Predictors for outcome of induction of labour with double balloon catheter as second-line method after dinoprostone
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.12809/hkjgom.22.2.05Keywords:
Dinoprostone, Labour, inducedAbstract
Objectives: To determine the predictors for outcome of induction of labour (IOL) with double balloon catheter (DBC) as the second-line method after dinoprostone.
Methods: Medical records of patients who underwent IOL with DBC as the second-line method after dinoprostone between October 2016 and December 2019 at Pamela Youde Nethersole Eastern Hospital in Hong Kong were retrospectively reviewed. Inclusion criteria were singleton pregnancy, vertex presentation, gestational age of ≥36 weeks, unfavourable cervix (Bishop score <6) after initial priming by dinoprostone, intact membranes, and no contraindication for vaginal delivery. The primary outcomes were the success and failure rates of IOL, which were defined as the rates of vaginal delivery and caesarean delivery, respectively.
Results: 88 patients were included for analysis. The most common indications for IOL were gestational diabetes (23.86%) and past term pregnancy (19.32%). 79 (91.86%) patients had successful cervical ripening after DBC insertion, with a median improvement in Bishop score of 3. However, only 32 (36.36%) patients achieved vaginal birth, whereas 56 patients had caesarean birth. The most common indication for caesarean birth was failed IOL (40.91%). An occiput-anterior position of the fetal head at delivery was predictive of a vaginal birth/successful IOL
(odds ratio=0.211, p=0.036), whereas a heavier birth weight was a risk factor for a caesarean birth/failed IOL (odds ratio=1.002, p=0.027).
Conclusion: The success rate of IOL with DBC as a second-line method was only 36.36%. The Bishop score before DBC insertion was not predictive of a successful IOL. Earlier consideration of caesarean section is suggested in patients with unsatisfactory response to dinoprostone as well as non-occiput-anterior position of the fetal head and heavier fetal weight.
References
Caughey AB, Sundaram V, Kaimal AJ, et al. Maternal and neonatal outcomes of elective induction of labor. Evid Rep Technol Assess (Full Rep) 2009;176:1-257.
ACOG Practice Bulletin No. 107: Induction of labor. Obstet Gynecol 2009;114:386-97.
Bishop EH. Pelvic scoring for elective induction. Obstet Gynecol 1964;24:266-8.
World Health Organization. Recommendations for Induction of Labour. 2011.
National Institute for Health and Care Excellence. Inducing labour. Available from: https://www.nice.org.uk/guidance/ng207.
Cromi A, Ghezzi F, Uccella S, et al. A randomized trial of preinduction cervical ripening: dinoprostone vaginal insert versus double-balloon catheter. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2012;207:125.e1-7.
Du YM, Zhu LY, Cui LN, Jin BH, Ou JL. Double-balloon catheter versus prostaglandin E2 for cervical ripening and labour induction: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials. BJOG 2017;124:891-9.
Diguisto C, Le Gouge A, Arthuis C, et al. Cervical ripening in prolonged pregnancies by silicone double balloon catheter versus vaginal dinoprostone slow release system: the MAGPOP randomised controlled trial. PLoS Med 2021;18:e1003448.
Liu YR, Pu CX, Wang XY, Wang XY. Double-balloon catheter versus dinoprostone insert for labour induction: a meta-analysis. Arch Gynecol Obstet 2019;299:7-12.
National Institute for Health and Care Excellence. Diabetes in pregnancy: management from preconception to the postnatal period. Available from: https://www.nice.org.uk/guidance/ng3.
Hoppe KK, Schiff MA, Peterson SE, Gravett MG. 30 mL single- versus 80 mL double-balloon catheter for pre-induction cervical ripening: a randomized controlled trial. J Matern Fetal Neonatal Med 2016;29:1919-25.
Fitzpatrick M, McQuillan K, OʼHerlihy C. Influence of persistent occiput posterior position on delivery outcome. Obstet Gynecol 2001;98:1027-31.
Sizer AR, Nirmal DM. Occipitoposterior position: associated factors and obstetric outcome in nulliparas. Obstet Gynecol 2000;96:749-52.
Rane SM, Guirgis RR, Higgins B, Nicolaides KH. The value of ultrasound in the prediction of successful induction of labor. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 2004;24:538-49.
Kamel RA, Negm SM, Youssef A, et al. Predicting cesarean delivery for failure to progress as an outcome of labor induction in term singleton pregnancy. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2021;224:609.e1-609.e11.
Batinelli L, Serafini A, Nante N, Petraglia F, Severi FM, Messina G. Induction of labour: clinical predictive factors for success and failure. J Obstet Gynaecol 2018;38:352-8.
Crane JM, Delaney T, Butt KD, Bennett KA, Hutchens D, Young DC. Predictors of successful labor induction with oral or vaginal misoprostol. J Matern Fetal Neonatal Med 2004;15:319-23.
Obeidat R, Almaaitah M, Ben-Sadon A, et al. Clinical predictive factors for vaginal delivery following induction of labour among pregnant women in Jordan. BMC Pregnancy Childbirth 2021;21:685.
Crane JM. Factors predicting labor induction success: a critical analysis. Clin Obstet Gynecol 2006;49:573-84.
Bueno B, San-Frutos L, Pérez-Medina T, Barbancho C, Troyano J, Bajo J. The labor induction: integrated clinical and sonographic variables that predict the outcome. J Perinatol 2007;27:4-8.
Stubert J, Peschel A, Bolz M, Glass Ä, Gerber B. Accuracy of immediate antepartum ultrasound estimated fetal weight and its impact on mode of delivery and outcome: a cohort analysis. BMC Pregnancy Childbirth 2018;18:118.
Sherman DJ, Arieli S, Tovbin J, Siegel G, Caspi E, Bukovsky I. A comparison of clinical and ultrasonic estimation of fetal weight. Obstet Gynecol 1998;91:212-7.
Noumi G, Collado-Khoury F, Bombard A, Julliard K, Weiner Z. Clinical and sonographic estimation of fetal weight performed during labor by residents. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2005;192:1407-9.
Wing DA, Tran S, Paul RH. Factors affecting the likelihood of successful induction after intravaginal misoprostol application for cervical ripening and labor induction. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2002;186:1237-43.
Riboni F, Garofalo G, Pascoli I, et al. Labour induction at term: clinical, biophysical and molecular predictive factors. Arch Gynecol Obstet 2012;286:1123-9.
Vrouenraets FP, Roumen FJ, Dehing CJ, van den Akker ES, Aarts MJ, Scheve EJ. Bishop score and risk of cesarean delivery after induction of labor in nulliparous women. Obstet Gynecol 2005;105:690-7.
Teixeira C, Lunet N, Rodrigues T, Barros H. The Bishop Score as a determinant of labour induction success: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Arch Gynecol Obstet 2012;286:739-53.
Kolkman DG, Verhoeven CJ, Brinkhorst SJ, et al. The Bishop score as a predictor of labor induction success: a systematic review. Am J Perinatol 2013;30:625-30.
Behbehani S, Patenaude V, Abenhaim HA. Maternal risk factors and outcomes of umbilical cord prolapse: a population-based study. J Obstet Gynaecol Can 2016;38:23-8.
Gibbons C, O’Herlihy C, Murphy JF. Umbilical cord prolapse-changing patterns and improved outcomes: a retrospective cohort study. BJOG 2014;121:1705-8.
Gannard-Pechin E, Ramanah R, Cossa S, Mulin B, Maillet R, Riethmuller D. Umbilical cord prolapse: a case study over 23 years [in French]. J Gynecol Obstet Biol Reprod (Paris) 2012;41:574-83.
Hasegawa J, Sekizawa A, Ikeda T, et al. The use of balloons for uterine cervical ripening is associated with an increased risk of umbilical cord prolapse: population based questionnaire survey in Japan. BMC Pregnancy Childbirth 2015;15:4.
Usta IM, Mercer BM, Sibai BM. Current obstetrical practice and umbilical cord prolapse. Am J Perinatol 1999;16:479-84.
Downloads
Published
How to Cite
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2022 Hong Kong Journal of Gynaecology, Obstetrics and Midwifery
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.
The Journal has a fully Open Access policy and publishes all articles under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International (CC BY-NC-ND 4.0) licence. For any use other than that permitted by this license, written permission must be obtained from the Journal.
