Non-hormonal methods for induction of labour

Lim, Chi Eung Danforn; Ng, Rachel Wai Chung; Xu, Ke

doi:10.1097/gco.0000000000000027

Cited by 19 publications

(14 citation statements)

References 22 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The Atad catheter was the original double‐balloon variation of the device, developed in the 1990s . 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 .…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…5 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. 6 Single-balloon (Foley) or double-balloon (Atad or Cook) catheters are effective mechanical methods for cervical ripening. [7][8][9][10] 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%

See 1 more Smart Citation

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

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

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

show abstract

“…The technique was first described for the induction of labour in 1967, 5 and is more cost-effective compared with other mechanical methods. 6 Pharmacological methods include the use of prostaglandins, oxytocin, estrogens, and mifepristone. Prostaglandins, which are cyclopentane derivatives of arachadonic acid, are widely used in obstetrics and gynaecology.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

A systematic review and network meta‐analysis comparing the use of Foley catheters, misoprostol, and dinoprostone for cervical ripening in the induction of labour

Chen

Xue

Peprah

et al. 2015

BJOG

178

138

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background Various methods are used for cervical ripening during the induction of labour. It is still debatable which of these methods of treatment is optimal.Objective To compare treatment techniques for cervical ripening in the induction of labour.Search strategy Medline, Embase, and the Cochrane Collaboration databases were searched using the keywords 'cervical ripening', 'labour induced', 'misoprostol', 'dinoprostone', and 'Foley catheter'.Selection criteria Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of cervical ripening during the induction of labour, evaluating rates of failure to achieve vaginal delivery within 24 hours, incidence of uterine hyperstimulation with fetal heart rate (FHR) changes, and rates of caesarean section. Studies including women with prelabour rupture of membranes were excluded.Data collection and analysis Outcome data were collected and analysed through pairwise meta-analysis and network metaanalysis within a Bayesian framework.Main results A total of 96 RCTs (17 387 women) were included in the meta-analysis. Vaginal misoprostol was the most effective cervical ripening method to achieve vaginal delivery within 24 hours, but had the highest incidence of uterine hyperstimulation with FHR changes. The use of a Foley catheter to induce labour was associated with the lowest rate of uterine hyperstimulation accompanied by FHR changes. The caesarean section rate was lowest using oral misoprostol for the induction of labour.Author's conclusions No method of labour induction demonstrated overall superiority when considering all three clinical outcomes. Decisions regarding the choice of induction method will depend upon the relative preference for effecting vaginal delivery within 24 hours, minimising the incidence of uterine hyperstimulation with adverse FHR changes and avoiding caesarean section.Keywords Cervical ripening, dinoprostone, Foley catheter, induction of labour, misoprostol.Tweetable abstract Oral misoprostol for the induction of labour is safer than vaginal misoprostol and has the lowest rate of caesarean section.

show abstract

“…It was o cially recommended by the WHO guidelines for induced labor in 2011. In 2013, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) o cially approved the Cook cervical balloon and has declared that the COOK double cervical balloon has the same mechanism and e cacy with the Atad double balloon (10).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Comparison Between The Efficacy and Safety of The Single- (Love Baby) and Double-Balloon Catheters for Cervical Ripening and Labor Induction

Wang¹,

Liú²,

Li³

2020

Preprint

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background: Induced labor is а progressively common obstetric procedure, Whether the specifically designed double-balloon catheter is better than the single-balloon device in terms of efficacy, efficiency and safety yet remains controversial. Methods: In our study We have performed a Retrospective study in which 220 patients with immature cervix were admitted for induction of labor either through single cervix balloon catheter (love-baby) (SBC) or double cervix balloon catheter (DBC). The comparison showed that the cervical bishop score was slightly higher for the SBC after removal or expulsion of the balloon. Results:This was a proof that SBC demonstrates slightly better efficacy for cervical ripening with a shorter time from balloon placement to spontaneous vaginal delivery than DBC. No significant differences in the comparison between SBC and DBC following other parameters like spontaneous vaginal delivery, the initiate uterine contractions rate, the number of patients that needed oxytocin, the balloon spontaneous expulsion rate and others have been detected. Interestingly, SCB showed a higher incidence in adverse reactions leading to taking out the balloon halfway. The multi-factor analysis showed that the spontaneous labor was a risk factor for the cesarean section in SBC patients.Conclusion: These results prove that the new Chinese single balloon, also called love baby, can effectively induce labor as it may be highly recommendable for cervical ripening than DBC, though it could be with a higher incidence of adverse reactions causing the balloon to be pulled out halfway.

show abstract

Non-hormonal methods for induction of labour

Abstract: Many non-hormonal methods for labour induction still require further evidence to support their use within the clinical setting. Balloon catheter seems to be a more widely accepted non-hormonal method that has been supported by various literatures.

Cited by 19 publications

References 22 publications

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

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

A systematic review and network meta‐analysis comparing the use of Foley catheters, misoprostol, and dinoprostone for cervical ripening in the induction of labour

Comparison Between The Efficacy and Safety of The Single- (Love Baby) and Double-Balloon Catheters for Cervical Ripening and Labor Induction

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About