Comparison of Vaginal Misoprostol with Foley Catheter for Cervical Ripening and Induction of Labor

Overview

Journal Iran J Pharm Res

Publisher Brieflands

Specialty Pharmacology

Date 2013 Dec 24

PMID 24363694

Citations 11

Authors

Fatemeh Vahid Roudsari

Sedigheh Ayati

Marzieh Ghasemi

Maliheh Hasanzadeh Mofrad

Mohamad Taghi Shakeri

Farnoush Farshidi

Masoud Shahabian

Affiliations

Soon will be listed here.

Abstract

At times, despite an unripe cervix, induction of labor may be needed. In these cases, a safe and suitable method should be considered for cervical ripening and pregnancy termination. The aim of this study is the comparison of vaginal misoprostol with Foley catheter for cervical ripening and induction of labor. This randomized clinical trial was performed on 108 pregnant women who had referred to the teaching hospitals of Mashhad University of Medical Sciences during a time period of September 2007 to March 2008. These women were randomly divided into two groups: Misoprostol (including 49 patients) and Foley catheter (including 59 patients). For the first group, 25 microgram vaginal misoprostol was administered every 4 h up to maximum 6 doses. For the second group, Foley catheter 18 F, inflated with 50 cc of sterile water, was placed through the internal os of the cervix. Data was analyzed using SPSS software. p < 0.05 was considered statistically significant. Two groups were similar in the view of demographic characteristics, cesarean indications, maternal and fetal outcomes and neonatal outcomes. Vaginal delivery was significantly higher in misoprostol group (89.9 vs. 62.7, p < 0.01). The mean of delivery time was significantly shorter in misoprostol group (11.08 ± 5.6 vs. 13.6 ± 16.0 h, p < 0.05). In the cases of pregnancy termination and unripe cervix, two methods of misoprostol and Foley catheter were considered suitable, but it seemed that misoprostol decreases the delivery time and was needed for the cesarean section.

Citing Articles

Mechanical methods for induction of labour.

de Vaan M, Ten Eikelder M, Jozwiak M, Palmer K, Davies-Tuck M, Bloemenkamp K Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2023; 3:CD001233.

PMID: 36996264 PMC: 10061553. DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD001233.pub4.

The effect of evening primrose oil on cervical ripening and birth outcomes: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

Shahinfar S, Abedi P, Jahanfar S, Khajehpoor M, Chashmyazdan M Heliyon. 2023; 9(2):e13414.

PMID: 36846678 PMC: 9947258. DOI: 10.1016/j.heliyon.2023.e13414.

Safety and efficacy of double-balloon catheter for cervical ripening: a Bayesian network meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.

Zhao G, Song G, Liu J BMC Pregnancy Childbirth. 2022; 22(1):688.

PMID: 36068489 PMC: 9450369. DOI: 10.1186/s12884-022-04988-2.

Labor induction with randomized comparison of cervical, oral and intravaginal misoprostol.

Dadashaliha M, Fallah S, Mirzadeh M BMC Pregnancy Childbirth. 2021; 21(1):721.

PMID: 34706675 PMC: 8549163. DOI: 10.1186/s12884-021-04196-4.

Vaginal misoprostol versus intracervical Foley catheter for cervical ripening in postdate primigravid women: a randomized clinical trial.

Abdi N, Alavi A, Pakbaz F, Darabi H BMC Pregnancy Childbirth. 2021; 21(1):533.

PMID: 34315413 PMC: 8317279. DOI: 10.1186/s12884-021-04011-0.

References

Adeniji A, Olayemi O, Odukogbe A . Intravaginal misoprostol versus transcervical Foley catheter in pre-induction cervical ripening. Int J Gynaecol Obstet. 2005; 92(2):130-2. DOI: 10.1016/j.ijgo.2005.10.010. View

Levy R, Kanengiser B, Furman B, Arie A, Brown D, Hagay Z . A randomized trial comparing a 30-mL and an 80-mL Foley catheter balloon for preinduction cervical ripening. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2004; 191(5):1632-6. DOI: 10.1016/j.ajog.2004.03.033. View

Hofmeyr G, Gulmezoglu A . Vaginal misoprostol for cervical ripening and induction of labour. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2003; (1):CD000941. DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD000941. View

Kashanian M, Fekrat M, Naghghash S, Sheikh Ansari N . Evaluation of the effect of extra-amniotic normal saline infusion alone or in combination with dexamethasone for the induction of labor. J Obstet Gynaecol Res. 2008; 34(1):47-50. DOI: 10.1111/j.1447-0756.2007.00703.x. View

Afolabi B, Oyeneyin O, Ogedengbe O . 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. View

Kashanian M, Nazemi M, Malakzadegan A . Comparison of 30-mL and 80-mL Foley catheter balloons and oxytocin for preinduction cervical ripening. Int J Gynaecol Obstet. 2009; 105(2):174-5. DOI: 10.1016/j.ijgo.2009.01.005. View

Boulvain M, Kelly A, Lohse C, Stan C, Irion O . Mechanical methods for induction of labour. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2001; (4):CD001233. DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD001233. View

Wing D, Ham D, Paul R . A comparison of orally administered misoprostol with vaginally administered misoprostol for cervical ripening and labor induction. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 1999; 180(5):1155-60. DOI: 10.1016/s0002-9378(99)70610-1. View

Ventura S, Martin J, Curtin S, Mathews T, Park M . Births: final data for 1998. Natl Vital Stat Rep. 2000; 48(3):1-100. View

10.

Dalui R, Suri V, Ray P, Gupta I . Comparison of extraamniotic Foley catheter and intracervical prostaglandin E gel for preinduction cervical ripening. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand. 2005; 84(4):362-7. DOI: 10.1111/j.0001-6349.2005.00662.x. View

11.

Zieman M, Fong S, Benowitz N, Banskter D, Darney P . Absorption kinetics of misoprostol with oral or vaginal administration. Obstet Gynecol. 1997; 90(1):88-92. DOI: 10.1016/S0029-7844(97)00111-7. View

12.

Sciscione A, Nguyen L, Manley J, Pollock M, Maas B, Colmorgen G . A randomized comparison of transcervical Foley catheter to intravaginal misoprostol for preinduction cervical ripening. Obstet Gynecol. 2001; 97(4):603-7. DOI: 10.1016/s0029-7844(00)01186-8. View

13.

Rust O, Greybush M, Atlas R, Jones K, Balducci J . Preinduction cervical ripening. A randomized trial of intravaginal misoprostol alone vs. a combination of transcervical Foley balloon and intravaginal misoprostol. J Reprod Med. 2001; 46(10):899-904. View

14.

Culver J, Strauss R, Brody S, Dorman K, Timlin S, McMahon M . A randomized trial comparing vaginal misoprostol versus Foley catheter with concurrent oxytocin for labor induction in nulliparous women. Am J Perinatol. 2004; 21(3):139-46. DOI: 10.1055/s-2004-823777. View

15.

Barrilleaux P, Bofill J, Terrone D, Magann E, May W, Morrison J . Cervical ripening and induction of labor with misoprostol, dinoprostone gel, and a Foley catheter: a randomized trial of 3 techniques. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2002; 186(6):1124-9. DOI: 10.1067/mob.2002.123821. View

16.

Kramer R, Gilson G, Morrison D, Martin D, Gonzales J, Qualls C . A randomized trial of misoprostol and oxytocin for induction of labor: safety and efficacy. Obstet Gynecol. 1997; 89(3):387-91. DOI: 10.1016/s0029-7844(97)00363-3. View

17.

Greybush M, Singleton C, Atlas R, Balducci J, Rust O . Preinduction cervical ripening techniques compared. J Reprod Med. 2001; 46(1):11-7. View

18.

Chung J, Huang W, Rumney P, Garite T, Nageotte M . A prospective randomized controlled trial that compared misoprostol, Foley catheter, and combination misoprostol-Foley catheter for labor induction. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2003; 189(4):1031-5. DOI: 10.1067/s0002-9378(03)00842-1. View

19.

Hill J, Thigpen B, Bofill J, Magann E, Moore L, Martin Jr J . A randomized clinical trial comparing vaginal misoprostol versus cervical Foley plus oral misoprostol for cervical ripening and labor induction. Am J Perinatol. 2008; 26(1):33-8. DOI: 10.1055/s-0028-1091396. View

20.

Adeniji O, Oladokun A, Olayemi O, Adeniji O, Odukogbe A, Ogunbode O . Pre-induction cervical ripening: transcervical foley catheter versus intravaginal misoprostol. J Obstet Gynaecol. 2005; 25(2):134-9. DOI: 10.1080/01443610500040737. View