Search

Objective: Induction of labor (IOL) typically involves cervical priming in an inpatient setting. Outpatient cervical priming may be a safe and cost-effective alternative. However, little is known about women's preference and the impact of outpatient cervical priming on their healthcare experience. The objective was to compare women's healthcare experiences following IOL using a balloon catheter and going home, versus prostaglandin (PG) and remaining an inpatient.Study Design: A randomized controlled trial was undertaken across eight Australian maternity hospitals. Between September 2015 and October 2018, 695 women with uncomplicated term singleton pregnancies were randomized. Of these, 215 and 233 women in the balloon-outpatient and PG-inpatient groups, respectively, received the allocated intervention. The PG group received Dinoprostone gel or controlled-release tape. The balloon group had a double-balloon catheter inserted and went home. Experiential and quality-of-life outcomes were measured via written questionnaire after birth. The primary outcome was a composite neonatal measure. Women's healthcare experience, health-state (EQ-5D-3 L) and pain scores are reported here.Results: Questionnaire data were available for 366 (81.7 %) women enrolled who received their treatment allocation. More women in the balloon-outpatient group reported they would choose IOL next pregnancy (49.2 % vs 38.4 %; p = 0.037) and desire the same method (72.4 % vs 61.1 %; p = 0.022). The balloon-outpatient group experienced higher pain scores at the start of IOL (median (IQR) 3(2-5) vs 2(1-4); p = 0.002) but lower scores at time of rupture of membranes (3(1-5) vs 4(2-6); p = 0.007). The EQ-5D-3 L health-utility index did not differ significantly between the groups (0.77 vs 0.78; p = 0.899).Conclusions: Women report similar healthcare experiences following balloon-outpatient compared to PG-impatient IOL, but are more likely to desire the same method next pregnancy if IOL is required. If both options are available, then differences in experience should be shared with women, alongside differences in clinical outcomes as part of their decision-making process. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objective: To compare clinical outcomes following induction of labour (IOL) using a balloon catheter and going home, versus prostaglandin (PG) as an inpatient.Design: Randomised controlled trial.Setting: Eight Australian maternity hospitals.Population: Women with uncomplicated term singleton pregnancies undergoing IOL for low-risk indications including post-term, advanced maternal age and 'social' reasons.Methods: Between September 2015 and October 2018, 347 women were randomised to a balloon outpatient group and 348 to a PG inpatient group. The PG group received Dinoprostone, either 2 mg gel or 10 mg controlled-release tape. The balloon group had a double-balloon catheter inserted and went home.Main Outcome Measures: The primary outcome was a composite neonatal measure comprising nursery admission, intubation/cardiac compressions, acidaemia, hypoxic ischaemic encephalopathy, seizure, infection, pulmonary hypertension, stillbirth or death. Clinical and process outcomes are reported.Results: There were no statistically significant differences in the primary outcome comparing balloon with PG (18.6% versus 25.8%; relative risk = 0.77, 95% CI 0.51-1.02; P = 0.070), cord arterial pH <7.10 (3.5% versus 9.2%; P = 0.072), nursery admissions (12.6% versus 15.5%; P = 0.379), neonatal antibiotic use (12.1% versus 17.6%; P = 0.103), or mode of birth. Nulliparous women in the balloon group had lower rates of the primary outcome (20.4% versus 31.0%;P = 0.032); Parous women were less likely to have an unassisted vaginal birth (77.6% versus 92.3%; P = 0.045).Conclusions: Balloon catheters may be a superior method of cervical priming for nulliparous women, whereas this may not be the case for parous women. It is feasible that nulliparous women go home after commencing balloon catheter IOL, and the likelihood of adverse outcomes is low.Tweetable Abstract: Multicentre trial shows outpatient induction using balloon catheter is safe and feasible for nulliparous women. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background Cervidil® (dinoprostone) intravaginal pessaries are used for induction of labour and maintain serum prostaglandin levels for up to 24 h. The Therapeutic Goods Administration approves Cervidil® for 12-h use. However, twenty-four-hour use of Cervidil® is supported in Europe, New Zealand, America and some Australian hospitals. Aim To assess the safety of Cervidil® use for up to 24 h for induction of labour in nulliparous women. Methods A retrospective cohort study of 269 consecutive women receiving Cervidil® at the Royal Brisbane and Women's Hospital ( RBWH) between July 2007 and December 2008 was performed. The primary outcome measures were frequency of, and time to, uterine tachysystole with or without fetal heart rate ( FHR) changes. Secondary outcome measures included frequency of maternal (intrapartum temperature, postpartum haemorrhage) and neonatal (low Apgars, resuscitation, nursery admission) morbidity. Morbidity outcomes of those who received Cervidil® for less than or equal to 12 h were compared with those who received Cervidil® for more than 12 h. Results Uterine tachysystole occurred in 9.3% of patients receiving Cervidil®, with a mean time to tachysystole of 10 h. The majority of cases (68%) occurred within 12 h of use. There was no increase in maternal or neonatal morbidity for those who received Cervidil® for longer than 12 h. Conclusion Twenty-four-hour use of Cervidil® is likely as safe as 12-h use for induction of labour in nulliparous women. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: There are various prostaglandin preparations available for inducing labour. Controlled-release dinoprostone vaginal pessary is used in a number of centres in Australia and New Zealand. Aims: To compare the efficacy and safety of controlled-release dinoprostone vaginal pessary (Cervidil®) with dinoprostone intravaginal gel (Prostin E2®) for induction of labour. Methods: Retrospective cohort study of 969 women who were induced using either 10-mg controlled-released dinoprostone vaginal pessary ( n = 507) or intravaginal dinoprostone gel ( n = 462) at National Women's Health, Auckland City Hospital. Study outcomes included induction to delivery interval, mode of delivery, rate of oxytocin augmentation and incidence of uterine hyperstimulation. Results: Induction to vaginal birth interval was longer among nullipara receiving the pessary compared to those receiving intravaginal gel (21.5 vs 17.8 h, P = 0.004). There was no difference in rates of oxytocin augmentation or in mode of birth between pessary and gel groups. There was a trend to more uterine hyperstimulation among women induced with the pessary compared with those induced with intravaginal gel (22 (4.5%) vs 11 (2.4%) relative risk (RR) 1.9 (0.9–3.9)). Hyperstimulation associated with an abnormal fetal heart pattern (14 (2.9%) vs 2 (0.4%), RR 6.5 (1.5–28.9)) or treated with tocolytics (9 (1.8%) vs 1 (0.2%), RR 8.4 (1.1–66)) was more common in women who received the pessary. Conclusion: Use of dinoprostone vaginal pessaries did not shorten time to delivery or improve any other birth outcome measured compared to dinoprostone intravaginal gel. Clinically significant hyperstimulation appeared more common following use of the pessary. Large randomised controlled trials are needed to confirm or refute these findings. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Dinoprostone pessaries ( DP) are widely used for cervical ripening, and while licensed for 12-h administration in Australia, 24-h use is also reported. We examined 396 consecutive women before and after a protocol change from 12-h to 24-h DP use to determine whether extended DP use decreases the need for additional mechanical cervical ripening. No significant difference in cervical ripening balloon ( CRB) requirement or vaginal birth rates was detected, showing that prolonged DP use does not reduce subsequent use of CRB. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]