Comparison of the efficiency of labor induction in full term and late term pregnancies

DOI

https://dx.doi.org/10.18565/aig.2020.2.97-103

Baev O.R., Babich D.A.
1) Academician V.I. Kulakov National Medical Research Center of Obstetrics, Gynecology, and Perinatology, Ministry of Health of Russia, Moscow, Russia; 2) I.M. Sechenov First Moscow State Medical University, Ministry of Health of Russia, Moscow, Russia

Objective. To compare the efficiency of labor induction in full term (284–285 days) and late term (> 287 days) pregnancies.
Subjects and methods. The investigation enrolled 129 patients (78 patients with full term pregnancy and 51 with late term pregnancy) having indications for labor induction. A double-balloon catheter for preparing the cervix was inserted for 12 hours. After catheter removal, according to the ripening of the cervix uteri, the latter was additionally prepared using dinoprostone gel or amniotomy (oxytocin-induced labor induction in the absence of an effect).
Results. Labor was started with the inserted balloon in 35.9% of full term pregnancies versus 23.53% of late term ones (p = 0.003). The balloon insertion to delivery interval was shorter in the full term pregnancy group
(p = 0.04). The vaginal delivery rate within 24 hours after balloon insertion was higher in the full term pregnancy group (75.64% versus 49.02% (p = 0.002)). The rate of failed induction of labor, uterine inertia, and cesarean section was higher in the late term pregnancy group (1.28% versus 13.73%) (p = 0.02) (3.85% versus 17.65%)
(p = 0.01), 16.67% versus 31.37% (p = 0.04), respectively. All babies were born alive. The newborns from mothers in the late term pregnancy group more frequently showed signs of over-maturity (2.56% versus 13.73% (p = 0.02).
Conclusion. Labor induction proved to be more effective in the full term pregnancy group than in the late term pregnancy group.

cervical preparation for labor

childbirth induction

labor induction

double-balloon catheter

cervix uteri

Full text (in Russian)

Jozwiak M., Oude Rengerink K., Benthem M., van Beek E., Dijksterhuis M.G., de Graaf I.M., et.al. Foley catheter versus vaginal prostaglandin E2 gel for induction of labour at term (PROBAAT trial): an open-label, randomised controlled trial. Lancet. 2011; 378(9809): 2095–103. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(11)61484-0.
Баев О.Р., Бабич Д.А., Шмаков Р.Г., Полушкина Е.С., Николаева А.В. Опыт применения двухбаллонного катетера для подготовки к родам. Акушерство и гинекология. 2019; 3: 64–71. [Baev O.R., Babich D.A., Shmakov R.G., Polushkina E.S., Nikolaeva A.V. Experience of using a double balloon catheter for cervical ripening in the induction of labor. Akusherstvo i Ginekologiya/Obstetrics and Gynecology. 2019; (3): 64–71. (in Russian)]. https://dx.doi.org/10.18565/aig.2019.3.64-71
Бабич Д.А., Баев О.Р., Шмаков Р.Г. Применение баллонных катетеров для подготовки шейки матки к родам. Медицинский оппонент 2018; 1(2): 24–31. [Babich D.A., Baev O.R., Shmakov R.G. Balloon catheters for cervical ripening and labor induction.Meditsinskiy opponent/Medical Opponent 2018; 1(2): 24–31. (in Russian)].
Jozwiak M., Bloemenkamp K.W., Kelly A.J., Mol B.W., Irion O., Boulvain M. Mechanical methods for induction of labour. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2012; (3): CD001233. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD001233.pub2.
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.
Baev O.R., Rumyantseva V.P., Tysyachnyu O.V., Kozlova O.A., Sukhikh G.T. Outcomes of mifepristone usage for cervical ripening and induction of labour in full-term pregnancy. Randomized controlled trial. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol. 2017; 217:144–9. doi: 10.1016/j.ejogrb.2017.08.038.
Chen H.Y., Grobman W.A., Blackwell S.C., Chauhan S.P. Neonatal and Maternal Adverse Outcomes Among Low-Risk Parous Women at 39-41 Weeks of Gestation. Obstet Gynecol. 2019; 134(2): 288–94. doi: 10.1097/AOG.0000000000003372.
Chen H.Y., Grobman W.A., Blackwell S.C., Chauhan S.P. Neonatal and Maternal Morbidity Among Low-Risk Nulliparous Women at 39-41 Weeks of Gestation. Obstet Gynecol. 2019; 133(4): 729–37. doi: 10.1097/AOG.0000000000003064.
Spong C.Y. Defining “term” pregnancy: recommendations from the Defining “Term” Pregnancy Workgroup.JAMA. 2013; 309(23): 2445–6. doi: 10.1001/jama.2013.6235.
Grobman W.A., Rice M.M., Reddy U.M., Tita A.T.N., Silver R.M., Mallett G., et. al. Labor Induction versus Expectant Management in Low-Risk Nulliparous Women. N Engl J Med. 2018; 379(6): 513–23. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa1800566.
Sinkey R.G., Blanchard C.T., Szychowski J.M., Ausbeck E., Subramaniam A., Neely C.L., et al. Elective Induction of Labor in the 39th Week of Gestation Compared With Expectant Management of Low-Risk Multiparous Women. Obstet Gynecol. 2019; 134(2): 282-287. doi: 10.1097/AOG.0000000000003371.
Diederen M., Gommers J., Wilkinson C., Turnbull D., Mol B. Safety of the balloon catheter for cervical ripening in outpatient care: complications during the period from insertion to expulsion of a balloon catheter in the process of labour induction: a systematic review. BJOG. 2018; 125(9):1086–95. doi: 10.1111/1471-0528.15047.
Policiano C., Pimenta M., Martins D, Clode N. Efficacy and Safety of Foley Catheter Balloon for Cervix Priming in Term Pregnancy. Acta Med Port. 2017; 30(4): 281–4. doi: 10.20344/amp.8003.
Sayed Ahmed W.A., Ibrahim Z.M., Ashor O.E., Mohamed M.L., Ahmed M.R., Elshahat A.M. Use of the Foley catheter versus a double balloon cervical ripening catheter in pre-induction cervical ripening in postdate primigravidae. J Obstet Gynaecol Res. 2016; 42(11): 1489–94. doi: 10.1111/jog.13086.
Hoppe K.K, Schiff M.A., Peterson S.E., Gravett M.G. 30 mL Single- versus 80 mL double-balloon catheter for pre-induction cervical ripening: a randomized controlled trial. J Matern Fetal Neonatal Med. 2016; 29(12): 1919–25.
Cheuk Q.K., Lo T.K., Lee C.P., Yeung A.P. Double balloon catheter for induction of labour in Chinese women with previous caesarean section: one-year experience and literature review. Hong Kong Med J. 2015; 21(3): 243–50. doi: 10.12809/hkmj144404
Brown J., Beckmann M. Induction of labour using balloon catheter and prostaglandin gel. Aust N Z J Obstet Gynaecol. 2017; 57(1): 68–73. doi: 10.1111/ajo.12577.
Mei-Dan E., Walfisch A., Valencia C., Hallak M. Making cervical ripening EASI: a prospective controlled comparison of single versus double balloon catheters. J Matern Fetal Neonatal Med. 2014; 27(17): 1765–70. doi: 10.3109/Feb 3. 14767058.2013.879704.
Salim R., Schwartz N., Zafran N., Zuarez-Easton S., Garmi G., Romano S. Comparison of single- and double-balloon catheters for labor induction: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. J Perinatol. 2018; 38(3): 217–25. doi: 10.1038/s41372-017-0005-7.
Yang F., Huang S., Long Y., Huang L. Double-balloon versus single-balloon catheter for cervical ripening and labor induction: A systematic review and meta-analysis. J Obstet Gynaecol Res. 2018; 44(1): 27–34. doi: 10.1111/jog.13551.
Lajusticia H., Martínez-Domínguez S.J., Pérez-Roncero G.R., Chedraui P., Pérez-López F.R. Single versus double-balloon catheters for the induction of labor of singleton pregnancies: a meta-analysis of randomized and quasi-randomized controlled trials. Arch Gynecol Obstet. 2018; 297(5): 1089–1100. doi: 10.1007/s00404-018-4713-9.
de Los Reyes S.X., Sheffield J.S., Eke A.C. Single versus Double-Balloon Transcervical Catheter for Labor Induction: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. Am J Perinatol. 2019; 36(8): 790–7. doi: 10.1055/s-0038-1675206
Solt I., Frank Wolf M., Ben-Haroush S., Kaminskyi S., Ophir E., Bornstein J. Foley catheter versus cervical double balloon for labor induction: a prospective randomized study. J Matern Fetal Neonatal Med. 2019; 1–8. doi: 10.1080/14767058.2019.1623776.
Баев О.Р., Румянцева В.П. Оптимизация подходов к применению мифепристона в подготовке к родам. Акушерство и гинекология. 2012; (6): 69–73.[ Bayev O.R., Rumyantseva V.P. Optimization of approaches to using mifepristone to prepare for labor, Akusherstvo i Ginekologiya/Obstetrics and Gynecology. 2012; (6): 69–73. (in Russian)].

Received 06.11.2019

Accepted 29.11.2019

Oleg R. Baev, M.D., Ph.D., Professor, the head of the 1-st maternity department, National Medical Research Center for Obstetrics, Gynecology and Perinatology named
after Academician V.I. Kulakov of the Ministry of Healthcare of the Russian Federation, professor of Chair of Obstetrics, Gynecology, Perinatology and Reproductology, Faculty of Postgraduate Professional Training of Physicians of the Federal State Autonomous Educational Institution of Higher Education I.M. Sechenov First Moscow State Medical University of the Ministry of Health of the Russian Federation (Sechenov University). Tel.: +7 (495) 438-11-88.
E-mail: o_baev@oparina4.ru https://orcid.org/0000-0001-8572-1971. 117997, Russia, Moscow, Ac. Oparina str. 4.
Dmitry A. Babich, postgraduate student of Chair of Obstetrics, Gynecology, Perinatology and Reproductology, Faculty of Postgraduate Professional Training of Physicians of the Federal State Autonomous Educational Institution of Higher Education I.M. Sechenov First Moscow State Medical University of the Ministry of Health of the Russian Federation (Sechenov University). Tel. +7 (903) 2950505. E-mail: babich.d@rambler.ru; https://orcid.org/0000-0002-3264-2038
8-2 Trubetskaya st., Moscow 119991, Russia; 2-4 Bolshaya Pirogovskaya st., 119991 Moscow, Russia

For citation: Baev O.R., Babich D.A. Comparison of the efficiency
of labor induction in full term and late term pregnancies.
Akusherstvo i Ginekologiya/ Obstetrics and gynecology. 2020; 2: 97-103.(In Russian).
https://dx.doi.org/10.18565/aig.2020.2.97-103.

Comparison of the efficiency of labor induction in full term and late term pregnancies

Baev O.R., Babich D.A.

Keywords

References

About the Authors

Similar Articles