DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.18203/2320-1770.ijrcog20204325

Efficacy and safety of prostaglandins vs double balloon catheter in inducing labor: a meta-analysis

Jia S. Chong, York L. Chew, Ayendra Fernando, Sivalingam Nalliah

Abstract


Background: To compare the efficacy and safety of double‐balloon catheter with prostaglandin E2 (PGE2) in induction of labor.

Methods: We searched electronic sources from Medline, Scopus, PubMed, Science Direct and Cochrane Library Database of Systematic Reviews. Only randomized controlled trials and observational studies comparing the PGE2 agents with double-balloon catheter for cervical ripening and labour induction in women with unfavorable cervix were included in the analysis. The main outcomes included vaginal delivery rate within 24 hours and cesarean delivery rates. We calculated relative risks and mean differences using fixed effects and random‐effects models.

Results: Prostaglandin was more favourable for vaginal delivery within 24 hours compared to double balloon catheter, but was not statistically significant (RR 1.17: 95% CI 0.96-1.42 p =0.12). The induction to delivery time yielded a non-significant result that again favors prostaglandin (SMD 0.02 CI:0.18,0.22, p = 0.86). There was no significant difference in the cesarean delivery rates between the two groups (RR 1.02: 95% CI 0.92-1.14, p = 0.68). Uterine hyperstimulation and Neonatal Intensive Care Unit (NICU) admissions were significantly higher with prostaglandin. (RR 0.09: CI 0.04, 0.22 p<0.00001 and RR 0.75 CI: 0.62,0.90 p=003).

Conclusions: There is no significant difference in the success of induction of labour between use of PGE2 and double balloon catheter. Uterine hyperstimulation and NICU admissions were significantly higher in Prostaglandin group.


Keywords


Prostaglandin, Double-balloon catheter, Efficacy, Full term pregnancy, Induction of labor, Singleton

Full Text:

PDF

References


Induction of Labour [Internet]. 2nd ed. RCOG Press; 2008 Available at: https://www.nice.org.uk/guidance /cg70/evidence/cg70-induction-of-labour-full-guide line2

ACOG Practice Bulletin No. 107: Induction of Labor. Obstet Gynec. 2009;114(1):386-97.

Muviku V. A Randomized Clinical Trial Comparing Oral and Vaginal Misoprostol for Induction of Labour at Term in Kenyatta National Hospital (Knh) (Doctoral dissertation, University of Nairobi).

Pennell 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 catheters and PGE2 gel. BJOG: Int J Obstet Gynec. 2009;116(11):1443-52.

Timor-Tritsch I, Monteagudo A, Bennett T, Foley C, Ramos J, Kaelin Agten A. A new minimally invasive treatment for cesarean scar pregnancy and cervical pregnancy. Am J Obstet Gynec. 2016;215(3):351e1-e8.

Leduc D, Biringer A, Lee L, Dy J, Corbett T, Leduc D et al. Induction of Labour. J Obstet Gynec. Can. 2013;35(9):840-57.

Mccarthy FP, Kenny LC. Induction of lLbour. Obstet Gynec. Repro Med. 2011;21(1):1-6.

Torralba CD, Cabrejas EL, Gamboa SM, Moros ML, Maza JM, Mateo SC. Double-balloon catheter for induction of labour in women with a previous cesarean section, could it be the best choice?. Archi Gynecol Obstetr. 2017;295(5):1135-43.

Moher D, Shamseer L, Clarke M, Ghersi D, Liberati A, Petticrew M, et al. Preferred reporting items for systematic review and meta-analysis protocols (PRISMA-P) 2015 statement. Systematic reviews. 2015;4(1):1.

Hozo SP, Djulbegovic B, Hozo I. Estimating the mean and variance from the median, range, and the size of a sample. Brts Med Centr. 2005;5:1-10.

Higgins JPT, Sterne JAC, Savović J, Page MJ, Hróbjartsson A, Boutron I et al. A revised tool for assessing risk of bias in randomized trials In: Chandler J, McKenzie J, Boutron I, Welch V (editors). Cochrane Methods. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews. 2016(10).

Sterne J, Hernán M, Reeves B, Savović J, Berkman N, Viswanathan M et al. ROBINS-I: a tool for assessing risk of bias in non-randomised studies of interventions. Britis Med J. 2016;i4919

GRADEpro GDT: GRADEpro Guideline Development Tool [Software]. McMaster University, 2015 (developed by Evidence Prime, Inc.). Available at: gradepro.org. Accessed on 10 May 2020.

Ryan R, Hill S. How to GRADE the quality of the evidence. Cochrane Consumers and Communication Group. 2016.

Choi SW, Lam DMH. Heterogeneity in meta‐analyses. Comparing apples and oranges? Anaesthes. 2017;72:532-4.

Sterne JA, Sutton AJ, Ioannidis JP, Terrin N, Jones DR, Lau J, et al. Recommendations for examining and interpreting funnel plot asymmetry in meta-analyses of randomised controlled trials. Britis Med J. 2011;22;343.

Thorlund K, Engstrom J, Wetterslev J, et al. User manual for trial sequential analysis (TSA). Copenha Tria Unit. 2017:1-114.

Suffecool K, Rosenn BM, Kam S, Mushi J, Foroutan J, Herrera K. Labor induction in nulliparous women with an unfavorable cervix: double balloon catheter versus dinoprostone. J Perinat Med. 2014;42(2): 213-18.

Du C, Liu Y, Liu Y, Ding H, Zhang R, Tan J. Double-balloon catheter vs. dinoprostone vaginal insert for induction of labor with an unfavorable cervix. Arch Gynec Obstet. 2014;291(6):1221-27.

Wang W, Zheng J, Fu J, Zhang X, Ma Q, Yu S et al. Which is the safer method of labor induction for oligohydramnios women? Transcervical double balloon catheter or dinoprostone vaginal insert. J Matern –Fetal Neonatal Med. 2014;27(17):1805-18.

Cromi A, Ghezzi F, Uccella S, Agosti M, Serati M, Marchitelli G et al. A randomized trial of preinduc tion cervical ripening: dinoprostone vaginal insert versus double-balloon catheter. Am J Obstet Gynec. 2012;207(2):125.e1-e7.

Brown J, Beckmann M. Induction of labour using balloon catheter and prostaglandin gel. Aust NZ J Obstet Gyenc. 2017;57(1):68-73.

Shechter-Maor G, Haran G, Sadeh-Mestechkin D, Ganor-Paz Y, Fejgin M, Biron-Shental T. Intra-vaginal prostaglandin E2 versus double-balloon catheter for labor induction in term oligohydramnios. J Perinatol. 2014;35(2):95-8.

Løkkegaard E, Lundstrøm M, Kjær M, Christensen I, Pedersen H, Nyholm H. Prospective multi-centre randomised trial comparing induction of labour with a double-balloon catheter versus dinoprostone. J Obstet Gynec. 2015;35(8):797-802

Du Y, Zhu L, Cui L, Jin B, Ou J. Double-balloon catheter versus prostaglandin E2 for cervical ripening and labour induction: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials. BJOG: Int J Obstet Gynec. 124(6):891-99.

Liu Y, Pu C, Wang X, Wang X. Double-balloon catheter versus dinoprostone insert for labour induction: a meta-analysis. Arch Gynec Obstet [Internet]. 2018;299(1):7-12.

Beckmann M, Gibbons K, Flenady V, Kumar S. Induction of labour using prostaglandin E 2 as an inpatient versus balloon catheter as an outpatient: a multicentre randomised controlled trial. Int J Obstet Gynec. 127(5):571-79.