Cervical Osmotic Dilators versus Dinoprostone for Cervical Ripening during Labor Induction: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis of 14 Controlled Trials

Abdulrahman Al-Matary; Saud A. Alsharif; Ibtihal A. Bukhari; Saeed Baradwan; Majed S. Alshahrani; Khalid Khadawardi; Ehab Badghish; Bayan Albouq; Afnan Baradwan; Mohammed Abuzaid; Haifa Al-Jundy; Abdullah Alyousef; Wael S. Ragab; Ahmed Abu-Zaid

doi:10.1055/s-0043-1770161

American Journal of Perinatology, Inhaltsverzeichnis

Am J Perinatol 2024; 41(S 01): e2034-e2046
DOI: 10.1055/s-0043-1770161

Original Article

Cervical Osmotic Dilators versus Dinoprostone for Cervical Ripening during Labor Induction: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis of 14 Controlled Trials

Abdulrahman Al-Matary

¹Department of Neonatology, King Fahad Medical City, Riyadh, Saudi Arabia

,

Saud A. Alsharif

²Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, College of Medicine, Prince Sattam Bin Abdulaziz University, Alkharj, Saudi Arabia

,

Ibtihal A. Bukhari

³Clinical Sciences Department, College of Medicine, Princess Nourah bint Abdulrahman University, Riyadh, Saudi Arabia

,

Saeed Baradwan

⁴Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, King Faisal Specialist Hospital and Research Center, Jeddah, Saudi Arabia

,

Majed S. Alshahrani

⁵Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Faculty of Medicine, Najran University, Najran, Saudi Arabia

,

Khalid Khadawardi

⁶Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Faculty of Medicine, Umm Al-Qura University, Makkah, Saudi Arabia

,

Ehab Badghish

⁷Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Maternity and Children Hospital, Makkah, Saudi Arabia

,

Bayan Albouq

⁸Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Prince Mohammed Bin Abdulaziz National Guard Hospital, Madinah, Saudi Arabia

,

Afnan Baradwan

⁹Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Mediclinic Almurjan Hospital, Jeddah, Saudi Arabia

,

Mohammed Abuzaid

¹⁰Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Muhayl General Hospital, Muhayl, Saudi Arabia

,

Haifa Al-Jundy

¹¹Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Dr. Sulaiman Al-Habib Hospital, Riyadh, Saudi Arabia

,

Abdullah Alyousef

¹²Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, College of Medicine, Almaarefa University, Riyadh, Saudi Arabia

,

Wael S. Ragab

¹³Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Faculty of Medicine, Fayoum University, Fayoum, Egypt

,

Ahmed Abu-Zaid

¹⁴Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, College of Medicine, Alfaisal University, Riyadh, Saudi Arabia

¹⁵Department Pharmacology, College of Graduate Health Sciences, University of Tennessee Health Science Center, Memphis, Tennessee

› Institutsangaben

Abstract

Objective This study aimed to conduct a systematic review and meta-analysis of all randomized and nonrandomized controlled trials (RCTs and NCTs, respectively) that explored the maternal–neonatal outcomes of cervical osmotic dilators versus dinoprostone in promoting cervical ripening during labor induction.

Study Design Six major databases were screened until August 27, 2022. The quality of included studies was evaluated. The data were summarized as mean difference or risk ratio (RR) with 95% confidence interval (CI) in a random-effects model.

Results Overall, 14 studies with 15 arms were analyzed (n = 2,380 patients). Ten and four studies were RCTs and NCTs, respectively. The overall quality for RCTs varied (low risk n = 2, unclear risk n = 7, and high risk n = 1), whereas all NCTs had good quality (n = 4). For the primary endpoints, there was no significant difference between both groups regarding the rate of normal vaginal delivery (RR = 1.04, 95% CI: 0.95–1.14, p = 0.41) and rate of cesarean delivery (RR = 1.04, 95% CI: 0.93–1.17, p = 0.51). Additionally, there was no significant difference between both groups regarding the mean change in Bishop score and mean time from intervention to delivery. The rate of uterine hyperstimulation was significantly lower in the cervical osmotic dilator group. For the neonatal outcomes, during cervical ripening, the rate of fetal distress was significantly lower in the cervical osmotic dilator group. There was no significant difference between both groups regarding the mean Apgar scores, rate of meconium-stained amniotic fluid, rate of umbilical cord metabolic acidosis, rate of neonatal infection, and rate of neonatal intensive care unit admission.

Conclusion During labor induction, cervical ripening with cervical osmotic dilators and dinoprostone had comparable maternal–neonatal outcomes. Cervical osmotic dilators had low risk of uterine hyperstimulation compared with dinoprostone. Overall, cervical osmotic dilators might be more preferred over dinoprostone in view of their analogous cervical ripening effects, comparable maternal–neonatal outcomes, and lack of drug-related adverse events.

Key Points

This is the first analysis of cervical osmotic dilators versus PGE2 for cervical ripening during labor.
There was no difference between both arms regarding the rates of normal vaginal/cesarean deliveries.
There was no difference between both arms regarding the rates of neonatal adverse events.
Cervical osmotic dilators had significant lower risk of uterine hyperstimulation compared with PGE2.
Cervical osmotic dilators may be superior to PGE2 in view of their similar efficacy and better safety.

Keywords

cervical osmotic dilators - dilapan - lamicel - laminaria - dinoprostone - cervical ripening - labor induction - meta-analysis

Volltext

Referenzen

References
1 Mozurkewich EL, Chilimigras JL, Berman DR. et al. Methods of induction of labour: a systematic review. BMC Pregnancy Childbirth 2011; 11: 84
2 Marconi AM. Recent advances in the induction of labor. F1000 Res 2019; 8: 8
3 Grobman WA, Rice MM, Reddy UM. et al; Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development Maternal–Fetal Medicine Units Network. Labor induction versus expectant management in low-risk nulliparous women. N Engl J Med 2018; 379 (06) 513-523
4 Swift EM, Gunnarsdottir J, Zoega H, Bjarnadottir RI, Steingrimsdottir T, Einarsdottir K. Trends in labor induction indications: A 20-year population-based study. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand 2022; 101 (12) 1422-1430
5 Simpson KR. Trends in labor induction in the United States, 1989 to 2020. MCN Am J Matern Child Nurs 2022; 47 (04) 235
6 Kruit H, Gissler M, Heinonen S, Rahkonen L. Breaking the myth: the association between the increasing incidence of labour induction and the rate of caesarean delivery in Finland - a nationwide Medical Birth Register study. BMJ Open 2022; 12 (07) e060161
7 Watson WJ, Stevens D, Welter S, Day D. Factors predicting successful labor induction. Obstet Gynecol 1996; 88 (06) 990-992
8 Vogel JP, Osoti AO, Kelly AJ, Livio S, Norman JE, Alfirevic Z. Pharmacological and mechanical interventions for labour induction in outpatient settings. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2017; 9 (09) CD007701
9 Gupta J, Baev O, Duro Gomez J. et al. Mechanical methods for induction of labor. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol 2022; 269: 138-142
10 Bakker R, Pierce S, Myers D. The role of prostaglandins E1 and E2, dinoprostone, and misoprostol in cervical ripening and the induction of labor: a mechanistic approach. Arch Gynecol Obstet 2017; 296 (02) 167-179
11 Pierce S, Bakker R, Myers DA, Edwards RK. Clinical insights for cervical ripening and labor induction using prostaglandins. AJP Rep 2018; 8 (04) e307-e314
12 Roztocil A, Pilka L, Jelínek J, Koudelka M, Miklica J. A comparison of three preinduction cervical priming methods: prostaglandin E2 gel, Dilapan S rods and Estradiol gel. Ceska Gynekol 1998; 63 (01) 3-9
13 Gupta JK, Maher A, Stubbs C, Brocklehurst P, Daniels JP, Hardy P. Synthetic Osmotic Cervical Dilator for Induction of Labor in Comparison to Dinoprostone Vaginal insErt (SOLVE) collaborative group. A randomized trial of synthetic osmotic cervical dilator for induction of labor vs dinoprostone vaginal insert. Am J Obstet Gynecol MFM 2022; 4 (04) 100628
14 Chua S, Arulkumaran S, Vanaja K, Ratnam SS. Preinduction cervical ripening: prostaglandin E2 gel vs hygroscopic mechanical dilator. J Obstet Gynaecol Res 1997; 23 (02) 171-177
15 Sanchez-Ramos L, Kaunitz AM, Connor PM. Hygroscopic cervical dilators and prostaglandin E2 gel for preinduction cervical ripening. A randomized, prospective comparison. J Reprod Med 1992; 37 (04) 355-359
16 Koenigbauer JT, Schalinski E, Jarchau U. et al. Cervical ripening after cesarean section: a prospective dual center study comparing a mechanical osmotic dilator vs. prostaglandin E2. J Perinat Med 2021; 49 (07) 797-805
17 Maier JT, Metz M, Watermann N. et al. Induction of labor in patients with an unfavorable cervix after a cesarean using an osmotic dilator versus vaginal prostaglandin. J Perinat Med 2018; 46 (03) 299-307
18 Crosby DA, O'Reilly C, McHale H, McAuliffe FM, Mahony R. A prospective pilot study of Dilapan-S compared with Propess for induction of labour at 41+ weeks in nulliparous pregnancy. Ir J Med Sci 2018; 187 (03) 693-699
19 Krammer J, Williams MC, Sawai SK, O'Brien WF. Pre-induction cervical ripening: a randomized comparison of two methods. Obstet Gynecol 1995; 85 (04) 614-618
20 Cahill DJ, Clark HS, Martin DH. Cervical ripening: the comparative effectiveness of Lamicel and prostaglandin E2 tablets. Ir J Med Sci 1988; 157 (04) 113-114
21 Johnson IR, Macpherson MB, Welch CC, Filshie GM. A comparison of Lamicel and prostaglandin E2 vaginal gel for cervical ripening before induction of labor. Am J Obstet Gynecol 1985; 151 (05) 604-607
22 Jeeva MA, Dommisse J. Laminaria tents or vaginal prostaglandins for cervical ripening. A comparative trial. S Afr Med J 1982; 61 (11) 402-403
23 Guinn DA, Goepfert AR, Christine M, Owen J, Hauth JC. Extra-amniotic saline, laminaria, or prostaglandin E(2) gel for labor induction with unfavorable cervix: a randomized controlled trial. Obstet Gynecol 2000; 96 (01) 106-112
24 Bagratee JS, Moodley J. Synthetic laminaria tent for cervical ripening. S Afr Med J 1990; 78 (12) 738-741
25 Reinhard J, Raddatz R, Langer R. et al. Pilot study. Mechanical versus pharmacological term induction: a cohort group analysis of maternal and neonatal outcome–hygroscopic cervical dilator versus prostaglandin E2. Clin Obstet Gynecol Reprod Med 2016; 2 (04) 217-220
26 Moher D, Liberati A, Tetzlaff J, Altman DG. PRISMA Group. Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: the PRISMA statement. PLoS Med 2009; 6 (07) e1000097
27 Higgins JGS. Ed. Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions Version 5.1.0 [Internet] [updated March 2011]. The Cochrane Collaboration. Accessed June 5, 2023 at: www.handbook.cochrane.org
28 Higgins JP, Altman DG, Gøtzsche PC. et al; Cochrane Bias Methods Group, Cochrane Statistical Methods Group. The Cochrane Collaboration's tool for assessing risk of bias in randomised trials. BMJ 2011; 343: d5928
29 Stang A. Critical evaluation of the Newcastle-Ottawa scale for the assessment of the quality of nonrandomized studies in meta-analyses. Eur J Epidemiol 2010; 25 (09) 603-605
30 Wan X, Wang W, Liu J, Tong T. Estimating the sample mean and standard deviation from the sample size, median, range and/or interquartile range. BMC Med Res Methodol 2014; 14: 135
31 DerSimonian R, Laird N. Meta-analysis in clinical trials. Control Clin Trials 1986; 7 (03) 177-188
32 Dickersin K, Berlin JA. Meta-analysis: state-of-the-science. Epidemiol Rev 1992; 14: 154-176
33 Higgins JP, Thompson SG, Deeks JJ, Altman DG. Measuring inconsistency in meta-analyses. BMJ 2003; 327 (7414): 557-560
34 Egger M, Davey Smith G, Schneider M, Minder C. Bias in meta-analysis detected by a simple, graphical test. BMJ 1997; 315 (7109): 629-634
35 Leppert PC. Anatomy and physiology of cervical ripening. Clin Obstet Gynecol 1995; 38 (02) 267-279
36 Shirley M. Dinoprostone vaginal insert: a review in cervical ripening. Drugs 2018; 78 (15) 1615-1624
37 Gavara R, Saad AF, Wapner RJ. et al. Cervical ripening efficacy of synthetic osmotic cervical dilator compared with oral misoprostol at term: a randomized controlled trial. Obstet Gynecol 2022; 139 (06) 1083-1091
38 Kashanian M, Eshraghi N, Sheikhansari N. Comparing the efficacy of dilapan with extra-amniotic saline infusion and oral misoprostol for cervical ripening in term pregnancies. J Matern Fetal Neonatal Med 2022; 35 (25) 5616-5620
39 Gupta J, Chodankar R, Baev O. et al. Synthetic osmotic dilators in the induction of labour-an international multicentre observational study. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol 2018; 229: 70-75
40 Saad AF, Villarreal J, Eid J. et al. A randomized controlled trial of Dilapan-S vs Foley balloon for preinduction cervical ripening (DILAFOL trial). Am J Obstet Gynecol 2019; 220 (03) 275.e1-275.e9
41 Nicolaides KH, Welch CC, MacPherson MB, Johnson IR, Filshie GM. Lamicel: a new technique for cervical dilatation before first trimester abortion. Br J Obstet Gynaecol 1983; 90 (05) 475-479
42 Shindo R, Aoki S, Yonemoto N. et al. Hygroscopic dilators vs balloon catheter ripening of the cervix for induction of labor in nulliparous women at term: retrospective study. PLoS One 2017; 12 (12) e0189665
43 Efthimiou O, Mavridis D, Debray TP. et al; GetReal Work Package 4. Combining randomized and non-randomized evidence in network meta-analysis. Stat Med 2017; 36 (08) 1210-1226
44 Sarri G, Patorno E, Yuan H. et al. Framework for the synthesis of non-randomised studies and randomised controlled trials: a guidance on conducting a systematic review and meta-analysis for healthcare decision making. BMJ Evid Based Med 2022; 27 (02) 109-119
45 Blumenthal PD, Ramanauskas R. Randomized trial of Dilapan and Laminaria as cervical ripening agents before induction of labor. Obstet Gynecol 1990; 75 (3, Pt 1): 365-368
46 Abu-Zaid A, Alshahrani MS, Al-Matary A. et al. Isosorbide mononitrate for cervical ripening during labour induction: a systematic review and meta-analysis of 23 randomized controlled trials. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol 2022; 276: 38-46
47 Abu-Zaid A, Khadawardi K, Al-Matary A. et al. Isosorbide mononitrate versus dinoprostone for cervical ripening during labor induction: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. Reprod Sci 2023; 30 (02) 380-389
48 Turnquest MA, Lemke MD, Brown HL. Cervical ripening: randomized comparison of intravaginal prostaglandin E2 gel with prostaglandin E2 gel plus laminaria tents. J Matern Fetal Med 1997; 6 (05) 260-263
49 Hibbard JU, Shashoua A, Adamczyk C, Ismail M. Cervical ripening with prostaglandin gel and hygroscopic dilators. Infect Dis Obstet Gynecol 1998; 6 (01) 18-24

Zusatzmaterial

Supplementary Material