Induction of labor in women with unfavourable cervix: comparison of efficacy of intracervical Foley catheter with PGE2 gel
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.18203/2320-1770.ijrcog20192166Keywords:
Bishop score, Dinoprostone gel, Induction of labour, Intracervical foley catheterAbstract
Background: The aim of our study was to compare the efficacy, safety and patient’s satisfaction of intracervical Foley catheter with intracervical dinoprostone gel (PGE2 gel) for cervical ripening for successful induction of labor.
Methods: Prospective study was conducted in Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, M P Shah Medical College, Jamnagar, Gujarat. 317 women with term pregnancy with bishop score of less than 4 with various indications for induction were included. Intracervical foley catheter was kept in 162 women for cervical ripening (group A) while intracervical PGE2 gel was kept in rest 155 women (group B). The change in the bishop score, progress of labor, adverse effects and outcome of labor along with the patient’s satisfaction were assessed.
Results: With regard to the obstetrical parameters, the two groups were comparable with respect to maternal age, gestational age, parity, indication for induction and initial bishop score. At 12 hours, both the groups showed significant improvement in bishop score, 5.2±1.81 and 4.8±1.76 in Foley catheter and PGE2 gel respectively. Mean induction to delivery interval was 18.8±5.5 in group A and 17.9±5.3 in group B, which was statistically insignificant. No significant differences in side effects, mode of delivery and APGAR score were noted in both the groups. However, the incidence of hyperstimulation and tachysystole was higher in PGE2 gel group.
Conclusions: This study shows that both Foley catheter and dinoprostone gel appear to be equally effective agents for cervical ripening. Infect foley catheter is cheap, causes less fetal distress and is safer than PGE2 gel.
References
Bishop EH. Pelvic scoring for elective induction. Obstet Gynecol. 1964;24:266-8.
Riskin-Mashiah S, Wilkins I. Cervical ripeing. Obstet Gynecol Clin North Am. 1999;26:243-57.
Stempel JE, Prins RP, Dean s. Preinduction cervical ripening: a randomized prospective comparison of the efficacy and safety of intravaginal and intracervical prostaglandin E2 gel. Am J Obstet Gynacol. 1997;176(6):1305-12.
Uldbjerg N, Ekman G, Malmstrom A. Ripeing of the human uterine cervix related to changes in glycosaminoglycans and collage nolytic activity. J Obstet Gynacol. 1983;147(6):662-6.
Trofatter KF, Bowers D, Standby RN, Gall A, Killam AP. Preinduction cervical ripening with prostaglandin E2 gel. J Obstet Gynacol. 1985;153(3):268-71.
Prins RP, Bolton RN, Mark C. Cervical ripening with intravaginal prostaglandin E2 gel. J Obstet Gynacol, 1984;63:697-702.
St. Onge RD, Connors GT. Preinduction cervical ripening: a comparison of intracervical prostaglandin E2 gel versus the foley catherer. J Obstet Gynacol. 1995;172(2):687-90.
Ezimokhai M, Nwabinelli JN. The Use of Foley Catherer in Ripening the unfabourable Cervix Prior to Induction of Labour. Br J Obstet Gynaecol. 1980;87(4):281-6.
Rashid M, Begum A, Chowdhury SB, Chowdhury S. Induction of labor by foley catherer method. A clinical study of forty cases. Bangladesh J Obstet Gynaecol. 1994;9(1):16-21.
Boulvain M, Kelly A, Lohse C, Stan C, Irion O. Mechanical methods for induction of labour. Cochrane Data System Reviews. 2001;ArtNo.:CD001233.
Kelly AJ, Kavanagh J, Thomas J. Vaginal prostaglandin (PGE2 and PGF2a) for indiction of labour at term. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2003:Art. No.:CD003101.
Henry A, Madan A, Reid R, Tracy S. Outpatient foley catheter versus inpatient prostaglandin E2 gel for induction of labour: a randomised trial. BMC Pregnancy and Childbirth. 2013;13:25.
Pennel C, Henderson J, O'Neill M, McCleery S, Doherty D, Dickinson J. Induction of labour in nulliparous women with an unfavourable cervix: a randomised controlled trial comparing double and single balloon catherers and PGE2 gel. BJOG. 2009;116:1443-52.
Alfirevic Z, Kelly A, Dowsell T. Intravenous oxytocin alone for cervical ripening and induction of lobour. Cochrane Database Systematic Rev. 2012;(3):Art. No.:CD001233.
Heinemann J, Gillen G, Sanchez-Ramos L, Kaunitz A. Do mechanical methods of cervical ripening increase infectious morbidity? A systematic review. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2008;199(2):177-87.
Jozwiak M, Bloemenkamp K, Kelly A, Mol B, Irion O, Boulvain M. Mechanical methods for induction of labour. Cochrane Database Systematic Rev. 2012;(3):Art. No.:CD001233.
Sherman DJ, Frenkel E, Tovbin J, Arieli S, Caspi E, Bukovsky I. Ripening of the unfavorable cervix with extraamniotic catherer balloon: clinical experience and review. Obstet Gynecol Surv. 1996;51:621-7.
