was a prospective study of 36 women induced with mifepristone and foley’s catheter and 36 women induced with foley’s catheter alone at 37 weeks to 41+6 weeks with previous LSCS.Results: Mean bishop score on admission in combined group (2.44) was comparable with that of foley’s alone group (2.91, p=0.888). Mean Bishop score (BS) after foley’s expulsion in group A and group B was 7.46 and 6.33 respectively, which was statistically significant (p<0.001). In group A 69.5% of women delivered vaginally compared to 52.2% in group B which was comparable (p=0.230). Mean induction to delivery interval was significantly short in combination group (15.5±1.3 hours versus 20.8±1.07 hours, p=0.003). 50% women in group A required oxytocin for induction/ augmentation of labour as compared to 77.8% in group B (p=0.02). Failed induction was statistically higher in group B (p<0.05). No difference was found with regards scar dehiscence, scar rupture, Postpartum hemorrhage (PPH), wound infection, puerperal pyrexia, Meconium stained liquor (MSL), fetal distress, mean birth weight, 1 and 5 minutes Appearance, pulse, grimace, activity, and respiration (APGAR) score, neonatal outcome, hospital stay.Conclusions: Priming with mifepristone before insertion of foley’s catheter results in significant change in BS signifying that combination promotes early cervical ripening as compared to foley’s catheter alone. Mifepristone plays significant role in cervical ripening, reduces induction to delivery interval, oxytocin requirement and failed induction.

show abstract

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 85%

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 42%

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 49%

“…24 hours. 12 In group A combination of mifepristone with foley's catheter resulted in a shorter IDI. This could not be compared as there is no such study found in literature.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 94%

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 96%

See 3 more Smart Citations

Comparison of the efficacy, safety, acceptability and fetomaternal outcomes of combination of mifepristone and foley’s catheter with foley’s catheter alone in induction of labour in term pregnancies with previous lower segment caesarean section

Thind¹,

Sood²,

Sood³

et al. 2020

Int J Reprod Contracept Obstet Gynecol

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

Mifepristone vs balloon catheter for labor induction in previous cesarean: a randomized controlled trial

Abstract: Clinical Trials Registry-India, www.ctri.nic.in , CTRI/2012/05/003634.

Cited by 14 publications

References 18 publications

Comparison of the efficacy, safety, acceptability and fetomaternal outcomes of combination of mifepristone and foley’s catheter with foley’s catheter alone in induction of labour in term pregnancies with previous lower segment caesarean section

Comparison of the efficacy, safety, acceptability and fetomaternal outcomes of combination of mifepristone and foley’s catheter with foley’s catheter alone in induction of labour in term pregnancies with previous lower segment caesarean section

Mechanical methods for induction of labour

Mechanical methods for induction of labour

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About