Cargando…

Labor induction with combined low-dose oral misoprostol and Foley catheter vs oral misoprostol alone at term gestation—a randomized study

BACKGROUND: The ideal method for induction of labor is still not clearly defined. Recent reports in literature have shown that oral administration of low-dose misoprostol is as effective as vaginal administration for induction of labor. The use of vaginal misoprostol in combination with Foley cathet...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Anjali, Jain, Sandhya, Pasrija, Shikha, Kille, Hima Chandana
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Elsevier 2022
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9563989/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/36276789
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.xagr.2022.100060
Descripción
Sumario:BACKGROUND: The ideal method for induction of labor is still not clearly defined. Recent reports in literature have shown that oral administration of low-dose misoprostol is as effective as vaginal administration for induction of labor. The use of vaginal misoprostol in combination with Foley catheter has been shown to shorten the period of induction. However, there are limited reports on the use of oral misoprostol in combination with Foley catheter. Given the convenience of oral administration, improved compliance relative to other methods is probable. This study proposed that the combination of oral misoprostol and Foley catheter would be a better means of inducing labor. OBJECTIVE: To compare the efficacy of combined low-dose oral misoprostol and Foley catheter with oral misoprostol alone for induction of labor at term gestation. The efficacy was compared in terms of the induction-to-delivery interval and the number of women delivering vaginally within 24 hours. The second objective was to document adverse events, if any, of the 2 protocols. STUDY DESIGN: The study was conducted at a tertiary care center and included 200 patients with indication for induction, randomly allotted to either of the 2 groups: group A (a combination of Foley catheter and 25-µg misoprostol every 2 hours orally) and group B (only 25-µg misoprostol every 2 hours orally), using computer-generated random number sequence. The obstetrical and neonatal outcomes were recorded and compared between the 2 groups. Quantitative variables were compared using unpaired and paired t-tests within the groups across follow-ups. RESULTS: Group A had significantly shorter mean induction-to-active-labor interval (10.67±1.75 vs 16.28±1.69 hours), mean induction-to-full-dilation interval (11.49 vs 19.00 hours), and mean induction-to-delivery interval (16.85 vs 21.90 hours). The proportion of women delivering vaginally within 24 hours was higher in group A (76 vs 57 women). In comparing maternal side effects, the only significant difference between the 2 groups was found in postpartum hemorrhage. A 5-minute Apgar score <7 was significantly more frequent in group B. CONCLUSION: The combination of oral misoprostol with transcervical Foley catheter reduced the induction-to-delivery interval significantly (P=.001). In addition, the proportion of women delivering vaginally within 24 hours was significantly higher. Hence, the use of oral misoprostol with Foley catheter for induction of labor would be beneficial for patients.