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


Cite item

Full Text

Open Access Open Access
Restricted Access Access granted
Restricted Access Subscription or Fee Access

Abstract

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 (78patients 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.

Full Text

Restricted Access

About the authors

Oleg R. Baev

Academician V.I. Kulakov National Medical Research Center of Obstetrics, Gynecology, and Perinatology, Ministry of Health of Russia; I.M. Sechenov First Moscow State Medical University, Ministry of Health of Russia

Email: o_baev@oparina4.ru
M.D., Ph.D., Professor, the head of the 1-st maternity department; professor of Chair of Obstetrics, Gynecology, Perinatology and Reproductology, Faculty of Postgraduate Professional Training of Physicians

Dmitry A. Babich

I.M. Sechenov First Moscow State Medical University, Ministry of Health of Russia

Email: babich.d@rambler.ru
postgraduate student of Chair of Obstetrics, Gynecology, Perinatology and Reproductology, Faculty of Postgraduate Professional Training of Physicians

References

  1. 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.
  2. 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
  3. 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.
  4. 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.
  5. 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.
  6. 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.
  7. Chen H.Y., Grobman WA., 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.
  8. Chen H.Y., Grobman WA., 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.
  9. 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.
  10. Grobman WA., 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.
  11. 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.
  12. 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.
  13. 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.
  14. Sayed Ahmed WA., 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.
  15. 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.
  16. 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
  17. 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.
  18. 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.
  19. 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.
  20. Yang F., Huang S., Long Y., Huang L. Double-balloon versus single-balloon catheter for cervical ripening and labor induction: A systematic review and metaanalysis. J. Obstet Gynaecol Res. 2018; 44(1): 27-34. doi: 10.1111/jog.13551.
  21. Lajusticia H., Martinez-Dominguez S.J., Perez-Roncero G.R., Chedraui P., Perez-Lopez 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.
  22. de Los Reyes S.X., Sheffield J.S., Eke A.C. Single versus Double-Balloon Transcervical Catheter for Labor Induction: A Systematic Review and MetaAnalysis. Am J. Perinatol. 2019; 36(8): 790-7. doi: 10.1055/s-0038-1675206
  23. 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.
  24. Баев О.Р., Румянцева В.П. Оптимизация подходов к применению мифепристона в подготовке к родам. Акушерство и гинекология. 2012; (6): 69-73.

Supplementary files

Supplementary Files
Action
1. JATS XML
Download

Copyright (c) 2020 Bionika Media

This website uses cookies

You consent to our cookies if you continue to use our website.

About Cookies