Search

Objective  We assessed experience and preferences among term women undergoing induction of labor with oral misoprostol or Foley catheter. Study Design  In 18 of the 29 participating hospitals in the PROBAAT-II trial, women were asked to complete a questionnaire within 24 hours after delivery. We adapted a validated questionnaire about expectancy and experience of labor and asked women whether they would prefer the same method again in a future pregnancy. Results  The questionnaire was completed by 502 (72%) of 695 eligible women; 273 (54%) had been randomly allocated to oral misoprostol and 229 (46%) to Foley catheter. Experience of the duration of labor, pain during labor, general satisfaction with labor, and feelings of control and fear related to their expectation were comparable between both the groups. In the oral misoprostol group, 6% of the women would prefer the other method if induction is necessary in future pregnancy, versus 12% in the Foley catheter group (risk ratio: 0.70; 95% confidence interval: 0.55-0.90; p =  0.02). Conclusion  Women's experiences of labor after induction with oral misoprostol or Foley catheter are comparable. However, women in the Foley catheter group prefer more often to choose a different method for future inductions., (Thieme Medical Publishers 333 Seventh Avenue, New York, NY 10001, USA.)

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: Induction of labour is a common obstetric procedure. At present, different methods are used for induction of labour in women with an unfavourable cervix. Recently, we showed that in term women with an unfavorable cervix the use of a Foley catheter in comparison with vaginal Prostaglandin E2 gel, results in a comparable vaginal delivery rate. A meta-analysis on the subject indicated lower rates of hyperstimulation, and probably as a sequel fewer cases of postpartum haemorrhage. Misoprostol (PgE1) is another type of prostaglandin frequently used for labour induction, recommended by the international federation of gynaecology and obstetrics (FIGO). Misoprostol can be administered by vaginal, rectal and oral route. There is evidence that oral administration results in less asphyxia and hyperstimulation than vaginal administration. At present, valid comparisons between oral misoprostol and Foley catheter are lacking. Therefore, we propose a randomised controlled trial comparing Foley catheter to oral misoprostol in order to assess safety and cost-effectiveness., Methods/design: We plan a multicentre, randomised, controlled, open-label clinical trial among term pregnant women with a vital singleton in cephalic presentation, unfavorable cervix, intact membranes and an indication for induction of labour. After informed consent, women will be randomly allocated by a webbased randomisation system to transcervical Foley catheter or oral misoprostol (50 mcg every 4 hours). The primary outcome will be a composite of complications of uterine hyperstimulation, i.e. post partum haemorrhage and asphyxia. Secondary outcomes are mode of delivery, maternal and neonatal morbidity, costs and women's preference. Serious adverse events such as severe maternal or neonatal morbitity or mortality will be monitored and reported to an independent data safety monitory board. With a sample size of 1860 women we will be able to demonstrate a 5% non-inferiority of the Foley catheter as compared to misoprostol for the composite outcome., Discussion: Worldwide, various methods are being used for labour induction. Results of the proposed trial will contribute to the answer which method of induction of labour is most safe, cost-effective, and patient friendly and will help to construct evidence based guidelines., Trial Registration: The Netherlands Trial Register NTR3466.