Increased single‐balloon Foley catheter volume for induction of labor and time to delivery: a systematic review and meta‐analysis

Schoen, Corina N.; Saccone, Gabriele; Backley, Sami; Sandberg, Evelien M.; Gu, Ning; Delaney, Shani; Berghella, Vincenzo

doi:10.1111/aogs.13353

Cited by 51 publications

(29 citation statements)

References 19 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Suffice it to say that IOL was widespread practice even before the introduction of PGEs and that at the time it was based only on the administration of oxytocin, with good results 19 . Among the mechanical methods, the most popular is the Foley catheter 89, 90 , either alone 91 or in association with oxytocin 92– 96 , or misoprostol 97, 98 , and with different balloon volumes 99, 100 . The combination of mechanical and pharmacological methods used simultaneously does not show clear benefits in terms of mode of delivery: the use of the Foley catheter with oxytocin increases the rate of delivery within 24 hours in nulliparas 95, 96 , while the association of Foley and misoprostol 101 reduces the intervention to delivery time interval and the number of uterine hyperstimulations, in both cases without influencing cesarean delivery rates.…”

Section: Methods Of Inductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Recent advances in the induction of labor

Marconi

2019

F1000Res

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The rate of labor induction is steadily increasing and, in industrialized countries, approximately one out of four pregnant women has their labor induced. Induction of labor should be considered when the benefits of prompt vaginal delivery outweigh the maternal and/or fetal risks of waiting for the spontaneous onset of labor. However, this procedure is not free of risks, which include an increase in operative vaginal or caesarean delivery and excessive uterine activity with risk of fetal heart rate abnormalities. A search for “Induction of Labor” retrieves more than 18,000 citations from 1844 to the present day. The aim of this review is to summarize the controversies concerning the indications, the methods, and the tools for evaluating the success of the procedure, with an emphasis on the scientific evidence behind each.

show abstract

Section: Methods Of Inductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Recent advances in the induction of labor

Marconi

2019

F1000Res

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The balloon was then inflated with 60 ml of sterile water [11,12] by a research assistant. The catheter was gently retracted till resistance was felt.…”

Section: Recruitment and Randomizationmentioning

confidence: 99%

Speculum versus digital insertion of Foley catheter for induction of labor in Nulliparas with unripe cervix: a randomized controlled trial

Chia

Tan

et al. 2020

BMC Pregnancy Childbirth

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background: Induction of labor (IoL) is an increasingly common obstetric procedure. Foley catheter IoL is recommended by WHO. It is associated with the lowest rate of uterine hyperstimulation syndrome and similar duration to delivery and vaginal delivery rate compared to other methods. Insertion is typically via speculum but digital insertion has been reported to be faster, better tolerated and with similar universal insertion success compared to speculum insertion in a mixed population of nulliparas and multiparas. Transcervical procedure is more challenging in nulliparas and when the cervix is unripe. We evaluated the ease and tolerability of digital compared to speculum insertion of Foley catheter for induction of labor in nulliparas with unripe cervixes. Methods: A randomized trial was performed in a university hospital in Malaysia. Participants were nulliparas at term with unripe cervixes (Bishop Score ≤ 5) admitted for IoL who were randomized to digital or speculum-aided transcervical Foley catheter insertion in lithotomy position. Primary outcomes were insertion duration, pain score [11-point Visual Numerical Rating Scale (VNRS)], and failure. All primary outcomes were recorded after the first insertion. Results: Data from 86 participants were analysed. Insertion duration (with standard deviation) was 2.72 ± 1.85 vs. 2.25 ± 0.55 min p = 0.12, pain score (VNRS) median [interquartile range] 3.5 [2-5] vs. 3 [2-5] p = 0.72 and failure 2/42 (5%) vs. 0/44 (0%) p = 0.24 for digital vs speculum respectively. There was no significant difference found between the two groups for all three primary outcomes. Induction to delivery 30.7 ± 9.4 vs 29.6 ± 11.5 h p = 0.64, Cesarean section 25/60 (64%) vs 28/64 (60%) RR 0.9 95% CI p = 0.7 and maternal satisfaction VNRS score with the birth process 7 [IQR 6-8] vs 7 [7-8] p = 0.97 for digital vs. speculum arms respectively. Other labor, delivery and neonatal secondary outcomes were not significantly different. Conclusion: Digital and speculum insertion in nulliparas with unripe cervixes had similar insertion performance. As digital insertion required less equipment and consumables, it could be the preferred insertion method for the equally adept and the insertion technique to train towards. Trial registration: This trial was registered with ISRCTN registration number 13804902 on 15 November 2017.

show abstract

“…

Induction of labor (IOL) is a common obstetrical intervention and has increased significantly in recent years. 1,2 However, IOL in an unfavorable cervix may lead to increased maternal, fetal, and neonatal complications such as prolonged induction to delivery interval (IDI), and prolonged latent phase of labor and active labor resulting in increased incidence of cesarean section (CS), chorioamnionitis, birth asphyxia, and poor Apgar score in the newborn requiring hospitalization in the neonatal intensive care unit (NICU).Transcervical Foley catheter (FC) is an inexpensive mechanical method for IOL in women with unfavorable cervix. It mechanically

…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

“…dilates the cervix, resulting in the release of natural prostaglandins. 2 In a recent Cochrane review, use of FC alone for IOL has a better safety profile compared with vaginal misoprostol. 3 It also has the advantage of a lower rate of uterine hyperstimulation with minimal changes in fetal heart rate and reduction of postpartum hemorrhage.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Simultaneous use of high‐volume Foley catheter (60 ml) and misoprostol for labor induction in nulliparous women: A randomized controlled trial

Soni

Sharma

et al. 2021

Intl J Gynecology & Obste

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

Increased single‐balloon Foley catheter volume for induction of labor and time to delivery: a systematic review and meta‐analysis

Abstract: Balloon volumes larger than 30 mL during Foley catheter induction reduce total time to delivery by approximately 2 h.

Cited by 51 publications

References 19 publications

Recent advances in the induction of labor

Recent advances in the induction of labor

Speculum versus digital insertion of Foley catheter for induction of labor in Nulliparas with unripe cervix: a randomized controlled trial

Simultaneous use of high‐volume Foley catheter (60 ml) and misoprostol for labor induction in nulliparous women: A randomized controlled trial

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About