Foley catheter versus vaginal misoprostol: randomized controlled trial (PROBAAT-M Study) and systematic review and meta-analysis of literature

OBJECTIVES: To assess effectiveness and safety of Foley catheter versus vaginal misoprostol for term induction of labor. STUDY DESIGN: This trial randomly allocated women with singleton term pregnancy to 30-mL Foley catheter or 25-μg vaginal misoprostol tablets. Primary outcome was cesarean delivery rate. Secondary outcomes were maternal and neonatal morbidity and time to birth. Additionally, a systematic review was conducted. RESULTS: Fifty-six women were allocated to Foley catheter, 64 to vaginal misoprostol tablets. Cesarean delivery rates did not differ significantly (25% Foley versus 17% misoprostol; relative risk [RR] 1.46, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.72 to 2.94), with more cesarean deliveries due to failure to progress in the Foley group (14% versus 3%; RR 4.57, 95% CI 1.01 to 20.64). Maternal and neonatal outcomes were comparable. Time from induction to birth was longer in the Foley catheter group (36 hours versus 25 hours; p < 0.001). Meta-analysis showed no difference in cesarean delivery rate and reduced vaginal instrumental deliveries and hyperstimulation in the Foley catheter group. Other outcomes were not different. CONCLUSION: Our trial and meta-analysis showed no difference in cesarean delivery rates and less hyperstimulation with fetal heart rate changes and vaginal instrumental deliveries when using Foley catheter, thereby supporting potential advantages of the Foley catheter over misoprostol as ripening agent.Marta Jozwiak, Mieke ten Eikelder, Katrien Oude Rengerink, Christianne de Groot, Hanneke Feitsma, Marc Spaanderman, Mariëlle van Pampus, Jan Willem de Leeuw, Ben Willem Mol, Kitty Bloemenkamp, on behalf of the PROBAAT Study Grou

Foley catheter versus vaginal misoprostol: randomized controlled trial (PROBAAT-M Study) and systematic review and meta-analysis of literature

OBJECTIVES: To assess effectiveness and safety of Foley catheter versus vaginal misoprostol for term induction of labor. STUDY DESIGN: This trial randomly allocated women with singleton term pregnancy to 30-mL Foley catheter or 25-μg vaginal misoprostol tablets. Primary outcome was cesarean delivery rate. Secondary outcomes were maternal and neonatal morbidity and time to birth. Additionally, a systematic review was conducted. RESULTS: Fifty-six women were allocated to Foley catheter, 64 to vaginal misoprostol tablets. Cesarean delivery rates did not differ significantly (25% Foley versus 17% misoprostol; relative risk [RR] 1.46, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.72 to 2.94), with more cesarean deliveries due to failure to progress in the Foley group (14% versus 3%; RR 4.57, 95% CI 1.01 to 20.64). Maternal and neonatal outcomes were comparable. Time from induction to birth was longer in the Foley catheter group (36 hours versus 25 hours; p < 0.001). Meta-analysis showed no difference in cesarean delivery rate and reduced vaginal instrumental deliveries and hyperstimulation in the Foley catheter group. Other outcomes were not different. CONCLUSION: Our trial and meta-analysis showed no difference in cesarean delivery rates and less hyperstimulation with fetal heart rate changes and vaginal instrumental deliveries when using Foley catheter, thereby supporting potential advantages of the Foley catheter over misoprostol as ripening agent.Marta Jozwiak, Mieke ten Eikelder, Katrien Oude Rengerink, Christianne de Groot, Hanneke Feitsma, Marc Spaanderman, Mariëlle van Pampus, Jan Willem de Leeuw, Ben Willem Mol, Kitty Bloemenkamp, on behalf of the PROBAAT Study Grou

Foley Catheter Versus Vaginal Prostaglandin E2 Gel for Induction of Labor at Term (PROBAAT Trial): An Open-Label, Randomized Controlled Trial EDITORIAL COMMENT

Obstetric

Foley catheter versus vaginal prostaglandin E2 gel for induction of labour at term (PROBAAT trial): an open-label, randomised controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Induction of labour is a common obstetric procedure. Both mechanical (eg, Foley catheters) and pharmacological methods (eg, prostaglandins) are used for induction of labour in women with an unfavourable cervix. We aimed to compare the effectiveness and safety of induction of labour with a Foley catheter with induction with vaginal prostaglandin E2 gel. METHODS: We did an open-label, randomised controlled trial in 12 hospitals in the Netherlands between Feb 10, 2009, and May 17, 2010. We enrolled women with a term singleton pregnancy in cephalic presentation, intact membranes, an unfavourable cervix, an indication for induction of labour, and no prior caesarean section. Participants were randomly allocated by an online randomisation system to induction of labour with a 30 mL Foley catheter or vaginal prostaglandin E2 gel (1:1 ratio). Because of the nature of the intervention this study was not blinded. The primary outcome was caesarean section rate. Secondary outcomes were maternal and neonatal morbidity and time from intervention to birth. All analyses were done on an intention-to-treat basis. We also did a meta-analysis that included our trial. The trial was registered with the Dutch trial registry, number NTR 1646. FINDINGS: 824 women were allocated to induction of labour with a Foley catheter (n=412) or vaginal prostaglandin E2 gel (n=412). Caesarean section rates were much the same between the two groups (23%vs 20%, risk ratio [RR] 1.13, 95% CI 0.87-1.47). A meta-analysis including our trial data confirmed that a Foley catheter did not reduce caesarean section rates. We recorded two serious maternal adverse events, both in the prostaglandin group: one uterine perforation and one uterine rupture. INTERPRETATION: In women with an unfavourable cervix at term, induction of labour with a Foley catheter is similar to induction of labour with prostaglandin E2 gel, with fewer maternal and neonatal side-effects. FUNDING: None