Foley catheter compared with controlled release dinoprostone vaginal insert for labor induction after one previous cesarean delivery: A randomized trial. Issue 3 (8th August 2022)

• Record Type: Journal Article
• Authors: Sulaiman, Sofiah; Sivaranjani, Sanmugam; Razali, Nuguelis; Lim, Boon Kiong; Hamdan, Mukhri; Tan, Peng Chiong
• Is Part Of: International journal of gynaecology and obstetrics. Volume 160:Issue 3(2023)
• Page Start: 814
• Page End: 822
• Publication Date: 2022-08-08
• Subjects: cesarean delivery induction of labor -- controlled‐release dinoprostone vaginal insert -- Foley catheter -- induction‐to‐vaginal delivery interval -- maternal satisfaction -- trial of labor after cesarean delivery -- vaginal birth after cesarean delivery; Gynecology -- Periodicals; Obstetrics -- Periodicals; Electronic journals; 618
• DOI: 10.1002/ijgo.14364
• Languages: English
• ISSNs: 0020-7292

Abstract

Abstract: Objective: To compare Foley catheter and controlled‐release dinoprostone vaginal insert on induction‐to‐delivery interval and maternal satisfaction in women with one previous cesarean delivery. Methods: This randomized controlled trial was conducted at the University Malaya Medical Center, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia, from December 12, 2018, to May 28, 2019. A total of 78 term women scheduled for labor induction with one previous cesarean delivery who had ripe cervixes, singleton gestation, cephalic presentation, intact membranes, and reassuring cardiotocogram were randomized to Foley catheter or dinoprostone insert. The primary outcome was induction‐to‐delivery interval (in hours) and the secondary outcomes included maternal satisfaction on birth experience (assessed by 100‐mm visual analog scale). Results: Induction‐to‐delivery intervals were as follows: median 33.5 h (interquartile range [IQR], 26.1–36.2 h) versus 23.5 h (IQR, 12.7–34.5 h) ( P = 0.004), and maternal satisfaction on birth process 100‐mm visual analog scale was 80 mm (IQR, 64–88 mm) versus 82 mm (IQR, 67–88 mm) ( P = 0.919) for the Foley and controlled‐release dinoprostone arms, respectively. Cesarean delivery rates were 23 of 39 (59%) versus 20 of 39 (51%) (relative risk, 1.15 [95% confidence interval, 0.77–1.72]) ( P = 0.496) and trial device insertion to removal time mean ± standard deviation was 20.1 ± 7.1 h versus 14.2 ± 7.3 h ( P = 0.001) for Foley versus controlled‐release dinoprostone, respectively. Conclusion: In term women after one previous cesarean delivery with unripe cervixes, controlled‐release dinoprostone vaginal insert compared with Foley catheter shortens the induction‐to‐delivery interval but maternal satisfaction was not significantly increased. Clinical Trial Registration: This study was registered with ISRCTN on November 30, 2018, with trial identification number: ISRCTN16957529 (https://doi.org/10.1186/ISRCTN16957529 ). The first participant was recruited on December 12, 2018. Synopsis: Controlled‐release dinoprostone vaginal insert compared with Foley catheter for labor induction after one previous cesarean delivery shortens the induction‐to‐delivery interval but maternal satisfaction was not increased.