Cargando…

Effect of extra-amniotic Foley’s catheter and vaginal misoprostol versus vaginal misoprostol alone on cervical ripening and induction of labor in Kenya, a randomized controlled trial

BACKGROUND: The safest, most effective and fastest combined approaches to induction of labor is unknown. In an open-label randomized clinical trial we evaluated the efficacy of combination of extra-amniotic Foley’s catheter and vaginal misoprostol compared to vaginal misoprostol alone for cervical r...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Osoti, Alfred, Kibii, Davies Kiprop, Tong, Tito Mario Kual, Maranga, Innocent
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: BioMed Central 2018
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6044072/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/30001195
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12884-018-1793-2
_version_ 1783339408459563008
author Osoti, Alfred
Kibii, Davies Kiprop
Tong, Tito Mario Kual
Maranga, Innocent
author_facet Osoti, Alfred
Kibii, Davies Kiprop
Tong, Tito Mario Kual
Maranga, Innocent
author_sort Osoti, Alfred
collection PubMed
description BACKGROUND: The safest, most effective and fastest combined approaches to induction of labor is unknown. In an open-label randomized clinical trial we evaluated the efficacy of combination of extra-amniotic Foley’s catheter and vaginal misoprostol compared to vaginal misoprostol alone for cervical ripening and induction of labor on the incidence of failed induction, induction-to-delivery interval and adverse maternal and perinatal outcomes. METHODS: Pregnant women at gestational age of 28 weeks or greater admitted at Kenyatta National Hospital, Kenya for induction of labor were enrolled then randomized to either a combination of extra-amniotic Foley’s catheter inflated by 30 cm(3) of normal saline and 25 micrograms of vaginal misoprostol or 25 micrograms of vaginal misoprostol alone. Women underwent 6 hourly reviews and additional misoprostol inserted if required. The primary outcome was incidence of failed induction. Secondary outcomes were induction-to-delivery interval and adverse maternal and perinatal outcomes. We conducted an intent-to-treat analysis and compared means or medians using t-test or Wilcoxon rank, proportions using Chi-square or Fishers test as appropriate. Induction-to-delivery interval were compared using the log-rank test. P-values of < 0.05 and 95% confidence intervals that excluded the null were considered statistically significant. RESULTS: Between February and May 2016, we enrolled 180 of 237 pregnant women admitted for induction of labor and randomized them to either a combination of extra-amniotic Foley’s catheter and vaginal misoprostol (n = 90) or vaginal misoprostol alone (n = 90). The socio-demographic and obstetric characteristics were similar between the two groups. Failed induction rates were lower but not statistically significant following combined extra-amniotic Foley’s catheter and vaginal misoprostol (8.9%) versus vaginal misoprostol alone (11.1%). The mean induction-to-delivery time was 4.8 h shorter in the combined extra-amniotic Foley’s catheter and vaginal misoprostol (mean 18.9, standard deviation (SD) 7.2 h) compared to misoprostol only group (mean 14.1, SD 6.9 h) (log-rank test, p < 0.001). Maternal and perinatal complications were similar between the two groups. CONCLUSIONS: Extra-amniotic Foley’s catheter and vaginal misoprostol for cervical ripening and induction of labor did not significantly lower the incidence of failed induction but safely shortened induction-to-delivery time compared to vaginal misoprostol only. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Trial was retrospectively registered on 14–03-2016 PACTR201604001535825. ELECTRONIC SUPPLEMENTARY MATERIAL: The online version of this article (10.1186/s12884-018-1793-2) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-6044072
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2018
publisher BioMed Central
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-60440722018-07-16 Effect of extra-amniotic Foley’s catheter and vaginal misoprostol versus vaginal misoprostol alone on cervical ripening and induction of labor in Kenya, a randomized controlled trial Osoti, Alfred Kibii, Davies Kiprop Tong, Tito Mario Kual Maranga, Innocent BMC Pregnancy Childbirth Research Article BACKGROUND: The safest, most effective and fastest combined approaches to induction of labor is unknown. In an open-label randomized clinical trial we evaluated the efficacy of combination of extra-amniotic Foley’s catheter and vaginal misoprostol compared to vaginal misoprostol alone for cervical ripening and induction of labor on the incidence of failed induction, induction-to-delivery interval and adverse maternal and perinatal outcomes. METHODS: Pregnant women at gestational age of 28 weeks or greater admitted at Kenyatta National Hospital, Kenya for induction of labor were enrolled then randomized to either a combination of extra-amniotic Foley’s catheter inflated by 30 cm(3) of normal saline and 25 micrograms of vaginal misoprostol or 25 micrograms of vaginal misoprostol alone. Women underwent 6 hourly reviews and additional misoprostol inserted if required. The primary outcome was incidence of failed induction. Secondary outcomes were induction-to-delivery interval and adverse maternal and perinatal outcomes. We conducted an intent-to-treat analysis and compared means or medians using t-test or Wilcoxon rank, proportions using Chi-square or Fishers test as appropriate. Induction-to-delivery interval were compared using the log-rank test. P-values of < 0.05 and 95% confidence intervals that excluded the null were considered statistically significant. RESULTS: Between February and May 2016, we enrolled 180 of 237 pregnant women admitted for induction of labor and randomized them to either a combination of extra-amniotic Foley’s catheter and vaginal misoprostol (n = 90) or vaginal misoprostol alone (n = 90). The socio-demographic and obstetric characteristics were similar between the two groups. Failed induction rates were lower but not statistically significant following combined extra-amniotic Foley’s catheter and vaginal misoprostol (8.9%) versus vaginal misoprostol alone (11.1%). The mean induction-to-delivery time was 4.8 h shorter in the combined extra-amniotic Foley’s catheter and vaginal misoprostol (mean 18.9, standard deviation (SD) 7.2 h) compared to misoprostol only group (mean 14.1, SD 6.9 h) (log-rank test, p < 0.001). Maternal and perinatal complications were similar between the two groups. CONCLUSIONS: Extra-amniotic Foley’s catheter and vaginal misoprostol for cervical ripening and induction of labor did not significantly lower the incidence of failed induction but safely shortened induction-to-delivery time compared to vaginal misoprostol only. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Trial was retrospectively registered on 14–03-2016 PACTR201604001535825. ELECTRONIC SUPPLEMENTARY MATERIAL: The online version of this article (10.1186/s12884-018-1793-2) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users. BioMed Central 2018-07-12 /pmc/articles/PMC6044072/ /pubmed/30001195 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12884-018-1793-2 Text en © The Author(s). 2018 Open AccessThis article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated.
spellingShingle Research Article
Osoti, Alfred
Kibii, Davies Kiprop
Tong, Tito Mario Kual
Maranga, Innocent
Effect of extra-amniotic Foley’s catheter and vaginal misoprostol versus vaginal misoprostol alone on cervical ripening and induction of labor in Kenya, a randomized controlled trial
title Effect of extra-amniotic Foley’s catheter and vaginal misoprostol versus vaginal misoprostol alone on cervical ripening and induction of labor in Kenya, a randomized controlled trial
title_full Effect of extra-amniotic Foley’s catheter and vaginal misoprostol versus vaginal misoprostol alone on cervical ripening and induction of labor in Kenya, a randomized controlled trial
title_fullStr Effect of extra-amniotic Foley’s catheter and vaginal misoprostol versus vaginal misoprostol alone on cervical ripening and induction of labor in Kenya, a randomized controlled trial
title_full_unstemmed Effect of extra-amniotic Foley’s catheter and vaginal misoprostol versus vaginal misoprostol alone on cervical ripening and induction of labor in Kenya, a randomized controlled trial
title_short Effect of extra-amniotic Foley’s catheter and vaginal misoprostol versus vaginal misoprostol alone on cervical ripening and induction of labor in Kenya, a randomized controlled trial
title_sort effect of extra-amniotic foley’s catheter and vaginal misoprostol versus vaginal misoprostol alone on cervical ripening and induction of labor in kenya, a randomized controlled trial
topic Research Article
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6044072/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/30001195
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12884-018-1793-2
work_keys_str_mv AT osotialfred effectofextraamnioticfoleyscatheterandvaginalmisoprostolversusvaginalmisoprostolaloneoncervicalripeningandinductionoflaborinkenyaarandomizedcontrolledtrial
AT kibiidavieskiprop effectofextraamnioticfoleyscatheterandvaginalmisoprostolversusvaginalmisoprostolaloneoncervicalripeningandinductionoflaborinkenyaarandomizedcontrolledtrial
AT tongtitomariokual effectofextraamnioticfoleyscatheterandvaginalmisoprostolversusvaginalmisoprostolaloneoncervicalripeningandinductionoflaborinkenyaarandomizedcontrolledtrial
AT marangainnocent effectofextraamnioticfoleyscatheterandvaginalmisoprostolversusvaginalmisoprostolaloneoncervicalripeningandinductionoflaborinkenyaarandomizedcontrolledtrial