METHODS: Women at term with one transverse lower segment cesarean delivery who were suitable for and who planned VBAC were approached to participate. Participants were randomly assigned to weekly membrane sweeping or weekly vaginal assessment for Bishop score until delivery. Participants and delivery providers were blinded to the allocated treatment. Standard obstetric care was given to all participants. The primary outcome was onset of labor which was defined as the presence of spontaneous regular and painful contractions that cause cervical dilation to at least 3 cm or prelabor rupture of membranes. Secondary outcomes included induction of labor and repeat cesarean delivery.
RESULTS: One hundred eight women were randomly assigned to membrane sweeping and 105 to control. The spontaneous labor rate was 78.5% compared with 72.1% (relative risk [RR] 1.1, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.9-1.3; P=.34), the induction of labor rate was 12.1% compared with 9.6% (RR 1.3, 95% CI 0.6-2.8; P=.66), and the all-cause cesarean delivery rate was 40.2% compared with 44.2% (RR 0.9, 95% CI 0.7-1.2; P=.58) for the membrane sweeping and control groups, respectively. Gestational age at delivery (mean+/-standard deviation) of 39.6+/-1.0 weeks for the membrane sweeping group compared with 39.6+/-0.9 weeks for the control group (P=.84) was no different.
CONCLUSION: Serial membrane sweeping at term in women who planned VBAC has no significant effect on the onset of labor, pregnancy duration, induction of labor, or repeat cesarean delivery.
CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: ISRCTN, isrctn.org, ISRCTN55163179.
LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: I.
OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to evaluate regular (4-hourly prior to each oral misoprostol dose with amniotomy when feasible) compared with restricted (only if indicated) vaginal assessments during labor induction with oral misoprostol in term nulliparous women MATERIALS AND METHODS: We performed a randomized trial between November 2016 and September 2017 in a university hospital in Malaysia. Our oral misoprostol labor induction regimen comprised 50 μg of misoprostol administered 4 hourly for up to 3 doses in the first 24 hours. Participants assigned to regular assessment had vaginal examinations before each 4-hourly misoprostol dose with a view to amniotomy as soon as it was feasible. Participants in the restricted arm had vaginal examinations only if indicated. Primary outcomes were patient satisfaction with the birth process (using an 11-point visual numerical rating scale), induction to vaginal delivery interval, and vaginal delivery rate at 24 hours.
RESULTS: Data from 204 participants (101 regular, 103 restricted) were analyzed. The patient satisfaction score with the birth process was as follows (median [interquartile range]): 7 [6-9] vs 8 [6-10], P = .15. The interval of induction to vaginal delivery (mean ± standard deviation) was 24.3 ± 12.8 vs 31.1 ± 15.0 hours (P = .013). The vaginal delivery rate at 24 hours was 27.7% vs 20.4%; (relative risk [RR], 1.4; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.8-2.3; P = .14) for the regular vs restricted arms, respectively. The cesarean delivery rate was 50% vs 43% (RR, 1.1; 95% CI, 0.9-1.5; P = .36). When assessed after delivery, participants' fidelity to their assigned vaginal examination schedule in a future labor induction was 45% vs 88% (RR, 0.5; 95% CI, 0.4-0.7; P < .001), and they would recommend their assigned schedule to a friend (47% vs 87%; RR, 0.6; 95% CI, 0.5-0.7; P < .001) in the regular compared with the restricted arms, respectively.
CONCLUSION: Despite a shorter induction to vaginal delivery interval with regular vaginal examination and a similar vaginal delivery rate at 24 hours and birth process satisfaction score, women expressed a higher preference for the restricted examination schedule and were more likely to recommend such a schedule to a friend.
METHODS: We did an individual participant data meta-analysis comparing balloon catheters and vaginal prostaglandins for cervical ripening before labour induction. We systematically identified published and unpublished randomised controlled trials that completed data collection between March 19, 2019, and May 1, 2021, by searching the Cochrane Library, ClinicalTrials.gov, WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform, and PubMed. Further trials done before March 19, 2019, were identified through a recent Cochrane review. Data relating to the combined use of the two methods were not included, only data from women with a viable, singleton pregnancy were analysed, and no exclusion was made based on parity or membrane status. We contacted authors of individuals trials and participant-level data were harmonised and recoded according to predefined definitions of variables. Risk of bias was assessed with the ROB2 tool. The primary outcomes were caesarean delivery, indication for caesarean delivery, a composite adverse perinatal outcome, and a composite adverse maternal outcome. We followed the intention-to-treat principle for the main analysis. The primary meta-analysis used two-stage random-effects models and the sensitivity analysis used one-stage mixed models. All models were adjusted for maternal age and parity. This meta-analysis is registered with PROSPERO (CRD42020179924).
FINDINGS: Individual participant data were available from 12 studies with a total of 5460 participants. Balloon catheters, compared with vaginal prostaglandins, did not lead to a significantly different rate of caesarean delivery (12 trials, 5414 women; crude incidence 27·0%; adjusted OR [aOR] 1·09, 95% CI 0·95-1·24; I2=0%), caesarean delivery for failure to progress (11 trials, 4601 women; aOR 1·20, 95% CI 0·91-1·58; I2=39%), or caesarean delivery for fetal distress (10 trials, 4441 women; aOR 0·86, 95% CI 0·71-1·04; I2=0%). The composite adverse perinatal outcome was lower in women who were allocated to balloon catheters than in those allocated to vaginal prostaglandins (ten trials, 4452 neonates, crude incidence 13·6%; aOR 0·80, 95% CI 0·70-0·92; I2=0%). There was no significant difference in the composite adverse maternal outcome (ten trials, 4326 women, crude incidence 22·7%; aOR 1·02, 95% CI 0·89-1·18; I2=0%).
INTERPRETATION: In induction of labour, balloon catheters and vaginal prostaglandins have comparable caesarean delivery rates and maternal safety profiles, but balloon catheters lead to fewer adverse perinatal events.
FUNDING: Australian National Health and Medical Research Council and Monash Health Emerging Researcher Fellowship.
METHODS: Parous women with favorable cervixes after amniotomy for labor induction were randomized to immediate titrated oxytocin or placebo intravenous infusion in a double-blind noninferiority trial. After 4 hours, study infusions were stopped, the women were assessed, and open-label oxytocin was started if required. Maternal satisfaction with the birth process was assessed with a 10-point visual numerical rating scale (lower score, greater satisfaction).
RESULTS: Vaginal delivery rates at 12 hours were 91 of 96 (94.8%) compared with 91 of 94 (96.8%) (relative risk 0.98, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.92-1.04, P=.72), and maternal satisfaction on a visual numerical rating scale (median [interquartile range]) was 3 [3-4] compared with 3 [3-5], P=.36 for immediate compared with delayed arm, respectively). Cesarean delivery, maternal fever, postpartum hemorrhage, uterine hyperactivity, and adverse neonatal outcome rates were similar between arms. The immediate oxytocin arm had a shorter amniotomy-to-delivery interval of 5.3±3.1 compared with 6.9±2.9 hours (Plabor induction in parous women with favorable cervixes. The choice should take into account local resources and the woman's wish.
CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: ISRCTN Register, http://isrctn.org, ISRCTN51476259.
LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: I.
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.
METHODS: This non-blinded, randomized clinical trial included 228 pregnant women at term with obstetric or medical indications for induction of labour. Women either took 50 µg misoprostol orally (two 25 µg tablets) or had one 25 µg tablet of misoprostol inserted in the posterior vaginal fornix. In each group, misoprostol administration was repeated every four hours in the same dose until regular uterine contractions were established or to a maximum of five doses. Time to delivery and outcome data for each group were compared.
RESULTS: Of the 228 women, eight (3.5%) were excluded from the analysis as they withdrew their consent after randomization. Mean induction-to-delivery interval was similar in both groups (21.22 hours in the oral group vs. 20.15 hours in the vaginal group; P = 0.58). There was no significant difference between the groups with respect to the number of women who delivered within 24 hours or who required oxytocin augmentation of labour, the mode of delivery, and neonatal outcomes (P > 0.05). Uterine hyperstimulation occurred in two women who received misoprostol vaginally, but not in any of the women in the oral misoprostol group.
CONCLUSION: Oral misoprostol in a dose of 50 µg every four hours, to a maximum of five doses, has the potential to induce labour as safely and effectively as 25 µg misoprostol administered vaginally every four hours.
MATERIAL AND METHODS: A randomized trial was conducted in the University of Malaya Medical Center. A total of 163 term multiparas (no dropouts) with unripe cervixes (Bishop score ≤5) scheduled for labor induction were randomized to outpatient or inpatient Foley catheter. Primary outcomes were delivery during "working hours" 08:00-18:00 h and maternal satisfaction on allocated care (assessed by 11-point visual numerical rating score 0-10, with higher score indicating more satisfied).
CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: ISRCTN13534944.
RESULTS: Comparing outpatient and inpatient arms, delivery during working hours were 54/82 (65.9%) vs. 48/81 (59.3%) (relative risk 1.1, 95% CI 0.9-1.4, p = 0.421) and median maternal satisfaction visual numerical rating score was 9 (interquartile range 9-9) vs. 9 (interquartile range 8-9, p = 0.134), repectively. Duration of hospital stay and membrane rupture to delivery interval were significantly shorter in the outpatient arm: 35.8 ± 20.2 vs. 45.2 ± 16.2 h (p = 0.001) and 4.1 ± 2.9 vs. 5.3 ± 3.6 h (p = 0.020), respectively. Other maternal and neonatal secondary outcomes were not significantly different.
CONCLUSIONS: The trial failed to demonstrate the anticipated increase in births during working hours with outpatient compared with inpatient induction of labor with Foley catheter in parous women with an unripe cervix. Hospital stay and membrane rupture to delivery interval were significantly shortened in the outpatient group. The rate of maternal satisfaction was high in both groups and no significant differences were found.
METHODS: : Nulliparas with uncomplicated PROM at term, a Bishop score less than or equal to 6, and who required labor induction were recruited for a double-blind randomized trial. Participants were randomly assigned to 3-mg dinoprostone pessary and oxytocin infusion or placebo and oxytocin infusion. A cardiotocogram was performed before induction and maintained to delivery. Dinoprostone pessary or placebo was placed in the posterior vaginal fornix. Oxytocin intravenous infusion was commenced at 2 milliunits/min and doubled every 30 minutes to a maximum of 32 milliunits/min. Oxytocin infusion rate was titrated to achieve four contractions every 10 minutes. Primary outcomes were vaginal delivery within 12 hours and maternal satisfaction with the birth process using a visual analog scale (VAS) from 0 to 10 (higher score, greater satisfaction).
RESULTS: : One hundred fourteen women were available for analysis. Vaginal delivery rates within 12 hours were 25 of 57 (43.9%) for concurrent treatment compared with 27/57 (47.4%) (relative risk 0.9, 95% confidence interval 0.6-1.4, P=.85) for oxytocin only; median VAS was 8 (interquartile range [IQR] 2) compared with 8 (IQR 2), P=.38. Uterine hyperstimulation was 14% compared with 5.3%, P=.20; overall vaginal delivery rates were 59.6% compared with 64.9%, P=.70; and induction to vaginal delivery interval 9.7 hours compared with 9.4 hours P=.75 for concurrent treatment compared with oxytocin, respectively. There was no significant difference for any other outcome.
CONCLUSION: : Concurrent vaginal dinoprostone and intravenous oxytocin for labor induction of term PROM did not expedite delivery or improve patient satisfaction.
CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: : Current Controlled Trials, www.controlled-trials.com, ISRCTN74376345
LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: : I.
DESIGN: A prospective study.
SETTING: A tertiary hospital in Malaysia.
POPULATION: A cohort of 193 term nulliparous women with intact membranes.
METHODS: Prior to labour induction, cervical fluid was obtained via a vaginal speculum and tested for IGFBP-1, followed by TVUS and finally Bishop score. After each assessment the procedure-related pain was scored from 0 to 10. Cut-off values for Bishop score and cervical length were obtained from the receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve. Multivariable logistic regression analysis was performed.
MAIN OUTCOMES MEASURES: Vaginal delivery and vaginal delivery within 24 hours of starting induction.
RESULTS: Bedside IGFBP-1 testing is better tolerated than Bishop score, but is less well tolerated than TVUS [median (interquartile range) of pain scores: 5 (4-5) versus 6 (5-7) versus 3 (2-3), respectively; P < 0.001]. IGFBP-1 independently predicted vaginal delivery (adjusted odds ratio, AOR 5.5; 95% confidence interval, 95% CI 2.3-12.9) and vaginal delivery within 24 hours of induction (AOR 4.9; 95% CI 2.1-11.6) after controlling for Bishop score (≥4 or ≥5), cervical length (≤29 or ≤27 mm), and other significant characteristics for which the Bishop score and TVUS were not predictive of vaginal delivery after adjustment. IGFBP-1 has 81% sensitivity, 59% specificity, positive and negative predictive values of 82 and 58%, respectively, and positive and negative likelihood ratios of 2.0 and 0.3 for vaginal delivery, respectively.
CONCLUSION: IGFBP-1 better predicted vaginal delivery than BS or TVUS, and may help guide decision making regarding labour induction in nulliparous women.
TWEETABLE ABSTRACT: IGFBP-1: a stronger independent predictor of labour induction success than Bishop score or cervical sonography.