Cargando…

A comparison between induction of labor with 3 methods of titrated oral misoprostol, constant dose of oral misoprostol and Foley catheter with extra amniotic saline infusion (EASI), in women with unfavorable cervix

Background: Different methods of cervical ripening and induction of labor have been used in the cases of unfavorable cervix with different levels of success, but no method has been found to be the best option. The purpose of the present study was to find the effects and side effects of three differe...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Kashanian, Maryam, Bahasadri, Shohreh, Nejat Dehkordy, Ashraf, Sheikhansari, Narges, Eshraghi, Noushin
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Iran University of Medical Sciences 2019
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6946922/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/31934574
http://dx.doi.org/10.34171/mjiri.33.115
_version_ 1783485450302783488
author Kashanian, Maryam
Bahasadri, Shohreh
Nejat Dehkordy, Ashraf
Sheikhansari, Narges
Eshraghi, Noushin
author_facet Kashanian, Maryam
Bahasadri, Shohreh
Nejat Dehkordy, Ashraf
Sheikhansari, Narges
Eshraghi, Noushin
author_sort Kashanian, Maryam
collection PubMed
description Background: Different methods of cervical ripening and induction of labor have been used in the cases of unfavorable cervix with different levels of success, but no method has been found to be the best option. The purpose of the present study was to find the effects and side effects of three different methods of cervical ripening and induction of labor. These three methods were oral titrated misoprostol, constant dose of oral misoprostol and Foley catheter with extra-amniotic saline infusion. Methods: This clinical trial was performed on women with unfavorable cervix who had been admitted in Akbarabadi Teaching Hospital for induction of labor and had bishop score of less than six; between March 2014- March 2015. The eligible women were assigned into three groups. In titrated oral misoprostol group (n=33), titrated solution of misoprostol, and in oral misoprostol group (n=33), 50µg oral misoprostol every four hours and in Foley catheter group (n=50), Foley catheter with extra-amniotic saline infusion were administered. The main outcome was the number of vaginal deliveries during the first 24 hours. In addition, number of cesarean deliveries and adverse effects were compared between the three groups. The obtained data were analyzed using SPSS 18 software. Data analysis was performed according to the intention to treat principle. Chi-square test, Fisher Exact test, Student ttest, and Mann-Whitney U test, were used for comparing data. P-value≤0.05 was considered statistically significant. Results: The three groups did not have any significant difference according to maternal age, gestational age at the time of admission, gravidity, parity, and primary Bishop Score. There was no significant difference between the three groups for the main outcome, which was vaginal delivery during the first 24 hours (p=0.887). There was no significant difference between the three groups according to hypertonicity, uterine hyperstimulation, meconium passage, non-reassuring fetal heart rate, neonatal Apgar score in minutes one and 5, and mean duration of beginning the intervention up to delivery. However, uterine tachysystole and NICU admission were more in the group to whom the titrated solution of misoprostol was administered (p=0.002 and p=0.037 respectively). The number of cesarean deliveries due to failure to progress was higher in the EASI group. However, EASI group showed the least number of none-reassuring fetal heart rate between the three groups. Meconium passage was more in the titrated misoprostol group, but the difference was not significant. Conclusion: All three methods are appropriate methods for induction of labor in the cases of unfavorable cervix; and choosing each method depends on the expertise of labor staff, accessibility to the medications, cost, and taking care for monitoring the patients and adverse effects.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-6946922
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2019
publisher Iran University of Medical Sciences
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-69469222020-01-13 A comparison between induction of labor with 3 methods of titrated oral misoprostol, constant dose of oral misoprostol and Foley catheter with extra amniotic saline infusion (EASI), in women with unfavorable cervix Kashanian, Maryam Bahasadri, Shohreh Nejat Dehkordy, Ashraf Sheikhansari, Narges Eshraghi, Noushin Med J Islam Repub Iran Original Article Background: Different methods of cervical ripening and induction of labor have been used in the cases of unfavorable cervix with different levels of success, but no method has been found to be the best option. The purpose of the present study was to find the effects and side effects of three different methods of cervical ripening and induction of labor. These three methods were oral titrated misoprostol, constant dose of oral misoprostol and Foley catheter with extra-amniotic saline infusion. Methods: This clinical trial was performed on women with unfavorable cervix who had been admitted in Akbarabadi Teaching Hospital for induction of labor and had bishop score of less than six; between March 2014- March 2015. The eligible women were assigned into three groups. In titrated oral misoprostol group (n=33), titrated solution of misoprostol, and in oral misoprostol group (n=33), 50µg oral misoprostol every four hours and in Foley catheter group (n=50), Foley catheter with extra-amniotic saline infusion were administered. The main outcome was the number of vaginal deliveries during the first 24 hours. In addition, number of cesarean deliveries and adverse effects were compared between the three groups. The obtained data were analyzed using SPSS 18 software. Data analysis was performed according to the intention to treat principle. Chi-square test, Fisher Exact test, Student ttest, and Mann-Whitney U test, were used for comparing data. P-value≤0.05 was considered statistically significant. Results: The three groups did not have any significant difference according to maternal age, gestational age at the time of admission, gravidity, parity, and primary Bishop Score. There was no significant difference between the three groups for the main outcome, which was vaginal delivery during the first 24 hours (p=0.887). There was no significant difference between the three groups according to hypertonicity, uterine hyperstimulation, meconium passage, non-reassuring fetal heart rate, neonatal Apgar score in minutes one and 5, and mean duration of beginning the intervention up to delivery. However, uterine tachysystole and NICU admission were more in the group to whom the titrated solution of misoprostol was administered (p=0.002 and p=0.037 respectively). The number of cesarean deliveries due to failure to progress was higher in the EASI group. However, EASI group showed the least number of none-reassuring fetal heart rate between the three groups. Meconium passage was more in the titrated misoprostol group, but the difference was not significant. Conclusion: All three methods are appropriate methods for induction of labor in the cases of unfavorable cervix; and choosing each method depends on the expertise of labor staff, accessibility to the medications, cost, and taking care for monitoring the patients and adverse effects. Iran University of Medical Sciences 2019-10-28 /pmc/articles/PMC6946922/ /pubmed/31934574 http://dx.doi.org/10.34171/mjiri.33.115 Text en © 2019 Iran University of Medical Sciences http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/1.0/ This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution NonCommercial-ShareAlike 1.0 License (CC BY-NC-SA 1.0), which allows users to read, copy, distribute and make derivative works for non-commercial purposes from the material, as long as the author of the original work is cited properly.
spellingShingle Original Article
Kashanian, Maryam
Bahasadri, Shohreh
Nejat Dehkordy, Ashraf
Sheikhansari, Narges
Eshraghi, Noushin
A comparison between induction of labor with 3 methods of titrated oral misoprostol, constant dose of oral misoprostol and Foley catheter with extra amniotic saline infusion (EASI), in women with unfavorable cervix
title A comparison between induction of labor with 3 methods of titrated oral misoprostol, constant dose of oral misoprostol and Foley catheter with extra amniotic saline infusion (EASI), in women with unfavorable cervix
title_full A comparison between induction of labor with 3 methods of titrated oral misoprostol, constant dose of oral misoprostol and Foley catheter with extra amniotic saline infusion (EASI), in women with unfavorable cervix
title_fullStr A comparison between induction of labor with 3 methods of titrated oral misoprostol, constant dose of oral misoprostol and Foley catheter with extra amniotic saline infusion (EASI), in women with unfavorable cervix
title_full_unstemmed A comparison between induction of labor with 3 methods of titrated oral misoprostol, constant dose of oral misoprostol and Foley catheter with extra amniotic saline infusion (EASI), in women with unfavorable cervix
title_short A comparison between induction of labor with 3 methods of titrated oral misoprostol, constant dose of oral misoprostol and Foley catheter with extra amniotic saline infusion (EASI), in women with unfavorable cervix
title_sort comparison between induction of labor with 3 methods of titrated oral misoprostol, constant dose of oral misoprostol and foley catheter with extra amniotic saline infusion (easi), in women with unfavorable cervix
topic Original Article
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6946922/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/31934574
http://dx.doi.org/10.34171/mjiri.33.115
work_keys_str_mv AT kashanianmaryam acomparisonbetweeninductionoflaborwith3methodsoftitratedoralmisoprostolconstantdoseoforalmisoprostolandfoleycatheterwithextraamnioticsalineinfusioneasiinwomenwithunfavorablecervix
AT bahasadrishohreh acomparisonbetweeninductionoflaborwith3methodsoftitratedoralmisoprostolconstantdoseoforalmisoprostolandfoleycatheterwithextraamnioticsalineinfusioneasiinwomenwithunfavorablecervix
AT nejatdehkordyashraf acomparisonbetweeninductionoflaborwith3methodsoftitratedoralmisoprostolconstantdoseoforalmisoprostolandfoleycatheterwithextraamnioticsalineinfusioneasiinwomenwithunfavorablecervix
AT sheikhansarinarges acomparisonbetweeninductionoflaborwith3methodsoftitratedoralmisoprostolconstantdoseoforalmisoprostolandfoleycatheterwithextraamnioticsalineinfusioneasiinwomenwithunfavorablecervix
AT eshraghinoushin acomparisonbetweeninductionoflaborwith3methodsoftitratedoralmisoprostolconstantdoseoforalmisoprostolandfoleycatheterwithextraamnioticsalineinfusioneasiinwomenwithunfavorablecervix
AT kashanianmaryam comparisonbetweeninductionoflaborwith3methodsoftitratedoralmisoprostolconstantdoseoforalmisoprostolandfoleycatheterwithextraamnioticsalineinfusioneasiinwomenwithunfavorablecervix
AT bahasadrishohreh comparisonbetweeninductionoflaborwith3methodsoftitratedoralmisoprostolconstantdoseoforalmisoprostolandfoleycatheterwithextraamnioticsalineinfusioneasiinwomenwithunfavorablecervix
AT nejatdehkordyashraf comparisonbetweeninductionoflaborwith3methodsoftitratedoralmisoprostolconstantdoseoforalmisoprostolandfoleycatheterwithextraamnioticsalineinfusioneasiinwomenwithunfavorablecervix
AT sheikhansarinarges comparisonbetweeninductionoflaborwith3methodsoftitratedoralmisoprostolconstantdoseoforalmisoprostolandfoleycatheterwithextraamnioticsalineinfusioneasiinwomenwithunfavorablecervix
AT eshraghinoushin comparisonbetweeninductionoflaborwith3methodsoftitratedoralmisoprostolconstantdoseoforalmisoprostolandfoleycatheterwithextraamnioticsalineinfusioneasiinwomenwithunfavorablecervix