Cargando…

Foley catheter plus misoprostol versus misoprostol alone for labor induction

OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to analyze the effects of Foley catheter combined with misoprostol in the labor induction process. METHODS: This is a nonblinded, block randomized, controlled trial that compared the association between transcervical Foley catheter/vaginal misoprostol 25 μg combination an...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Elpo, Jhonathan Alcides, Araújo, Bruna de Aguiar, Volpato, Lia Karina
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Associação Médica Brasileira 2023
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9937608/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/36629651
http://dx.doi.org/10.1590/1806-9282.20220897
_version_ 1784890459751972864
author Elpo, Jhonathan Alcides
Araújo, Bruna de Aguiar
Volpato, Lia Karina
author_facet Elpo, Jhonathan Alcides
Araújo, Bruna de Aguiar
Volpato, Lia Karina
author_sort Elpo, Jhonathan Alcides
collection PubMed
description OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to analyze the effects of Foley catheter combined with misoprostol in the labor induction process. METHODS: This is a nonblinded, block randomized, controlled trial that compared the association between transcervical Foley catheter/vaginal misoprostol 25 μg combination and vaginal misoprostol 25 μg alone in normal-risk and healthy pregnant women undergoing labor induction in the south of Brazil. RESULTS: A total of 230 patients with indications for labor induction were evaluated and classified into the “combined” group (Foley catheter plus misoprostol), consisting of 107 patients, and the “misoprostol” group (misoprostol only), consisting of 123 patients. The “combined” group was observed to have a shorter labor induction time (p=0.008). In addition, there was a lower need for misoprostol use for overall cervical ripening (p<0.001) and a lower relative risk of needing a second, third, or fourth misoprostol tablet in the “combined” group (risk ratio [RR] 0.80, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.71–0.91; RR 0.41; 95%CI 0.31–0.56; and RR 0.29, 95%CI 0.17–0.52, respectively) (p<0.001). No statistically significant difference was found in induction failure rate, cesarean section rate, or perinatal outcomes. CONCLUSION: A combination of methods leads to shorter labor induction, lower need for misoprostol doses, and lower risk of cesarean section, with no increase in the rate of perinatal complications. REBEC number is RBR-7xcjz3z.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-9937608
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2023
publisher Associação Médica Brasileira
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-99376082023-02-18 Foley catheter plus misoprostol versus misoprostol alone for labor induction Elpo, Jhonathan Alcides Araújo, Bruna de Aguiar Volpato, Lia Karina Rev Assoc Med Bras (1992) Original Article OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to analyze the effects of Foley catheter combined with misoprostol in the labor induction process. METHODS: This is a nonblinded, block randomized, controlled trial that compared the association between transcervical Foley catheter/vaginal misoprostol 25 μg combination and vaginal misoprostol 25 μg alone in normal-risk and healthy pregnant women undergoing labor induction in the south of Brazil. RESULTS: A total of 230 patients with indications for labor induction were evaluated and classified into the “combined” group (Foley catheter plus misoprostol), consisting of 107 patients, and the “misoprostol” group (misoprostol only), consisting of 123 patients. The “combined” group was observed to have a shorter labor induction time (p=0.008). In addition, there was a lower need for misoprostol use for overall cervical ripening (p<0.001) and a lower relative risk of needing a second, third, or fourth misoprostol tablet in the “combined” group (risk ratio [RR] 0.80, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.71–0.91; RR 0.41; 95%CI 0.31–0.56; and RR 0.29, 95%CI 0.17–0.52, respectively) (p<0.001). No statistically significant difference was found in induction failure rate, cesarean section rate, or perinatal outcomes. CONCLUSION: A combination of methods leads to shorter labor induction, lower need for misoprostol doses, and lower risk of cesarean section, with no increase in the rate of perinatal complications. REBEC number is RBR-7xcjz3z. Associação Médica Brasileira 2023-01-09 /pmc/articles/PMC9937608/ /pubmed/36629651 http://dx.doi.org/10.1590/1806-9282.20220897 Text en https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/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 work is properly cited.
spellingShingle Original Article
Elpo, Jhonathan Alcides
Araújo, Bruna de Aguiar
Volpato, Lia Karina
Foley catheter plus misoprostol versus misoprostol alone for labor induction
title Foley catheter plus misoprostol versus misoprostol alone for labor induction
title_full Foley catheter plus misoprostol versus misoprostol alone for labor induction
title_fullStr Foley catheter plus misoprostol versus misoprostol alone for labor induction
title_full_unstemmed Foley catheter plus misoprostol versus misoprostol alone for labor induction
title_short Foley catheter plus misoprostol versus misoprostol alone for labor induction
title_sort foley catheter plus misoprostol versus misoprostol alone for labor induction
topic Original Article
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9937608/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/36629651
http://dx.doi.org/10.1590/1806-9282.20220897
work_keys_str_mv AT elpojhonathanalcides foleycatheterplusmisoprostolversusmisoprostolaloneforlaborinduction
AT araujobrunadeaguiar foleycatheterplusmisoprostolversusmisoprostolaloneforlaborinduction
AT volpatoliakarina foleycatheterplusmisoprostolversusmisoprostolaloneforlaborinduction