Document Type : Original Research Article
1 obstetrics and gynecology department, Isfahan university of medical sciences, Isfehan,iran
2 obstetrics and gynecology department, Isfahan university of medical sciences, Isfahan, Iran
3 Obstetrics and Gynecology Department, School of Medicine, Isfahan University of Medical Sciences, Isfahan, Iran
4 School of Medicine, Isfahan University of Medical Sciences, Isfahan, Iran
Background: The aim of this study was to compare the efficacy of vaginal misoprostol with Foley balloon catheter for cervical ripening in women with singleton pregnancies and an unfavorable cervix.
Methods: Eighty pregnant women with unfavorable cervix were randomly divided in two groups of Foley catheter or misoprostol modes. Cervical ripening in Foley catheter group was done with transcervical Foley catheter 18, and in misoprostol group with 25 μg single dose vaginal misoprostol(The maximum allowed dose for patients was 6 doses.). Bishop score, Apgar score, active phase duration, stage 2 duration and insertion to birth time were the main outcomes.
Results: The mean of time between ripening and the active phase in vaginal misoprostol group was significantly shorter than in Foley catheter group (2.32 versus 5.11 hour respectively, P-value = 0.0001). After intervention Bishop score in vaginal misoprostol group was significantly more than Foley catheter group (8.70 versus 6.68 respectively, P-value = 0.0001). Time from insertion to birth in vaginal misoprostol group was 9.54 hours and in Foley catheter group was 12.88 hours (P-value = 0.0001). The hospitalization time in Foley catheter group was significantly more than vaginal misoprostol group (P-value = 0.0001). other outcomes were similar between groups.
Conclusion: By the decreasing in the total time from insertion to birth, vaginal misoprostol was more effective than Foley catheter as a cervical ripening method in our study.
- Hussain AA, Yakoob MY, Imdad A, Bhutta ZA. Elective induction for pregnancies at or beyond 41 weeks of gestation and its impact on stillbirths: a systematic review with meta-analysis. BMC Public Health. 2011;11(3):S5. [DOI:10.1186/1471-2458-11-S3-S5] [PMID] [PMCID]
- Broekhuijsen K, van Baaren G-J, van Pampus MG, Ganzevoort W, Sikkema JM, Woiski MD, et al. Immediate delivery versus expectant monitoring for hypertensive disorders of pregnancy between 34 and 37 weeks of gestation (HYPITAT-II): an open-label, randomised controlled trial. The Lancet. 2015;385(9986):2492-501. [DOI:10.1016/S0140-6736(14)61998-X] [PMID]
- Ornat L, Alonso-Ventura V, Bueno-Notivol J, Chedraui P, Pérez-López FR. Misoprostol combined with cervical single or double balloon catheters versus misoprostol alone for labor induction of singleton pregnancies: a meta-analysis of randomized trials. J Matern Fetal Neonatal Med. 2020;33(20):3453-68. [DOI:10.1080/14767058.2019.1574741] [PMID]
- Cunningham FG, Leveno KJ, Bloom SL, Spong CY, Dashe JS. Williams obstetrics, 24e: Mcgraw-hill New York, NY, USA; 2014.
- Moore ML. Research Update: Misoprostol-Is More Research Needed? J Perinat Educ. 2002(3):43-7. [DOI:10.1891/1058-1243.11.3.43] [PMID] [PMCID]
- Goldberg AB, Greenberg MB, Darney PD. Misoprostol and Pregnancy. N Engl J Med. 2001;344(1):38-47. [DOI:10.1056/NEJM200101043440107] [PMID]
- Allen R, O'Brien BM. Uses of misoprostol in obstetrics and gynecology. Rev Obstet Gynecol. 2009;2(3):159-68.
- Alfirevic Z, Weeks A. Oral misoprostol for induction of labour. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2006(2). [DOI:10.1002/14651858.CD001338.pub2]
- Kandil M, Emarh M, Sayyed T, Masood A. Foley catheter versus intra-vaginal misoprostol for induction of labor in post-term gestations. Arch Gynecol Obstet. 2012;286(2):303-7. [DOI:10.1007/s00404-012-2292-8] [PMID]
- Jozwiak M, Rengerink KO, Benthem M, van Beek E, Dijksterhuis MGK, de Graaf IM, et al. Foley catheter versus vaginal prostaglandin E2 gel for induction of labour at term (PROBAAT trial): an open-label, randomised controlled trial. The Lancet. 2011;378(9809):2095-103. [DOI:10.1016/S0140-6736(11)61484-0] [PMID]
- Matonhodze Baron B, Hofmeyr GJ, Levin J. Labour induction at term - a randomised trial comparing Foley catheter plus titrated oral misoprostol solution, titrated oral misoprostol solution alone, and dinoprostone. S Afr J Obstet Gynaecol. 2003;9(2):40-5.
- Hill JB, Thigpen BD, Bofill JA, Magann E, Moore LE, Martin JN. A randomized clinical trial comparing vaginal misoprostol versus cervical Foley plus oral misoprostol for cervical ripening and labor induction. Am J Perinatol. 2009;26(01):033-8. [DOI:10.1055/s-0028-1091396] [PMID]
- Abramovici D, Goldwasser S, Mabie BC, Mercer BM, Goldwasser R, Sibai BM. A randomized comparison of oral misoprostol versus Foley catheter and oxytocin for induction of labor at term. Am J Obstet Gynaecol. 1999;181(5):1108-12. [DOI:10.1016/S0002-9378(99)70090-6] [PMID]
- Filho OBM, Albuquerque RM, Cecatti JG. A randomized controlled trial comparing vaginal misoprostol versus Foley catheter plus oxytocin for labor induction. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand. 2010;89(8):1045-52. [DOI:10.3109/00016349.2010.499447] [PMID]
- Culver J, Strauss RA, Brody S, Dorman K, Timlin S, McMahon MJ. A randomized trial comparing vaginal misoprostol versus Foley catheter with concurrent oxytocin for labor induction in nulliparous women. Am J Perinatol. 2004;21(03):139-46. [DOI:10.1055/s-2004-823777] [PMID]
- Saleem S. Efficacy of dinoprostone, intracervical foleys and misoprostol in labor induction. J Coll Physician Surg Pak. 2006;16(4):276-9.
- Afolabi BB, Oyeneyin OL, Ogedengbe OK. Intravaginal misoprostol versus Foley catheter for cervical ripening and induction of labor. Int J Gynaecol Obstet 2005;89(3):263-7. [DOI:10.1016/j.ijgo.2005.02.010] [PMID]
- Owolabi AT, Kuti O, Ogunlola IO. Randomised trial of intravaginal misoprostol and intracervical Foley catheter for cervical ripening and induction of labour. J Obstet Gynaecol. 2005;25(6):565-8. [DOI:10.1080/01443610500231450] [PMID]
- Ademji AO, Olayemi O, Odukogbe AA. Intravaginal misoprostol versus transcervical Foley catheter in pre-induction cervical ripening. Int J Gynaecol Obstet. 2006;92(2):130-2. [DOI:10.1016/j.ijgo.2005.10.010] [PMID]
- Adeniji OA, Oladokun A, Olayemi O, Adeniji OI, Odukogbe AA, Ogunbode O, et al. Pre-induction cervical ripening: transcervical foley catheter versus intravaginal misoprostol. J Obstet Gynaecol. 2005;25(2):134-9. [DOI:10.1080/01443610500040737] [PMID]
- Chavakula PR, Benjamin SJ, Abraham A, Londhe V, Jeyaseelan V, Mathews JE. Misoprostol versus Foley catheter insertion for induction of labor in pregnancies affected by fetal growth restriction. Int J Gynaecol Obstet. 2015;129(2):152-5. [DOI:10.1016/j.ijgo.2014.11.018] [PMID]
- Noor N, Ansari M, Ali SM, Parveen S. Foley Catheter versus Vaginal Misoprostol for Labour Induction. Int J Reprod Med. 2015;2015:845735. [DOI:10.1155/2015/845735] [PMID] [PMCID]
- Fox NS, Saltzman DH, Roman AS, Klauser CK, Moshier E, Rebarber A. Intravaginal misoprostol versus Foley catheter for labour induction: a meta-analysis. Int J Obstet & Gynaecol 2011;118(6):647-54. [DOI:10.1111/j.1471-0528.2011.02905.x] [PMID]
- Abdi N, Alavi A, Pakbaz F, Darabi H. Vaginal misoprostol versus intracervical Foley catheter for cervical ripening in postdate primigravid women: a randomized clinical trial. BMC Pregnancy Childbirth. 2021;21(1):533. [DOI:10.1186/s12884-021-04011-0] [PMID] [PMCID]
- Shoja S, Yousefi Sharami SR, Shahgheibi S, Zand-Vakili F, Zare S, Roshani D, et al. Contrastive Analysis of Vaginal Misoprostol and Foley Catheter in Cervical Ripening and Labor Induction. J Obstet Gynecol Cancer Res. 2022;4(3):105-10. [DOI:10.30699/jogcr.4.3.105]