Cargando…

Double‐vs single‐balloon catheter for induction of labor: Systematic review and individual participant data meta‐analysis

INTRODUCTION: Evidence comparing double‐balloon vs single‐balloon catheter for induction of labor is divided. We aim to compare the efficacy and safety of double‐vs single‐balloon catheters using individual participant data. MATERIAL AND METHODS: A search of Ovid MEDLINE, Embase, Ovid Emcare, CINAHL...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Peel, Morgan D., Croll, Doortje M. R., Kessler, Jørg, Haugland, Birte, Pennell, Craig E., Dickinson, Jan E., Salim, Raed, Zafran, Noah, Palmer, Kirsten R., Mol, Ben W., Li, Wentao
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: John Wiley and Sons Inc. 2023
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10577628/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/37417714
http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/aogs.14626
_version_ 1785121366376185856
author Peel, Morgan D.
Croll, Doortje M. R.
Kessler, Jørg
Haugland, Birte
Pennell, Craig E.
Dickinson, Jan E.
Salim, Raed
Zafran, Noah
Palmer, Kirsten R.
Mol, Ben W.
Li, Wentao
author_facet Peel, Morgan D.
Croll, Doortje M. R.
Kessler, Jørg
Haugland, Birte
Pennell, Craig E.
Dickinson, Jan E.
Salim, Raed
Zafran, Noah
Palmer, Kirsten R.
Mol, Ben W.
Li, Wentao
author_sort Peel, Morgan D.
collection PubMed
description INTRODUCTION: Evidence comparing double‐balloon vs single‐balloon catheter for induction of labor is divided. We aim to compare the efficacy and safety of double‐vs single‐balloon catheters using individual participant data. MATERIAL AND METHODS: A search of Ovid MEDLINE, Embase, Ovid Emcare, CINAHL Plus, Scopus, and clinicaltrials.gov was conducted for randomized controlled trials published from March 2019 until April 13, 2021. Earlier trials were identified from the Cochrane Review on Mechanical Methods for Induction of Labour. Randomized controlled trials that compared double‐balloon with single‐balloon catheters for induction of labor in singleton gestations were eligible. Participant‐level data were sought from trial investigators and an individual participant data meta‐analysis was performed. The primary outcomes were rates of vaginal birth achieved, a composite measure of adverse maternal outcomes and a composite measure of adverse perinatal outcomes. We used a two‐stage random‐effects model. Data were analyzed from the intention‐to‐treat perspective. RESULTS: Of the eight eligible randomized controlled trials, three shared individual‐level data with a total of 689 participants, 344 women in the double‐balloon catheter group and 345 women in the single‐balloon catheter group. The difference in the rate of vaginal birth between double‐balloon catheter and single‐balloon catheter was not statistically significant (relative risk [RR] 0.93, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.86–1.00, p = 0.050; I (2) 0%; moderate‐certainty evidence). Both perinatal outcomes (RR 0.81, 95% CI 0.54–1.21, p = 0.691; I (2) 0%; moderate‐certainty evidence) and maternal composite outcomes (RR 0.65, 95% CI 0.15–2.87, p = 0.571; I (2) 55.46%; low‐certainty evidence) were not significantly different between the two groups. CONCLUSIONS: Single‐balloon catheter is at least comparable to double‐balloon catheter in terms of vaginal birth rate and maternal and perinatal safety outcomes.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-10577628
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2023
publisher John Wiley and Sons Inc.
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-105776282023-10-17 Double‐vs single‐balloon catheter for induction of labor: Systematic review and individual participant data meta‐analysis Peel, Morgan D. Croll, Doortje M. R. Kessler, Jørg Haugland, Birte Pennell, Craig E. Dickinson, Jan E. Salim, Raed Zafran, Noah Palmer, Kirsten R. Mol, Ben W. Li, Wentao Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand Systematic Reviews INTRODUCTION: Evidence comparing double‐balloon vs single‐balloon catheter for induction of labor is divided. We aim to compare the efficacy and safety of double‐vs single‐balloon catheters using individual participant data. MATERIAL AND METHODS: A search of Ovid MEDLINE, Embase, Ovid Emcare, CINAHL Plus, Scopus, and clinicaltrials.gov was conducted for randomized controlled trials published from March 2019 until April 13, 2021. Earlier trials were identified from the Cochrane Review on Mechanical Methods for Induction of Labour. Randomized controlled trials that compared double‐balloon with single‐balloon catheters for induction of labor in singleton gestations were eligible. Participant‐level data were sought from trial investigators and an individual participant data meta‐analysis was performed. The primary outcomes were rates of vaginal birth achieved, a composite measure of adverse maternal outcomes and a composite measure of adverse perinatal outcomes. We used a two‐stage random‐effects model. Data were analyzed from the intention‐to‐treat perspective. RESULTS: Of the eight eligible randomized controlled trials, three shared individual‐level data with a total of 689 participants, 344 women in the double‐balloon catheter group and 345 women in the single‐balloon catheter group. The difference in the rate of vaginal birth between double‐balloon catheter and single‐balloon catheter was not statistically significant (relative risk [RR] 0.93, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.86–1.00, p = 0.050; I (2) 0%; moderate‐certainty evidence). Both perinatal outcomes (RR 0.81, 95% CI 0.54–1.21, p = 0.691; I (2) 0%; moderate‐certainty evidence) and maternal composite outcomes (RR 0.65, 95% CI 0.15–2.87, p = 0.571; I (2) 55.46%; low‐certainty evidence) were not significantly different between the two groups. CONCLUSIONS: Single‐balloon catheter is at least comparable to double‐balloon catheter in terms of vaginal birth rate and maternal and perinatal safety outcomes. John Wiley and Sons Inc. 2023-07-07 /pmc/articles/PMC10577628/ /pubmed/37417714 http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/aogs.14626 Text en © 2023 The Authors. Acta Obstetricia et Gynecologica Scandinavica published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd on behalf of Nordic Federation of Societies of Obstetrics and Gynecology (NFOG). https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/This is an open access article under the terms of the http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/) License, which permits use, distribution and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
spellingShingle Systematic Reviews
Peel, Morgan D.
Croll, Doortje M. R.
Kessler, Jørg
Haugland, Birte
Pennell, Craig E.
Dickinson, Jan E.
Salim, Raed
Zafran, Noah
Palmer, Kirsten R.
Mol, Ben W.
Li, Wentao
Double‐vs single‐balloon catheter for induction of labor: Systematic review and individual participant data meta‐analysis
title Double‐vs single‐balloon catheter for induction of labor: Systematic review and individual participant data meta‐analysis
title_full Double‐vs single‐balloon catheter for induction of labor: Systematic review and individual participant data meta‐analysis
title_fullStr Double‐vs single‐balloon catheter for induction of labor: Systematic review and individual participant data meta‐analysis
title_full_unstemmed Double‐vs single‐balloon catheter for induction of labor: Systematic review and individual participant data meta‐analysis
title_short Double‐vs single‐balloon catheter for induction of labor: Systematic review and individual participant data meta‐analysis
title_sort double‐vs single‐balloon catheter for induction of labor: systematic review and individual participant data meta‐analysis
topic Systematic Reviews
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10577628/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/37417714
http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/aogs.14626
work_keys_str_mv AT peelmorgand doublevssingleballooncatheterforinductionoflaborsystematicreviewandindividualparticipantdatametaanalysis
AT crolldoortjemr doublevssingleballooncatheterforinductionoflaborsystematicreviewandindividualparticipantdatametaanalysis
AT kesslerjørg doublevssingleballooncatheterforinductionoflaborsystematicreviewandindividualparticipantdatametaanalysis
AT hauglandbirte doublevssingleballooncatheterforinductionoflaborsystematicreviewandindividualparticipantdatametaanalysis
AT pennellcraige doublevssingleballooncatheterforinductionoflaborsystematicreviewandindividualparticipantdatametaanalysis
AT dickinsonjane doublevssingleballooncatheterforinductionoflaborsystematicreviewandindividualparticipantdatametaanalysis
AT salimraed doublevssingleballooncatheterforinductionoflaborsystematicreviewandindividualparticipantdatametaanalysis
AT zafrannoah doublevssingleballooncatheterforinductionoflaborsystematicreviewandindividualparticipantdatametaanalysis
AT palmerkirstenr doublevssingleballooncatheterforinductionoflaborsystematicreviewandindividualparticipantdatametaanalysis
AT molbenw doublevssingleballooncatheterforinductionoflaborsystematicreviewandindividualparticipantdatametaanalysis
AT liwentao doublevssingleballooncatheterforinductionoflaborsystematicreviewandindividualparticipantdatametaanalysis