A comparison of inpatient with outpatient balloon catheter cervical ripening: a pilot randomized controlled trial

Chris Wilkinson, Pamela Adelson, Deborah Turnbull, Chris Wilkinson, Pamela Adelson, Deborah Turnbull

Abstract

Background: One in four Australian births are induced. If cervical ripening using a prostaglandin is required, a pre-labour overnight hospitalisation and separation from family and support companions is necessary. Recent evidence shows that balloon catheter cervical ripening is just as effective as prostaglandins, but does not cause uterine stimulation. For women with low risk pregnancies, this offers the possibility of undergoing the overnight ripening process in their own home. We conducted a pilot randomised trial to assess the outcomes, clinical pathways and acceptability to both women and clinicians of outpatient balloon catheter ripening compared with usual inpatient care.

Methods: Forty-eight women with low risk term pregnancies were randomised (2:1) to either outpatient (n = 33) or inpatient double-balloon catheter (n = 15) cervical ripening. Although not powered for statistically significant differences, the study explored potential direction of effect for key clinical outcomes such as oxytocin use, caesarean section and morbidities. Feedback on acceptability was sought from women at catheter insertion and 4 weeks after the birth, and from midwives and doctors, at the end of the study.

Results: Clinical and perinatal outcomes were similar. Most women required oxytocin (77 %). The outpatient group were 24 % less likely to require oxytocin (risk difference -23.6 %, 95 % CI -43.8 to -3.5). There were no failed inductions, infections or uterine hyperstimulation attributable to the catheter in either group. Most women in both groups reported discomfort with insertion and wearing the catheter, but were equally satisfied with their care and felt the baby was safe (91 % both groups). Outpatient women reported feeling less isolated or emotionally alone. Most midwives and doctors (n = 90) agreed that they are more comfortable in sending home a woman with a catheter than prostaglandins and 90 % supported offering outpatient ripening to eligible women.

Conclusions: Outpatient balloon catheter ripening should be further investigated as an option for women in an adequately powered randomised trial.

Trial registration: Prospectively registered, Australian New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry ACTRN12612001184864 .

Figures

Fig. 1
Fig. 1
Recruitment and randomization into COPRA study. *1 change her mind & remained in hospital, 1 small bleed after insertion, 1 unsatisfactory CTG during post-insertion monitoring

References

    1. Li Z, Zeki R, Hilder L & Sullivan EA 2013. Australia’s mothers and babies 2011. Perinatal statisticsseries no. 28. Cat. no. PER 59. Canberra: AIHW National Perinatal Epidemiology and Statistics Unit.
    1. Jozwiak M, Oude Rengerink K, Ten Eikelder ML, van Pampus MG, Dijksterhuis MG, de Graaf IM, et al. Foley catheter or prostaglandin E2 inserts for induction of labour at term: an open-label randomized controlled trial (PROBAAT-P trial) and systematic review of literature. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol. 2013;170(1):137–45. doi: 10.1016/j.ejogrb.2013.06.017.
    1. Pennell CE, Henderson JJ, O’Neill MJ, McChlery S, Doherty DA, Dickinson JE. Induction of labour in nulliparous women with an unfavourable cervix: a randomised controlled trial comparing double and single balloon catheters and PGE2 gel. BJOG. 2009;116(11):1443–52. doi: 10.1111/j.1471-0528.2009.02279.x.
    1. Henry A, Madan A, Reid R, Tracy S, Austin K, Welsh A, et al. Outpatient Foley catheter versus inpatient prostaglandin E2 gel for induction of labour: a randomised trial. BMC pregnancy and childbirth. 2013;13(25):11.
    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(5 Pt 1):751–6. doi: 10.1016/S0029-7844(01)01579-4.
    1. Dowswell T, Kelly AJ, Livio S, Norman JE, Alfirevic Z. Different methods for the induction of labour in outpatient settings. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2010; Issue 8. Art. No.: CD007701. doi:10.1002/14651858.CD007701.pub2.
    1. Wilkinson C BR, Adelson P, Turnbull D. A randomised controlled trial of outpatient compared with inpatient cervical ripening with PGE2 (OPRA study) BJOG. 2014; doi:10.1111/1471-0528.12846.
    1. Turnbull D, Adelson P, Oster C, Bryce R, Wilkinson C. Psychosocial outcomes of a randomized controlled trial of outpatient cervical priming for induction of labor. Birth. 2013;40(2):75–80. doi: 10.1111/birt.12035.
    1. Adelson PL, Wedlock GR, Wilkinson CS, Howard K, Bryce RL, Turnbull DA. A cost analysis of inpatient compared with outpatient prostaglandin E2 cervical priming for induction of labour: results from the OPRA trial. Aust Health Rev. 2013;37(4):467–73. doi: 10.1071/AH13081.
    1. Turnbull D, Adelson P, Oster C, Coffey J, Coomblas J, Bryce R, et al. The impact of outpatient priming for induction of labour on midwives’ work demand, work autonomy and satisfaction. . 2013;26(3):207-12. doi:10.1016/j.wombi.2013.03.001. Epub 2013 Apr 3.
    1. SPSS. PASW Statistics for Windows, Version 18.0. Chicago: SPSS Inc. Released 2009.
    1. EpiInfo. Version 7.0 (CDC, Atlanta, GA, USA). 2012
    1. Lancaster GA, Dodd S, Williamson PR. Design and analysis of pilot studies: recommendations for good practice. J Eval Clin Pract. 2004;10(2):307–12. doi: 10.1111/j..2002.384.doc.x.
    1. Jozwiak MR K, Bentham E, van Beek E, Dijksterhuis M, de Graaf I. Foley catheter versus vaginal prostaglandin E2 gel for induction of labour at term (PROBAT trial): an open-label, randomised controlled trial. Lancet. 2011;378:2095–13. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(11)61484-0.
    1. Cromi A, Ghezzi F, Uccella S, Agosti M, Serati M, Marchitelli G, et al. A randomized trial of preinduction cervical ripening: dinoprostone vaginal insert versus double-balloon catheter. American journal of obstetrics and gynecology. 2012 Aug;207(2):125 e1-7
    1. Vaknin Z, Kurzweil Y, Sherman D. Foley catheter balloon vs locally applied prostaglandins for cervical ripening and labor induction: a systematic review and metaanalysis. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2010;203(5):418–29. doi: 10.1016/j.ajog.2010.04.038.
    1. Rouse D. The Misoprostol Vaginal Insert - De’ja ‘Vu All Over Again. Obstet Gynecol. 2013;122(2):193–4. doi: 10.1097/AOG.0b013e31829c5abd.
    1. Cromi AGF, Agosti M. Is transcervical Foley catheter actually slower than prostaglandins in ripening the cervix? A randomised study. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2011;204(338):e1–7.
    1. Barrilleaux P. 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.
    1. Shetty A, Burt R, Rice P, Templeton A. Women’s perceptions, expectations and satisfaction with induced labour–a questionnaire-based study. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol. 2005;123(1):56–61. doi: 10.1016/j.ejogrb.2005.03.004.
    1. Ten Eikelder ML, Mol BW, Bloemenkamp K. Progress of labor in women induced with misoprostol vs the Foley catheter. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2013;210(1):91. doi: 10.1016/j.ajog.2013.08.017.
    1. Jonsson M, Hellgren C, Wiberg-Itzel E, Akerud H. Assessment of pain in women randomly allocated to speculum or digital insertion of the Foley catheter for induction of labor. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand. 2011;90(9):997–1004. doi: 10.1111/j.1600-0412.2011.01197.x.

Source: PubMed

赞助者和合作者

医疗条件

药物干预

3
订阅