Efficacy of vaginal Misoprostol versus transcervical Foley’s catheter and vaginal Misoprostol in induction of labor
Keywords:Labor induction, Misoprostol, Transcervical Foley’s catheter
Background: The objective is to compare the efficacy of vaginal Misoprostol versus transcervical Foley’s catheter and vaginal Misoprostol.
Methods: A prospective study analyzing the comparative efficacy of intravaginal instillation of Misoprostol in two groups (tablet Misoprostol 50mg alone and combination of intracervical Foley’s catheter and tablet Misoprostol 50mg) carried out in the labour room on 300 subjects (150 subjects in each group), from May 2013 to November 2015.
Results: The common gestational age at the time of induction was 36-40 weeks and the most common indication was premature rupture of membrane. In both the groups, most of the cases delivered within 12 hours. present results show that statistically significant number of cases delivered vaginally within 12 hours with the group using Misoprostol plus Foley’s catheter as compared to the group using Misoprostol alone. Cesarean section rate was 12.67% in Misoprostol group and 10.67% in Misoprostol plus Foley’s catheter group. Incidence of failure of induction was similar in both the groups. The incidence of babies with Apgar score less than 8/10 at 5 minutes and incidence of early neonatal death were similar in both the groups.
Conclusions: Addition of intracervical Foley’s catheter to vaginal Misoprostol for induction of labor in subjects with unfavorable cervices reduces the Induction-Delivery interval without added side effects or complications to the mother and fetus.
York R. The history of induction. Midwife Health Visit Community Nurse. 1984;20:109-16.
Hofmeyr GJ, Gulmezoglu AM, Alfirevic Z. Misoprostol for induction of labour: a systematic review. BJOG. 1999;106(8):798-803.
Ramos S, Kauntiz. Cervical ripening and labour induction. Clinical Obstet Gynecol. 2000;43:524-36.
Kolderup L, McLean L, Grullon K, Safford K, Kilpatrick SJ. Misoprostol is more efficacious for labor induction than prostaglandin E2, but is it associated with more risk?. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 1999;180(6):1543-50.
Tang OS, Schweer H, Seyberth HW, Lee SW, Ho PC. Pharmacokinetics of different routes of administration of misoprostol. Hum Reprod. 2002;17(2):332-6.
Hofmeyr GJ, Gülmezoglu AM, Pileggi C. Vaginal misoprostol for cervical ripening and induction of labour. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews. 2010(10).
Boulvain M, Kelly AJ, Lohse C, Stan CM, Irion O. Mechanical methods for induction of labour. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews. 2001(4).
Barrilleaux PS, Bofill JA, Terrone DA, Magann EF, May WL, Morrison JC. 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.
Chung JH, Huang WH, Rumney PJ, Garite TJ, Nageotte MP. 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.
Al-Ibraheemi Z, Brustman L, Bimson BE, Porat N, Rosenn B. Misoprostol with Foley bulb compared with misoprostol alone for cervical ripening: a randomized controlled trial. Obstet Gynecol. 2018;131(1):23-9.