Farname Inc. in collaboration with Iranian Society of Gynecology Oncology

Authors

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

Abstract

Abstract:
Running: comparing chemical and mechanical Cervical ripening
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.
 

Keywords

  1. 1. 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(suppl 3):S5. 2. Broekhuijsen K, van Baaren GJ, van Pampus MG, 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. Lancet.2015;385:2492-501. 3. Ornat L, Alonso-Ventura V, Bueno-Notivol J, Chedraui P, Pérez-López FR, Health Outcomes and Systematic Analyses (HOUSSAY) Research Group. Misoprostol combined with cervical single or double balloon catheters versus misoprostol alone for labor induction of singleton pregnancies: a meta-analysis of randomized trials. The Journal of Maternal-Fetal & Neonatal Medicine. 2019:1-6. 4. Cunningham FG, Leveno KJ, Bloom SL, Hauth JC, Gilstrap L, Wenstrom KD. Williams Obstetrics and Gynecology. 22nd ed. New York: McGraw-Hill; 2005. 5. Moore ML. Misoprostol—Is More Research Needed? The Journal of perinatal education. 2002;11(3):43. 6. Goldberg AB, Greenberg MB, Darney PD. Misoprostol and pregnancy. N Engl J Med. 2001; 344:38–47. 7. Allen R, O’Brien BM, Uses of Misoprostol in Obstetrics and Gynecology, Rev Obstet Gynecol 2009;2:159-168. 8. Alfirevic Z, Weeks A. Oral misoprostol for induction of labour. Cochrane database of systematic reviews. 2006;2. 9. 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):303–307. 10. Jozwiak M, Rengerink KO, Benthem M, Van Beek E, Dijksterhuis MG, 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. Lancet. 2011; 378:2095–103. 11. Matonhodze BB, Hofmeyr GJ, Levin J. Labour induction at term- a randomized trial comparing Foley catheter plus titrated oral misoprostol solution, titrated oral misoprostol solution alone and dinoprostone. S Afr Med J 2003; 93: 375–379. 12. Hill JB, Thigpen BD, Bofill JA et al. A randomized clinical trial comparing vaginal misoprostol versus Foley catheter plus oral misoprostol for cervical ripening and labour induction. Am J Perinatol 2009; 26: 33–38. 13. Abramovici D, Goldwasser S, Mabie BC et al. A randomized comparison of oral misoprostol versus Foley catheter and oxytocin for induction of labour at term. Am J Obstet Gynaecol 1999; 181: 1108–1112. 14. Moraes-Filho OB, Albuquerque RM, Cecatti JG. A randomised controlled trial comparing vaginal misoprostol versus Foley catheter plus oxytocin for labour induction. Acta Obstet Gynaecol 2010; 89: 1045–1052. 15. Culver J, Strauss RA, Brody S et al. A randomized trial comparing vaginal misoprostol versus Foley catheter with concurrent oxytocin for labour induction in nulliparous woman. Am J Perinatol 2004; 21: 139–146. 16. Saleem S. Efficacy of dinoprostone, intracervical Foley and misoprostol in labour induction. J Coll Physician Surg Pak 2006; 16: 276–279.23. 17. Afolabi BB, Oyeneyin OL, Ogedengbe OK. Intravaginal misoprostol versus Foley catheter for cervical ripening and induction of labour. Int J Gynaecol Obstet 2005; 89: 263–267. 18. Owolabi AT, Kuti O, Ogunlola IO. Randomized trial of intravaginal misoprostol and intracervical Foley catheter for cervical ripening and induction of labour. J Obstet Gynaecol 2005; 25: 565–568. 19. Adeniji AO, Olayemi O, Odukogbe AA. Intravaginal misoprostol versus transcervical Foley catheter in pre-induction cervical ripening. Int J Gynaecol Obstet 2006; 92: 130–132. 20. Adeniji OA, Oladokun A, Olayemi O et al. Pre-induction cervical ripening: transcervical Foley catheter versus intravaginal misoprostol. J Obstet Gynaecol 2005; 25: 134–139. 21. 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. International Journal of Gynecology & Obstetrics. 2015;129(2):152-5. 22. Noor N, Ansari M, Ali SM, Parveen S. Foley catheter versus vaginal misoprostol for labour induction. International journal of reproductive medicine. 2015;2015. 23. Fox NS, Saltzman DH, Roman AS, Klauser CK, Moshier E, Rebarber A. Intravaginal misoprostol versus Foley catheter for labour induction: a meta‐analysis. BJOG: An International Journal of Obstetrics & Gynaecology. 2011;118(6):647-54. 24. Abdi, N., Alavi, A., Pakbaz, F. et al. Vaginal misoprostol versus intracervical Foley catheter for cervical ripening in postdate primigravid women: a randomized clinical trial. BMC Pregnancy Childbirth 21, 533 (2021) 25. Shoja S, Yousefi Sharami S R, 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. 2019; 4 (3) :105-110