+ Site Statistics
References:
54,258,434
Abstracts:
29,560,870
PMIDs:
28,072,757
+ Search Articles
+ Subscribe to Site Feeds
Most Shared
PDF Full Text
+ PDF Full Text
Request PDF Full Text
+ Follow Us
Follow on Facebook
Follow on Twitter
Follow on LinkedIn
+ Translate
+ Recently Requested

Double-balloon catheter vs. dinoprostone vaginal insert for induction of labor with an unfavorable cervix



Double-balloon catheter vs. dinoprostone vaginal insert for induction of labor with an unfavorable cervix



Archives of Gynecology and Obstetrics 291(6): 1221-1227



To compare a double-balloon catheter and dinoprostone vaginal insert for induction of labor with an unfavorable cervix. Patients with a Bishop score of ≤6 requiring labor induction at term received either a double-balloon catheter or a dinoprostone vaginal insert. The primary outcome was vaginal delivery rate within 24 h, and the secondary outcome was cesarean section rate. A total of 155 women were included; 76 received induction with a double-balloon catheter and 79 with the dinoprostone vaginal insert. The groups were similar with respect to maternal age, body mass index, gravidity, parity, baseline Bishop score, and indications for induction. Gestational age at induction was similar between the groups (double balloon 40.52 ± 0.86 weeks; dinoprostone 40.60 ± 0.79 weeks, P = 0.516). There was no difference in the vaginal delivery rate within 24 h (50 vs. 53.2 %, P = 0.694) or the cesarean section rate (39.5 vs. 31.6 %, P = 0.185) between the groups. More patients in the double-balloon catheter group required oxytocin administration than in the dinoprostone group (75 vs. 31.65 %, respectively, P < 0.001), but uterine hyperstimulation was less frequent in the double-balloon catheter group (0 vs. 10.1 %, respectively, P = 0.007). Neonatal outcomes were similar between the groups. Double-balloon catheter and dinoprostone vaginal insert are associated with similar vaginal delivery and cesarean section rates and neonatal outcomes.

(PDF emailed within 0-6 h: $19.90)

Accession: 052707561

Download citation: RISBibTeXText

PMID: 25408273

DOI: 10.1007/s00404-014-3547-3


Related references

Labor induction in nulliparous women with an unfavorable cervix: double balloon catheter versus dinoprostone. Journal of Perinatal Medicine 42(2): 213-218, 2014

Which is the safer method of labor induction for oligohydramnios women? Transcervical double balloon catheter or dinoprostone vaginal insert. Journal of Maternal-Fetal and Neonatal Medicine 27(17): 1805-1808, 2015

Cervical ripening and labor induction: Evaluation of single balloon catheter compared to double balloon catheter and dinoprostone insert. Gynecologie, Obstetrique, Fertilite and Senologie 46(7-8): 570-574, 2018

Double-balloon catheter results in higher rate of vaginal delivery within 24 h when compared with dinoprostone vaginal insert. Evidence-Based Medicine 18(4): 140-141, 2014

A randomized trial of preinduction cervical ripening: dinoprostone vaginal insert versus double-balloon catheter. American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology 207(2): 125.E1-7, 2012

Induction of labor and pain: a randomized trial between two vaginal preparations of dinoprostone in nulliparous women with an unfavorable cervix. Journal of Maternal-Fetal and Neonatal Medicine 24(5): 728-731, 2011

Double-balloon catheter versus dinoprostone insert for labour induction: a meta-analysis. Archives of Gynecology and Obstetrics 2018, 2018

Transcervical Foley balloon catheter and vaginal prostaglandin E2 insert combination vs. vaginal prostaglandin E2 insert only for induction of labor at term: a randomized clinical trial. Archives of Gynecology and Obstetrics 2018, 2018

Membrane stripping vs dinoprostone vaginal insert in the management of pregnancies beyond 41 weeks with an unfavorable cervix. American Journal of Obstetrics & Gynecology 178(1 PART 2): S30, 1998

Oxytocin versus sustained-release dinoprostone vaginal pessary for labor induction of unfavorable cervix with Bishop score ≥ 4 and ≤ 6: a randomized controlled trial. Journal of Obstetrics and Gynaecology Research 39(4): 790-798, 2013

Membrane sweeping versus dinoprostone vaginal insert in the management of pregnancies beyond 41 weeks with an unfavorable cervix. Journal of Perinatology 19(2): 88-91, 2000

Balloon catheter for induction of labor in women with one previous cesarean and an unfavorable cervix. Acta Obstetricia et Gynecologica Scandinavica 2019, 2019

A randomized trial of vaginal prostaglandin E(2) gel and dinoprostone vaginal insert for induction of labor at term. Primary Care Update for Ob/Gyns 5(4): 183, 2000

Foley catheter compared with vaginal prostaglandin in preparation of the unfavorable cervix for labor induction. Australian & New Zealand Journal of Obstetrics & Gynaecology 26(1): 30-35, 1986

Randomized controlled trial of vaginal misoprostol versus dinoprostone vaginal insert for labor induction. Journal of Maternal-Fetal and Neonatal Medicine 13(4): 254-259, 2003