Article: Foley Catheter versus Vaginal Misoprostol for Labour Induction

Objectives. To compare the efficacy and safety of intravaginal misoprostol with transcervical Foley catheter for labour induction. Material and Methods. One hundred and four women with term gestation, with Bishop score < 4, and with various indications for labour induction were randomly divided into two groups. In Group I, 25 μg of misoprostol tablet was placed intravaginally, 4 hourly up to maximum 6 doses. In Group II, Foley catheter 16F was placed through the internal os of the cervix under aseptic condition and then inflated with 50 cc of sterile saline. Statistical analysis was done using SPSS software. Results. The induction to delivery interval was 14.03 ± 7.61 hours versus 18.40 ± 8.02 hours (p < 0.01). The rate of vaginal delivery was 76.7% versus 56.8% in misoprostol and transcervical Foley catheter group, respectively. Uterine hyperstimulation was more common with misoprostol. Neonatal outcome was similar in both the groups. Conclusion. Intravaginal misoprostol is associated with a shorter induction to delivery interval as compared to Foley's catheter and it increases the rate of vaginal delivery in cases of unripe cervix at term. Transcervical Foley catheter is associated with a lower incidence of uterine hyperstimulation during labour.

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.

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.

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.

Fetomaternal Outcome Among the Pregnant Women Subject to the Induction of Labor.

Kazi S, Naz U, Naz Sr U, Hira A, Habib A, Perveen F Cureus. 2021; 13(5):e15216.

PMID: 34178535 PMC: 8221655. DOI: 10.7759/cureus.15216.

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. 2019; 10:CD001233.

PMID: 31623014 PMC: 6953206. DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD001233.pub3.

References

1.

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

2.

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

3.

Prager M, Eneroth-Grimfors E, Edlund M, Marions L . A randomised controlled trial of intravaginal dinoprostone, intravaginal misoprostol and transcervical balloon catheter for labour induction. BJOG. 2008; 115(11):1443-50. DOI: 10.1111/j.1471-0528.2008.01843.x. View

4.

Tuuli M, Keegan M, Odibo A, Roehl K, Macones G, Cahill A . Progress of labor in women induced with misoprostol versus the Foley catheter. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2013; 209(3):237.e1-7. PMC: 4379506. DOI: 10.1016/j.ajog.2013.05.005. View

5.

Mozurkewich E, Chilimigras J, Koepke E, Keeton K, King V . Indications for induction of labour: a best-evidence review. BJOG. 2009; 116(5):626-36. DOI: 10.1111/j.1471-0528.2008.02065.x. View

Foley Catheter Versus Vaginal Misoprostol for Labour Induction