Combined Foley's catheter with vaginal misoprostol for pre-induction cervical ripening: A randomised controlled trial

Aduloju, Olusola Peter; Akintayo, Akinyemi A.; Adanikin, Abiodun Idowu; Ade-Ojo, Idowu Pius

doi:10.1111/ajo.12489

Cited by 25 publications

(39 citation statements)

References 20 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Yet, we observed this rate to be relatively higher in the primigravida group (40.58% vs. 16.13%) and in the group with concomitant preeclampsia or diabetes. However, other authors report the caesarean section rate after pre-induction with MVI to be even lower -from 22.9% to 27.1% [19,24]. Similarly to other studies, we report the risk of intrauterine fetal hypoxia to be the most common indication for a caesarean section [3,15,24].…”

supporting

confidence: 85%

“…Usually, the most common indications for labor induction are pregnancies beyond term, diabetes and preeclampsia [1,2,22,24]. Similarly, the most common indications during this study were term pregnancies complicated with gestational diabetes and continuous pregnancies past 41 weeks.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 55%

“…Despite the confirmed effectiveness of misoprostol in labor pre-induction, there considerations regarding risk of causing tachysystole, hyperstimulation, meconium-stained fluids or cardiotocographic abnormalities [8,17,18,[22][23][24]29]. In our study we recorded only 2% of cases with tachysystoly, same for hyperstimulation.…”

mentioning

confidence: 63%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Obstetric outcomes of pre-induction of labor with a 200 μg misoprostol vaginal insert

et al. 2017

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Objectives: Labor induction is indicated in 20% to 40% of pregnancies. Over half of pregnancies qualified for the induction of labor require stimulation of the cervix to ripen. The drug used increasingly more often in pre-induction is the PGE-1 prostaglandin analog -misoprostol 200 μg. Material and methods:The study includes a total of 100 patients qualified for labor pre-induction with Misodel® (misoprostol 200 μg vaginal insert). The study group comprises two subgroups: primigravidas and multiparas. Assessments included: indications for labor pre-induction, time from Misodel application to delivery, caesarean section rate and indications, duration of first and second stage of labor, rate of vaginal deliveries, need for oxytocin or fenoterol administration side effects and newborn condition. Results:The most common indication for labor induction was gestational diabetes and pregnancy past term. The average time to vaginal delivery was 14 h 45 min, time to the onset of active phase of labor -11 h 45 min, time to membranes' rupture -15 h, time to vaginal delivery -14 h 18 min. The times of multiparas were significantly shorter. The rate of vaginal deliveries within 12 hours amounted to 42.42%, while within 24 hours it reached 83.33%. The overall caesarean section rate was 33%. The most common indication for caesarean section was the risk of intrauterine hypoxia. Tachysystole and hyperstimulation was observed in 4% of cases, while abnormalities in the cardiotocographic tracing in 43%. Conclusions:Misodel is an effective method for labor pre-induction, without affecting the caesarean section rate and has no adverse effect on the newborn condition.

show abstract

supporting

confidence: 85%

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 55%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Obstetric outcomes of pre-induction of labor with a 200 μg misoprostol vaginal insert

et al. 2017

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Many studies have compared the two methods, intravaginal misoprostol and intracervical Foley catheter, individually or when used concurrently [48][49][50][51][52][53][54][55][56][57][58][59]. It has been proposed that the two different mechanisms may have synergistic effects, as found by Al-Ibraheemi Z et al and numerous other authors [48][49][50]52,53]. However, there have been other studies that showed a lack of such synergistic effect [54,55], while another study showed no significant benefits to the induction-delivery time but did reduce complications such as uterine hyper stimulation [51].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Intracervical Foley Catheter Plus Intravaginal Misoprostol vs Intravaginal Misoprostol Alone for Cervical Ripening: A Meta-Analysis

Lee

Huang

Chen

et al. 2020

IJERPH

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Currently, there is no meta-analysis comparing intravaginal misoprostol plus intracervical Foley catheter versus intravaginal misoprostol alone for term pregnancy without identifying risk factors. Therefore, the purpose of this study is to conduct a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized control trials (RCTs) comparing concurrent intravaginal misoprostol and intracervical Foley catheter versus intravaginal misoprostol alone for cervical ripening. We systematically searched Embase, Pubmed, and Cochrane Collaboration databases for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing intracervical Foley catheter plus intravaginal misoprostol and intravaginal misoprostol alone using the search terms “Foley”, “misoprostol”, “cervical ripening”, and “induction” up to 29 January 2019. Data were extracted and analyzed by two independent reviewers including study characteristics, induction time, cesarean section (C/S), clinical suspicion of chorioamnionitis, uterine tachysystole, meconium stain, and neonatal intensive care unit (NICU) admissions. Data was pooled using random effects modeling and calculated with risk ratio (RR) and 95% confidence interval (CI). Pooled analysis from eight studies, including 1110 women, showed that labor induction using a combination of intracervical Foley catheter and intravaginal misoprostol decreased induction time by 2.71 h (95% CI −4.33 to −1.08, p = 0.001), as well as the risk of uterine tachysystole and meconium staining (RR 0.54, 95% CI 0.30–0.99 and RR 0.48, 95% CI 0.32–0.73, respectively) significantly compared to those using intravaginal misoprostol alone. However, there was no difference in C/S rate (RR 0.93, 95% CI 0.78–1.11) or clinical suspicion of chorioamnionitis rate (RR 1.22, CI 0.58–2.57) between the two groups. Labor induction with a combination of intracervical Foley catheter and intravaginal misoprostol may be a better choice based on advantages in shortening induction time and reducing the risk of uterine tachysystole and meconium staining compared to intravaginal misoprostol alone.

show abstract

“…We read with great interest the recent study on a most contemporaneous series of topics, that is, simultaneous use of cervical ripening (CR) agents and the use of misoprostol as a prostaglandin agent for such activity. 1 First, we would like clarity upon the definition of the primary outcome of the pregnancy in relation to the study. In the outcome measures this was defined as; 'the rate of vaginal delivery'.…”

Section: Dear Editormentioning

confidence: 99%

Combined Foley's catheter and misoprostol for pre‐induction cervical ripening

Adams

Griffin

2017

Aust NZ J Obst Gynaeco

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Combined Foley's catheter with vaginal misoprostol for pre-induction cervical ripening: A randomised controlled trial

Abstract: Combined Foley's catheter and vaginal misoprostol provide a shorter duration to the achievement of cervical ripening.

Cited by 25 publications

References 20 publications

Obstetric outcomes of pre-induction of labor with a 200 μg misoprostol vaginal insert

Obstetric outcomes of pre-induction of labor with a 200 μg misoprostol vaginal insert

Intracervical Foley Catheter Plus Intravaginal Misoprostol vs Intravaginal Misoprostol Alone for Cervical Ripening: A Meta-Analysis

Combined Foley's catheter and misoprostol for pre‐induction cervical ripening

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About