Women's Experiences with and Preference for Induction of Labor with Oral Misoprostol or Foley Catheter at Term

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

Induction of labour at term with oral misoprostol versus a foley catheter (PROBAAT-II) : A multicentre randomised controlled non-inferiority trial

When pregnancy complications pose a threat to the mother or fetus or both, induction of labor is often required. Induction of labor is accomplished through a variety of methods; in pregnant women having an unfavourable cervix, cervical ripening of the cervix is accomplished through various mechanical and pharmacological means. Oral misoprostol and Foley catheter are believed to be equally effective in women with an unfavorable cervix in accomplishing vaginal birth. The current open-label randomized noninferiority trial was conducted in pregnant women with a singleton gestation in 29 hospitals in the Netherlands (2012 to 2013) to directly compare oral misoprostol with Foley catheter. Women with a viable singleton pregnancy in cephalic presentation, intact membranes, gestational age of 37 weeks or more, and an unfavorable cervix were included in the trial. The women were then randomly allocated (1:1) to oral misoprostol (n = 932) or Foley catheter (n = 927). Oral misoprostol dosage given was 50 µg orally once every 4 hours with a maximum of 3 times a day. Placement of a 30-mL Foley catheter in the cervix was done either digitally or using a vaginal speculum. The results of the study showed that the primary outcome (asphyxia or postpartum hemorrhage) occurred in 12.2% women in the misoprostol group and in 11.5% women in the Foley catheter group (adjusted relative risk [RR], 1.06; 90% confidence interval [CI], 0.86–1.31). Cesarean delivery resulted in 16.8% of labors in the misoprostol group and in 20.1% of the time in the Foley catheter group (no significant difference between groups [RR, 0.84; 95% CI, 0.69–1.01]). When the indication for cesarean delivery was examined, fewer cesarean deliveries for failure to progress in the first stage occurred after induction in the misoprostol group than in the Foley catheter group (6.2% vs 10.6%; RR, 0.58; 95% CI, 0.42–0.79). In addition, operative vaginal delivery occurred more frequently in the misoprostol group. Among the misoprostol group spontaneous membrane rupture was more common and labor augmentation with oxytocin was less likely. The study leads to a conclusion that in terms of safety and effectiveness, induction of labour using oral misoprostol is as safe as mechanical induction using Foley catheter

Induction of labour with a Foley catheter or oral misoprostol at term:the PROBAAT-II study, a multicentre randomised controlled trial

<p>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.</p><p>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.</p><p>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.</p>