Download PDF
Am J Perinatol 2016; 33(09): 866-872
DOI: 10.1055/s-0036-1580608
Original Article
Thieme Medical Publishers 333 Seventh Avenue, New York, NY 10001, USA.

Foley Catheter or Oral Misoprostol for Induction of Labor in Women with Term Premature Rupture of Membranes: A Randomized Multicenter Trial

Heidi Kruit
1   Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Helsinki University Hospital and University of Helsinki, Helsinki, Finland
,
Kati Tihtonen
2   Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Tampere University Hospital, Tampere, Finland
,
Tytti Raudaskoski
3   Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Oulu University Hospital, Oulu, Finland
,
Veli-Matti Ulander
1   Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Helsinki University Hospital and University of Helsinki, Helsinki, Finland
,
Ansa Aitokallio-Tallberg
1   Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Helsinki University Hospital and University of Helsinki, Helsinki, Finland
,
Oskari Heikinheimo
1   Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Helsinki University Hospital and University of Helsinki, Helsinki, Finland
,
Jorma Paavonen
1   Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Helsinki University Hospital and University of Helsinki, Helsinki, Finland
,
Leena Rahkonen
1   Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Helsinki University Hospital and University of Helsinki, Helsinki, Finland
› Author Affiliations
Further Information

Publication History

24 August 2015

10 February 2016

Publication Date:
31 March 2016 (online)

    Permissions and Reprints

Abstract

Objectives To compare the Foley catheter and misoprostol for induction of labor in term women with premature rupture of membranes.

Study Design A randomized controlled trial was performed in three university hospitals in Finland between March 2012 and September 2014. A total of 202 term women with ruptured membranes >18 hours, singleton pregnancies in cephalic presentation, unfavorable cervix, and no prior cesarean section were enrolled. Participants were randomly allocated to induction of labor by Foley catheter or oral misoprostol in a 1:1 ratio. All women received prophylactic antibiotics. The main outcomes were cesarean section and maternal and neonatal infections.

Results Labor induction by Foley catheter or misoprostol showed no difference in cesarean delivery rates (23.6 vs. 18.2%; odds ratio [OR], 1.39; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.69–2.82; p = 0.36), maternal intrapartum infections (2.2 vs. 2%; OR, 1.12; 95% CI, 0.15–8.9; p = 1.00), postpartum infections (1.1 vs. 2.0%; OR, 0.55; 95% CI, 0.05–6.18; p = 1.00), or neonatal infections (1.1 vs. 5.1%; OR, 0.21; 95% CI, 0.24–1.87; p = 0.22). The total time from induction to delivery was similar (1,311 vs. 1,435 minutes; p = 0.31) in the two groups.

Conclusions Foley catheter or misoprostol can both be used for induction of labor in women with term premature rupture of membranes.

Keywords

premature rupture of membranes - induction of labor - Foley catheter - misoprostol
 

  • References

  • 1 Practice bulletins No. 139: premature rupture of membranes. Obstet Gynecol 2013; 122 (4) 918-930
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 2 Hannah ME, Ohlsson A, Farine D , et al; TERMPROM Study Group. Induction of labor compared with expectant management for prelabor rupture of the membranes at term. N Engl J Med 1996; 334 (16) 1005-1010
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 3 Gunn GC, Mishell Jr DR, Morton DG. Premature rupture of the fetal membranes. A review. Am J Obstet Gynecol 1970; 106 (3) 469-483
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 4 Abraham C, Meirowitz N, Kohn N. Labor induction for premature rupture of membranes using vaginal misoprostol versus dinoprostone vaginal insert. Am J Perinatol 2014; 31 (3) 181-186
    Article in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 5 Radoff KA. Orally administered misoprostol for induction of labor with prelabor rupture of membranes at term. J Midwifery Womens Health 2014; 59 (3) 254-263
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 6 Jozwiak M, Oude Rengerink K, Benthem M , et al; PROBAAT Study Group. Foley catheter versus vaginal prostaglandin E2 gel for induction of labour at term (PROBAAT trial): an open-label, randomised controlled trial. Lancet 2011; 378 (9809) 2095-2103
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 7 Prager M, Eneroth-Grimfors E, Edlund M, Marions L. A randomised controlled trial of intravaginal dinoprostone, intravaginal misoprostol and transcervical balloon catheter for labour induction. BJOG 2008; 115 (11) 1443-1450
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 8 Pennell CE, Henderson JJ, O'Neill MJ, McChlery S, Doherty DA, Dickinson JE. Induction of labour in nulliparous women with an unfavourable cervix: a randomised controlled trial comparing double and single balloon catheters and PGE2 gel. BJOG 2009; 116 (11) 1443-1452
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 9 Sciscione AC, Muench M, Pollock M, Jenkins TM, Tildon-Burton J, Colmorgen GH. Transcervical Foley catheter for preinduction cervical ripening in an outpatient versus inpatient setting. Obstet Gynecol 2001; 98 (5, Pt 1) 751-756
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 10 Wolff K, Swahn ML, Westgren M. Balloon catheter for induction of labor in nulliparous women with prelabor rupture of the membranes at term. A preliminary report. Gynecol Obstet Invest 1998; 46 (1) 1-4
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 11 Bishop EH. Pelvic scoring for elective induction. Obstet Gynecol 1964; 24: 266-268
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 12 Weeks A, Alfirevic Z. Oral misoprostol administration for labor induction. Clin Obstet Gynecol 2006; 49 (3) 658-671
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 13 Caughey AB, Cahill AG, Guise JM, Rouse DJ ; American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (College); Society for Maternal-Fetal Medicine. Safe prevention of the primary cesarean delivery. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2014; 210 (3) 179-193
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 14 ACOG Committee on Practice Bulletins-Obstetrics. ACOG Practice Bulletin No. 80: premature rupture of membranes. Clinical management guidelines for obstetrician-gynecologists. Obstet Gynecol 2007; 109 (4) 1007-1019
    Google Scholar
  • 15 Dare MR, Middleton P, Crowther CA, Flenady VJ, Varatharaju B. Planned early birth versus expectant management (waiting) for prelabour rupture of membranes at term (37 weeks or more). Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2006; 1 (1) CD005302
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 16 Jozwiak M, Dodd JM. Methods of term labour induction for women with a previous caesarean section. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2013; 3: CD009792
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 17 Sciscione AC, Bedder CL, Hoffman MK, Ruhstaller K, Shlossman PA. The timing of adverse events with Foley catheter preinduction cervical ripening; implications for outpatient use. Am J Perinatol 2014; 31 (9) 781-786
    Article in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 18 Vrouenraets FP, Roumen FJ, Dehing CJ, van den Akker ES, Aarts MJ, Scheve EJ. Bishop score and risk of cesarean delivery after induction of labor in nulliparous women. Obstet Gynecol 2005; 105 (4) 690-697
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 19 Tran SH, Cheng YW, Kaimal AJ, Caughey AB. Length of rupture of membranes in the setting of premature rupture of membranes at term and infectious maternal morbidity. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2008; 198 (6) 700.e1-700.e5
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 20 Heinemann J, Gillen G, Sanchez-Ramos L, Kaunitz AM. Do mechanical methods of cervical ripening increase infectious morbidity? A systematic review. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2008; 199 (2) 177-187 , discussion 187–188
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 21 Mackeen AD, Walker L, Ruhstaller K, Schuster M, Sciscione A. Foley catheter vs prostaglandin as ripening agent in pregnant women with premature rupture of membranes. J Am Osteopath Assoc 2014; 114 (9) 686-692
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 22 Cabrera IB, Quinones JN, Durie DE, Rust J, Smulian JC, Scorza WE. Intracervical balloon placement and the risk of chorioamnionitis in term rupture of membranes. J Matern Fetal Neonatal Med 2016; Mar; 29 (6) 967-971 . doi: 10.3109/14767058.2015.1027191. Epub 2015 Sep 25
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 23 Alfirevic Z, Aflaifel N, Weeks A. Oral misoprostol for induction of labour. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2014; 6: CD001338
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 24 Shetty A, Stewart K, Stewart G, Rice P, Danielian P, Templeton A. Active management of term prelabour rupture of membranes with oral misoprostol. BJOG 2002; 109 (12) 1354-1358
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 25 Cheng SY, Ming H, Lee JC. Titrated oral compared with vaginal misoprostol for labor induction: a randomized controlled trial. Obstet Gynecol 2008; 111 (1) 119-125
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 26 Shetty A, Livingstone I, Acharya S, Rice P, Danielian P, Templeton A. A randomised comparison of oral misoprostol and vaginal prostaglandin E2 tablets in labour induction at term. BJOG 2004; 111 (5) 436-440
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 27 Zahran KM, Shahin AY, Abdellah MS, Elsayh KI. Sublingual versus vaginal misoprostol for induction of labor at term: a randomized prospective placebo-controlled study. J Obstet Gynaecol Res 2009; 35 (6) 1054-1060
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar