Search

Background: Labour is induced in 20-30% of all pregnancies. In women with an unfavourable cervix, both oral misoprostol and Foley catheter are equally effective compared with dinoprostone in establishing vaginal birth, but each has a better safety profile. We did a trial to directly compare oral misoprostol with Foley catheter alone., Methods: We did an open-label randomised non-inferiority trial in 29 hospitals in the Netherlands. Women with a term singleton pregnancy in cephalic presentation, an unfavourable cervix, intact membranes, and without a previous caesarean section who were scheduled for induction of labour were randomly allocated to cervical ripening with 50 μg oral misoprostol once every 4 h or to a 30 mL transcervical Foley catheter. The primary outcome was a composite of asphyxia (pH ≤7·05 or 5-min Apgar score <7) or post-partum haemorrhage (≥1000 mL). The non-inferiority margin was 5%. The trial is registered with the Netherlands Trial Register, NTR3466., Findings: Between July, 2012, and October, 2013, we randomly assigned 932 women to oral misoprostol and 927 women to Foley catheter. The composite primary outcome occurred in 113 (12·2%) of 924 participants in the misoprostol group versus 106 (11·5%) of 921 in the Foley catheter group (adjusted relative risk 1·06, 90% CI 0·86-1·31). Caesarean section occurred in 155 (16·8%) women versus 185 (20·1%; relative risk 0·84, 95% CI 0·69-1·02, p=0·067). 27 adverse events were reported in the misoprostol group versus 25 in the Foley catheter group. None were directly related to the study procedure., Interpretation: In women with an unfavourable cervix at term, induction of labour with oral misoprostol and Foley catheter has similar safety and effectiveness., Funding: FondsNutsOhra., (Copyright © 2016 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Background: In women with a multiple pregnancy, spontaneous preterm delivery is the leading cause of perinatal morbidity and mortality. Interventions to reduce preterm birth in these women have not been successful. We assessed whether a cervical pessary could effectively prevent poor perinatal outcomes., Methods: We undertook a multicentre, open-label randomised controlled trial in 40 hospitals in the Netherlands. We randomly assigned women with a multiple pregnancy between 12 and 20 weeks' gestation (1:1) to pessary or control groups, using a web-based application with a computer-generated list with random block sizes of two to four, stratified by hospital. Participants and investigators were aware of group allocation. For women in the pessary group, a midwife or obstetrician inserted a cervical pessary between 16 and 20 weeks' gestation. Women in the control group did not receive the pessary, but otherwise received similar obstetrical care to those in the pessary group. The primary outcome was a composite of poor perinatal outcome: stillbirth, periventricular leucomalacia, severe respiratory distress syndrome, bronchopulmonary dysplasia, intraventricular haemorrhage, necrotising enterocolitis, proven sepsis, and neonatal death. Analyses were by modified intention to treat. This trial is registered in the Dutch trial registry, number NTR1858., Findings: Between Sept 21, 2009, and March 9, 2012, 813 women underwent randomisation, of whom 808 were analysed (401 in the pessary group; 407 in the control group). At least one child of 53 women (13%) in the pessary group had poor perinatal outcome, compared with 55 (14%) in the control group (relative risk 0·98, 95% CI 0·69-1·39)., Interpretation: In unselected women with a multiple pregnancy, prophylactic use of a cervical pessary does not reduce poor perinatal outcome., Funding: The Netherlands Organisation for Health Research and Development., (Copyright © 2013 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Background: Induction of labour is a common obstetric procedure. Both mechanical (eg, Foley catheters) and pharmacological methods (eg, prostaglandins) are used for induction of labour in women with an unfavourable cervix. We aimed to compare the effectiveness and safety of induction of labour with a Foley catheter with induction with vaginal prostaglandin E2 gel., Methods: We did an open-label, randomised controlled trial in 12 hospitals in the Netherlands between Feb 10, 2009, and May 17, 2010. We enrolled women with a term singleton pregnancy in cephalic presentation, intact membranes, an unfavourable cervix, an indication for induction of labour, and no prior caesarean section. Participants were randomly allocated by an online randomisation system to induction of labour with a 30 mL Foley catheter or vaginal prostaglandin E2 gel (1:1 ratio). Because of the nature of the intervention this study was not blinded. The primary outcome was caesarean section rate. Secondary outcomes were maternal and neonatal morbidity and time from intervention to birth. All analyses were done on an intention-to-treat basis. We also did a meta-analysis that included our trial. The trial was registered with the Dutch trial registry, number NTR 1646., Findings: 824 women were allocated to induction of labour with a Foley catheter (n=412) or vaginal prostaglandin E2 gel (n=412). Caesarean section rates were much the same between the two groups (23%vs 20%, risk ratio [RR] 1·13, 95% CI 0·87-1·47). A meta-analysis including our trial data confirmed that a Foley catheter did not reduce caesarean section rates. We recorded two serious maternal adverse events, both in the prostaglandin group: one uterine perforation and one uterine rupture., Interpretation: In women with an unfavourable cervix at term, induction of labour with a Foley catheter is similar to induction of labour with prostaglandin E2 gel, with fewer maternal and neonatal side-effects., Funding: None., (Copyright © 2011 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)