Outpatient Compared With Inpatient Preinduction Cervical Ripening Using a Synthetic Osmotic Dilator: A Randomized Clinical Trial

Antonio F Saad, Rachana Gavara, Rosemary Noel Senguttuvan, Arena D Goncharov, Marissa Berry, Joe Eid, Brett Goldman, Ana Nutter, Christopher P Moutos, Amanda M Wang, George R Saade, Antonio F Saad, Rachana Gavara, Rosemary Noel Senguttuvan, Arena D Goncharov, Marissa Berry, Joe Eid, Brett Goldman, Ana Nutter, Christopher P Moutos, Amanda M Wang, George R Saade

Abstract

Objective: To assess whether outpatient cervical ripening with a synthetic osmotic dilator shortens the length of hospital stay in term pregnancies undergoing labor induction.

Methods: Pregnant participants scheduled for labor induction at term with unfavorable cervix (less than 3-cm dilated and less than 60% effaced) and not requiring inpatient maternal or fetal monitoring were consented, and synthetic osmotic dilator rods were inserted on the day of scheduled induction. After reassuring fetal heart tracing, patients randomized to the outpatient group were asked to return 12 hours after insertion or sooner if needed. Those randomized to the inpatient group remained in the hospital. After the first round of ripening, additional ripening, oxytocin, and labor management were left up to the clinical health care professionals. The primary outcome was the proportion of participants with hospital stays longer than 48 hours. We estimated that a sample size of 338 would provide 85% power to detect a 30% difference between groups.

Results: From November 2018 to November 2021, 339 participants were randomized (171 inpatient, 167 outpatient, one withdrawal). Four patients in the outpatient group were admitted before12 hours for suspected labor and rupture of membranes, and 19 in the inpatient group had the device removed before 12 hours. The proportion of participants with hospital stays longer than 48 hours was lower in the outpatient group compared with the inpatient group (89 [53%] vs 152 [89%], relative risk [RR] 0.60, 95% CI 0.52-0.70). Patients in the outpatient group had a shorter total length of stay and time from admission to active labor. They were more likely to have a vaginal delivery within 24 hours of admission and were less likely to receive analgesics during ripening. Route of delivery and other maternal and neonatal outcomes were not significantly different between groups.

Conclusion: Outpatient cervical ripening with a cervical osmotic dilator decreased hospital stay compared with inpatient ripening, without significant adverse outcomes.

Funding source: Medicem Technology s.r.o., Czech Republic.

Clinical trial registration: ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT03665688.

Conflict of interest statement

Financial Disclosure Antonio Saad and George Saade have acted as expert consultants to the sponsor. The other authors did not report any potential conflicts of interest.

Copyright © 2022 The Author(s). Published by Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc.

Figures

Fig. 1.. Flow diagram of eligible patients.…
Fig. 1.. Flow diagram of eligible patients. FHR, fetal heart rate; BP, blood pressure; IUGR, intrauterine growth restriction; COVID-19, coronavirus disease 2019.

References

    1. Grobman WA, Rice MM, Reddy UM, Tita ATN, Silver RM, Mallett G, et al. Labor induction versus expectant management in low-risk nulliparous women. N Engl J Med 2018;379:513–23. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa1800566
    1. Thiery M, De Boever J, Merchiers E, Martens G. Hormones and cervical ripening. Am J Obstet Gynecol 1989;160:1251–3. doi: 10.1016/0002-9378(89)90207-x
    1. Gelber S, Sciscione A. Mechanical methods of cervical ripening and labor induction. Clin Obstet Gynecol 2006;49:642–57. doi: 10.1097/00003081-200609000-00022
    1. Martin JA, Hamilton BE, Osterman MJK, Driscoll AK. Births: final data for 2018. Natl Vital Stat Rep 2019;68:1–47.
    1. Pierce-Williams R, Lesser H, Saccone G, Harper L, Chen V, Sciscione A, et al. Outpatient cervical ripening with balloon catheters: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Obstet Gynecol 2022;139:255–68. doi: 10.1097/AOG.0000000000004644
    1. Wilkinson C, Bryce R, Adelson P, Turnbull D. A randomised controlled trial of outpatient compared with inpatient cervical ripening with prostaglandin E2 (OPRA study). BJOG 2015;122:94–104. doi: 10.1111/1471-0528.12846
    1. Wilkinson C, Adelson P, Turnbull D. A comparison of inpatient with outpatient balloon catheter cervical ripening: a pilot randomized controlled trial. BMC Pregnancy Childbirth 2015;15:126. doi: 10.1186/s12884-015-0550-z
    1. Henry A, Madan A, Reid R, Tracy SK, Austin K, Welsh A, et al. Outpatient Foley catheter versus inpatient prostaglandin E2 gel for induction of labour: a randomised trial. BMC Pregnancy Childbirth 2013;13:25. doi: 10.1186/1471-2393-13-25
    1. Kruit H, Heikinheimo O, Ulander VM, Aitokallio-Tallberg A, Nupponen I, Paavonen J, et al. Foley catheter induction of labor as an outpatient procedure. J Perinatol 2016;36:618–22. doi: 10.1038/jp.2016.62
    1. Sciscione AC, Muench M, Pollock M, Jenkins TM, Tildon-Burton J, Colmorgen GH. Transcervical Foley catheter for preinduction cervical ripening in an outpatient versus inpatient setting. Obstet Gynecol 2001;98:751–6. doi: 10.1016/s0029-7844(01)01579-4
    1. Policiano C, Pimenta M, Martins D, Clode N. Outpatient versus inpatient cervix priming with Foley catheter: a randomized trial. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol 2017;210:1–6. doi: 10.1016/j.ejogrb.2016.11.026
    1. Kuper SG, Jauk VC, George DM, Edwards RK, Szychowski JM, Mazzoni SE, et al. Outpatient Foley catheter for induction of labor in parous women: a randomized controlled trial. Obstet Gynecol 2018;132:94–101. doi: 10.1097/AOG.0000000000002678
    1. Ausbeck EB, Jauk VC, Xue Y, Files P, Kuper SG, Subramaniam A, et al. Outpatient Foley catheter for induction of labor in nulliparous women: a randomized controlled trial. Obstet Gynecol 2020;136:597–606. doi: 10.1097/AOG.0000000000004041
    1. Haavisto H, Polo-Kantola P, Anttila E, Kolari T, Ojala E, Rinne K. Experiences of induction of labor with a catheter - a prospective randomized controlled trial comparing the outpatient and inpatient setting. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand 2021;100:410–7. doi: 10.1111/aogs.14037
    1. Saad AF, Villarreal J, Eid J, Spencer N, Ellis V, Hankins GD, et al. A randomized controlled trial of Dilapan-S vs Foley balloon for preinduction cervical ripening (DILAFOL trial). Am J Obstet Gynecol 2019;220:275.e1–9. doi: 10.1016/j.ajog.2019.01.008
    1. Schulz KF, Altman DG, Moher D, Group C. CONSORT 2010 statement: updated guidelines for reporting parallel group randomized trials. Obstet Gynecol 2010;115:1063–70. doi: 10.1097/AOG.0b013e3181d9d421
    1. Methods for estimating the due date. Committee Opinion No. 700. American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists. Obstet Gynecol 2017;129:e150–4. doi: 10.1097/AOG.0000000000002046
    1. Gupta J, Chodankar R, Baev O, Bahlmann F, Brega E, Gala A, et al. Synthetic osmotic dilators in the induction of labour-an international multicentre observational study. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol 2018;229:70–5. doi: 10.1016/j.ejogrb.2018.08.004
    1. Buonaccorsi JP, Laake P, Veierød MB. On the power of the Cochran-Armitage test for trend in the presence of misclassification. Stat Methods Med Res 2014;23:218–43. doi: 10.1177/0962280211406424
    1. Gavara R, Saad AF, Wapner RJ, Saade G, Fu A, Barrow R, et al. Cervical ripening efficacy of synthetic osmotic cervical dilator compared with oral misoprostol at term: a randomized controlled trial. Obstet Gynecol 2022;139:1083–91. doi: 10.1097/aog.0000000000004799
    1. Gupta JK, Maher MA, Stubbs MC, Brocklehurst P, Daniels JP, Hardy P, et al. A randomized trial of synthetic osmotic cervical dilator for induction of labor versus dinoprostone vaginal insert. Am J Obstet Gynecol MFM 2022 Aug 9. doi: 10.1016/j.ajogmf.2022.100628

Source: PubMed

3
Suscribir