Top

Published in:

01-05-2018 | Review

Single versus double-balloon catheters for the induction of labor of singleton pregnancies: a meta-analysis of randomized and quasi-randomized controlled trials

Authors: Héctor Lajusticia, Samuel J. Martínez-Domínguez, Gonzalo R. Pérez-Roncero, Peter Chedraui, Faustino R. Pérez-López, The Health Outcomes and Systematic Analyses (HOUSSAY) Project

Published in: Archives of Gynecology and Obstetrics | Issue 5/2018

Abstract

Objective

To compare the efficacy of single- versus double-balloon catheter (SBC vs. DBC) for cervical ripening and labor induction with an unfavorable cervix.

Methods

Systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) or quasi-RCTs (qRCT) regarding the use of SBC or DBC for labor induction of live singleton cephalic pregnancies (≥ 35 weeks) of any parity with an unripe cervix (Bishop score ≤ 6). Nine research databases were searched for original articles published in all languages up to November 2017 comparing both devices for labor induction. Five RCTs and one qRCT were included. Primary outcome measures were time from intervention (device placement) to birth time, vaginal delivery and cesarean section rates, and maternal satisfaction with the procedure. Risk of bias was evaluated with the Cochrane tool. Random effects models were used to combine data for meta-analyses. Summary measures were reported as mean differences and risk ratios (RR) with 95% confidence intervals.

Results

Regardless of parity, pooled analyses of the six trials (n = 1060 women) found that mean intervention to birth time, vaginal delivery and cesarean section rates, and maternal satisfaction to the procedure were similar for both studied groups (SBC vs. DBC).

Conclusion

Measured primary outcome measures were similar regardless of the type of device used for labor induction of singleton pregnancies.

Available only for authorised users

Tenore JL (2003) Methods for cervical ripening and induction of labor. Am Fam Physician 67:2123–2128PubMed

ACOG Committee on Practice Bulletins—Obstetrics (2009) ACOG Practice Bulletin No. 107: induction of labor. Obstet Gynecol 114:386–397CrossRef

Marroquin GA, Tudorica N, Salafia CM, Hecht R, Mikhail M (2013) Induction of labor at 41 weeks of pregnancy among primiparas with an unfavorable bishop score. Arch Gynecol Obstet 288:989–993CrossRefPubMed

Bond DM, Gordon A, Hyett J, de Vries B, Carberry AE, Morris J (2015) Planned early delivery versus expectant management of the term suspected compromised baby for improving outcomes. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858 PubMed

Jozwiak M, Bloemenkamp KW, Kelly AJ, Mol BW, Irion O, Boulvain M (2012) Mechanical methods for induction of labour. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 14: CD001233

Melamed N, Yariv O, Hiersch L, Wiznitzer A, Meizner I, Yogev Y (2013) Labor induction with prostaglandin E2: characteristics of response and prediction of failure. J Matern Fetal Neonatal Med 26:132–136CrossRefPubMed

Chen W, Xue J, Gaudet L, Walker M, Wen SW (2015) Meta-analysis of foley catheter plus misoprostol versus misoprostol alone for cervical ripening. Int J Gynaecol Obstet 129:193–198CrossRefPubMed

Antonazzo P, Laoreti A, Personeni C, Grossi E, Martinelli A, Cetin I (2016) Vaginal dinoprostone versus intravenous oxytocin for labor induction in patients not responsive to a first dose of dinoprostone: a randomized prospective study. Reprod Sci 23:779–784CrossRefPubMed

Chen W, Xue J, Peprah MK et al (2016) A systematic review and network meta-analysis comparing the use of foley catheters, misoprostol, and dinoprostone for cervical ripening in the induction of labour. BJOG 123:346–354CrossRefPubMed

10.

West HM, Jozwiak M, Dodd JM (2017) Methods of term labour induction for women with previous cesarean section. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 6:CD009792

11.

Hill JB, Thigpen BD, Bofill JA, Magann E, Moore LE, Martin JN Jr (2009) A randomized clinical trial comparing vaginal misoprostol versus cervical Foley plus oral misoprostol for cervical ripening and labor induction. Am J Perinatol 26:33–38CrossRefPubMed

12.

Pevzner L, Rayburn WF, Rumney P, Wing DA (2009) Factors predicting successful labor induction with dinoprostone and misoprostol vaginal inserts. Obstet Gynecol 114:261–267CrossRefPubMed

13.

Moher D, Liberati A, Tetzlaff J, Altman DG, PRISMA Group (2009) Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: the PRISMA statement. PLoS Med 6:e1000097CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

14.

Higgins JPT, Green S, editors (2017) Cochrane handbook for systematic reviews of interventions. Version 5.1.0. http://www.cochrane-handbook.org. Accessed 23 Nov 2017

15.

Egger M, Davey Smith G, Schneider M, Minder C (1997) Bias in metaanalysis detected by a simple, graphical test. BMJ 315:629–634CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

16.

Hoppe KK, Schiff MA, Peterson SE, Gravett MG (2016) 30 mL Single- versus 80 mL double-balloon catheter for pre-induction cervical ripening: a randomized controlled trial. J Matern Fetal Neonatal Med 29:1919–1925CrossRefPubMed

17.

Mei-Dan E, Walfisch A, Suarez-Easton S, Hallak M (2012) Comparison of two mechanical devices for cervical ripening: a prospective quasi-randomized trial. J Matern Fetal Neonatal Med 25:723–727CrossRefPubMed

18.

Mei-Dan E, Walfisch A, Valencia C, Hallak M (2014) Making cervical ripening EASI: a prospective controlled comparison of single versus double balloon catheters. J Matern Fetal Neonatal Med 27:1765–1770CrossRefPubMed

19.

Pennell CE, Henderson JJ, O’Neill MJ, McChlery S, Doherty DA, Dickinson JE (2009) Induction of labour in nulliparous women with an unfavourable cervix: a randomised controlled trial comparing double and single balloon catheters and PGE2 gel. BJOG 116:1443–1452CrossRefPubMed

20.

Salin R, Zafran N, Nachum Z, Garmi G, Kraiem N, Shalev E (2011) Single-balloon compared with double-balloon catheters for induction of labor. Obstet Gynecol 118:79–86CrossRef

21.

Sayed Ahmed WA, Ibrahim ZM, Ashor OE, Mohamed ML, Ahmed MR, Elshahat AM (2016) Use of the Foley catheter versus a double balloon cervical ripening catheter in pre-induction cervical ripening in postdate primigravidae. J Obstet Gynaecol Res 42:1489–149422CrossRefPubMed

22.

Cheng JM, Corstiaan A, Hoeks SE, van der Ent M, Jewbali LS, van Domburg RT et al (2009) Percutaneous left ventricular assist devices vs. intra-aortic balloon pump counterpulsation for treatment of cardiogenic shock: a meta-analysis of controlled trials. Eur Heart J 30:2102–210823CrossRefPubMed

23.

Hozo SP, Djulbegovic B, Hozo I (2005) Estimating the mean and variance from the median, range, and the size of a sample. BMC Med Res Methodol 5:13CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

24.

Wing DA (2017) Techniques for ripening the unfavorable cervix prior to induction. UpToDate https://www.uptodate.com/contents/techniques-for-ripening-the-unfavorable-cervix-prior-to-induction Accessed 21 Nov 2017

25.

Vaknin Z, Kurzweil Y, Sherman D (2010) Foley catheter balloon vs locally applied prostaglandins for cervical ripening and labor induction: a systematic review and metaanalysis. Am J Obstet Gynecol 203:418–429CrossRefPubMed

26.

Henry A, Madan A, Reid R et al (2013) Outpatient Foley catheter versus inpatient prostaglandin E2 gel for induction of labour: a randomised trial. BMC Pregnancy Childbirth 13:25CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

27.

Wilkinson C, Adelson P, Turnbull D (2015) A comparison of inpatient with outpatient balloon catheter cervical ripening: a pilot randomized controlled trial. BMC Pregnancy Childbirth 15:126CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

28.

Cromi A, Ghezzi F, Tomera S, Uccella S, Lischetti B, Bolis PF (2007) Cervical ripening with the foley’s catheter. Int J Gynecol Obstet 97:105–109CrossRef

29.

Karjane N, Brock E, Walsh S (2006) Induction of labor using a foley balloon, with and without extra-amniotic saline infusion. Obstet Gynecol 107:234–239CrossRefPubMed

30.

Lin M, Reid K, Treaster M, Nuthalapaty FS, Ramsey PS, Lu GC (2007) Transcervical foley catheter with and without extra amniotic saline infusion for labor induction: a randomized controlled trial. Obstet Gynecol 110:558–565CrossRefPubMed

31.

Atad J, Bornstein J, Calderon I, Petrikovsky BM, Sorokin Y, Abramovici H (1991) Non pharmaceutical ripening of the unfavorable cervix and induction of labor by a novel double balloon device. Obstet Gynecol 77:146–152PubMed

32.

Boyon C, Monsarrat N, Clouqueur E, Deruelle P (2014) Cervical ripening: is there an advantage for a double-balloon device in labor induction? Gynecol Obstet Fertil 42:674–680CrossRefPubMed

33.

Ezebialu IU, Eke AC, Eleje GU, Nwachukwu CE (2015) Methods for assessing pre-induction cervical ripening. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.CD010762.pub2 PubMedPubMedCentral

34.

Kehila M, Abouda HS, Sahbi K, Cheour H, Chanoufi MB (2016) Ultrasound cervical length measurement in prediction of labor induction outcome. J Neonatal Perinatal Med 9:127–131CrossRefPubMed

Title: Single versus double-balloon catheters for the induction of labor of singleton pregnancies: a meta-analysis of randomized and quasi-randomized controlled trials
Authors: Héctor Lajusticia
Samuel J. Martínez-Domínguez
Gonzalo R. Pérez-Roncero
Peter Chedraui
Faustino R. Pérez-López
The Health Outcomes and Systematic Analyses (HOUSSAY) Project
Publication date: 01-05-2018
Publisher: Springer Berlin Heidelberg
Published in: Archives of Gynecology and Obstetrics / Issue 5/2018
Print ISSN: 0932-0067
Electronic ISSN: 1432-0711
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00404-018-4713-9

Keynote webinar | Spotlight on sleep in brain health

Springer Medicine

Single versus double-balloon catheters for the induction of labor of singleton pregnancies: a meta-analysis of randomized and quasi-randomized controlled trials

Abstract

Objective

Methods

Results

Conclusion

Keynote webinar | Spotlight on sleep in brain health

Springer Medicine

Abstract

Objective

Methods

Results

Conclusion

Please log in to get access to this content

Other articles of this Issue 5/2018

Tight interplay in early pregnancy between follistatin and anti-mullerian hormone in women with polycystic ovarian syndrome (PCOS)

Considerable observations in cesarean section surgical technique and proposed steps

Evaluation of cesarean scar after single- and double-layer hysterotomy closure: a prospective cross-sectional study

Prevalence of bacterial vaginosis in pregnant and non-pregnant Iranian women: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Reliability and validity of the German version of the Maternal–Fetal Attachment Scale

Conventional in vitro fertilization (IVF) or intracytoplasmic sperm injection (ICSI): which is preferred for advanced age patients with five or fewer oocytes retrieved?