Cargando…

Comparison of Intracervical Foley’s Catheter With Vaginal Misoprostol Versus Intravaginal Misoprostol Alone for Cervical Ripening and Induction of Labor

Introduction Induction of labor implies stimulation of contractions before the spontaneous onset of labor, with or without membranes. Augmentation refers to the enhancement of spontaneous contractions that are considered inadequate because of failed cervical and fetal descent. This study compared th...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Kadu, Nivedita A, Shiragur, Shobha
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Cureus 2023
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10557466/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/37809166
http://dx.doi.org/10.7759/cureus.44772
_version_ 1785117096283209728
author Kadu, Nivedita A
Shiragur, Shobha
author_facet Kadu, Nivedita A
Shiragur, Shobha
author_sort Kadu, Nivedita A
collection PubMed
description Introduction Induction of labor implies stimulation of contractions before the spontaneous onset of labor, with or without membranes. Augmentation refers to the enhancement of spontaneous contractions that are considered inadequate because of failed cervical and fetal descent. This study compared the effectiveness of intracervical Foley catheter insertion and vaginal misoprostol versus only vaginal misoprostol in the induction of labor and other outcomes relted to it. Methods The present study was a randomized controlled trial that included 148 women divided into two groups: (i) Group A, which received intracervical Foley catheter insertion and vaginal misoprostol (25 µg), and (ii) Group B, which received intravaginal administration of tablet misoprostol (25 µg) alone. We compared the median time from the time of induction to vaginal delivery, incidence of cesarean delivery, chorioamnionitis, puerperal infection, uterine tachysystole, neonatal information at delivery, and discharge status (i.e., birth weight, neonatal intensive care unit (NICU) admission, and neonatal death) between groups. Results We found that the rates of puerperal infection (n=36; 48.6%) and meconium-stained amniotic fluid (n=45; 60.8%) were higher in Group B than in Group A (n=20; 27.0% and n=25; 33.8%, respectively), which were statistically significant differences (p=0.0066 and p=0.0009, respectively). In addition, NICU admission was higher in Group B (n=47; 63.5%) than in Group A (n=30; 40.5%), which was a statistically significant difference (p=0.0051). Conclusion An intracervical Foley catheter with 25 µg of misoprostol was more effective for induction of labor than 25 µg of intravaginal misoprostol alone every six hours for a maximum of four doses in terms of induction to delivery interval, meconium-stained amniotic fluid, mode of delivery, intrapartum complications, and puerperal infection.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-10557466
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2023
publisher Cureus
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-105574662023-10-07 Comparison of Intracervical Foley’s Catheter With Vaginal Misoprostol Versus Intravaginal Misoprostol Alone for Cervical Ripening and Induction of Labor Kadu, Nivedita A Shiragur, Shobha Cureus Obstetrics/Gynecology Introduction Induction of labor implies stimulation of contractions before the spontaneous onset of labor, with or without membranes. Augmentation refers to the enhancement of spontaneous contractions that are considered inadequate because of failed cervical and fetal descent. This study compared the effectiveness of intracervical Foley catheter insertion and vaginal misoprostol versus only vaginal misoprostol in the induction of labor and other outcomes relted to it. Methods The present study was a randomized controlled trial that included 148 women divided into two groups: (i) Group A, which received intracervical Foley catheter insertion and vaginal misoprostol (25 µg), and (ii) Group B, which received intravaginal administration of tablet misoprostol (25 µg) alone. We compared the median time from the time of induction to vaginal delivery, incidence of cesarean delivery, chorioamnionitis, puerperal infection, uterine tachysystole, neonatal information at delivery, and discharge status (i.e., birth weight, neonatal intensive care unit (NICU) admission, and neonatal death) between groups. Results We found that the rates of puerperal infection (n=36; 48.6%) and meconium-stained amniotic fluid (n=45; 60.8%) were higher in Group B than in Group A (n=20; 27.0% and n=25; 33.8%, respectively), which were statistically significant differences (p=0.0066 and p=0.0009, respectively). In addition, NICU admission was higher in Group B (n=47; 63.5%) than in Group A (n=30; 40.5%), which was a statistically significant difference (p=0.0051). Conclusion An intracervical Foley catheter with 25 µg of misoprostol was more effective for induction of labor than 25 µg of intravaginal misoprostol alone every six hours for a maximum of four doses in terms of induction to delivery interval, meconium-stained amniotic fluid, mode of delivery, intrapartum complications, and puerperal infection. Cureus 2023-09-06 /pmc/articles/PMC10557466/ /pubmed/37809166 http://dx.doi.org/10.7759/cureus.44772 Text en Copyright © 2023, Kadu et al. https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.
spellingShingle Obstetrics/Gynecology
Kadu, Nivedita A
Shiragur, Shobha
Comparison of Intracervical Foley’s Catheter With Vaginal Misoprostol Versus Intravaginal Misoprostol Alone for Cervical Ripening and Induction of Labor
title Comparison of Intracervical Foley’s Catheter With Vaginal Misoprostol Versus Intravaginal Misoprostol Alone for Cervical Ripening and Induction of Labor
title_full Comparison of Intracervical Foley’s Catheter With Vaginal Misoprostol Versus Intravaginal Misoprostol Alone for Cervical Ripening and Induction of Labor
title_fullStr Comparison of Intracervical Foley’s Catheter With Vaginal Misoprostol Versus Intravaginal Misoprostol Alone for Cervical Ripening and Induction of Labor
title_full_unstemmed Comparison of Intracervical Foley’s Catheter With Vaginal Misoprostol Versus Intravaginal Misoprostol Alone for Cervical Ripening and Induction of Labor
title_short Comparison of Intracervical Foley’s Catheter With Vaginal Misoprostol Versus Intravaginal Misoprostol Alone for Cervical Ripening and Induction of Labor
title_sort comparison of intracervical foley’s catheter with vaginal misoprostol versus intravaginal misoprostol alone for cervical ripening and induction of labor
topic Obstetrics/Gynecology
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10557466/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/37809166
http://dx.doi.org/10.7759/cureus.44772
work_keys_str_mv AT kaduniveditaa comparisonofintracervicalfoleyscatheterwithvaginalmisoprostolversusintravaginalmisoprostolaloneforcervicalripeningandinductionoflabor
AT shiragurshobha comparisonofintracervicalfoleyscatheterwithvaginalmisoprostolversusintravaginalmisoprostolaloneforcervicalripeningandinductionoflabor