Induction of labour at term with oral misoprostol versus a Foley catheter (PROBAAT-II): a multicentre randomised controlled non-inferiority trial
- PMID: 26850983
- DOI: 10.1016/S0140-6736(16)00084-2
Induction of labour at term with oral misoprostol versus a Foley catheter (PROBAAT-II): a multicentre randomised controlled non-inferiority trial
Abstract
Background: Labour is induced in 20-30% of all pregnancies. In women with an unfavourable cervix, both oral misoprostol and Foley catheter are equally effective compared with dinoprostone in establishing vaginal birth, but each has a better safety profile. We did a trial to directly compare oral misoprostol with Foley catheter alone.
Methods: We did an open-label randomised non-inferiority trial in 29 hospitals in the Netherlands. Women with a term singleton pregnancy in cephalic presentation, an unfavourable cervix, intact membranes, and without a previous caesarean section who were scheduled for induction of labour were randomly allocated to cervical ripening with 50 μg oral misoprostol once every 4 h or to a 30 mL transcervical Foley catheter. The primary outcome was a composite of asphyxia (pH ≤7·05 or 5-min Apgar score <7) or post-partum haemorrhage (≥1000 mL). The non-inferiority margin was 5%. The trial is registered with the Netherlands Trial Register, NTR3466.
Findings: Between July, 2012, and October, 2013, we randomly assigned 932 women to oral misoprostol and 927 women to Foley catheter. The composite primary outcome occurred in 113 (12·2%) of 924 participants in the misoprostol group versus 106 (11·5%) of 921 in the Foley catheter group (adjusted relative risk 1·06, 90% CI 0·86-1·31). Caesarean section occurred in 155 (16·8%) women versus 185 (20·1%; relative risk 0·84, 95% CI 0·69-1·02, p=0·067). 27 adverse events were reported in the misoprostol group versus 25 in the Foley catheter group. None were directly related to the study procedure.
Interpretation: In women with an unfavourable cervix at term, induction of labour with oral misoprostol and Foley catheter has similar safety and effectiveness.
Funding: FondsNutsOhra.
Copyright © 2016 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
Comment in
-
Oral misoprostol is as safe as Foley catheter for labour induction…or is it?Lancet. 2016 Apr 16;387(10028):1593-4. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(15)01042-9. Epub 2016 Feb 3. Lancet. 2016. PMID: 26850982 No abstract available.
-
Foley catheterisation versus oral misoprostol to induce labour - Author's reply.Lancet. 2018 Mar 3;391(10123):837-838. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(18)30466-5. Lancet. 2018. PMID: 29508743 No abstract available.
Similar articles
-
Induction of labour with a Foley catheter or oral misoprostol at term: the PROBAAT-II study, a multicentre randomised controlled trial.BMC Pregnancy Childbirth. 2013 Mar 19;13:67. doi: 10.1186/1471-2393-13-67. BMC Pregnancy Childbirth. 2013. PMID: 23506128 Free PMC article. Clinical Trial.
-
Foley catheter versus vaginal prostaglandin E2 gel for induction of labour at term (PROBAAT trial): an open-label, randomised controlled trial.Lancet. 2011 Dec 17;378(9809):2095-103. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(11)61484-0. Epub 2011 Oct 24. Lancet. 2011. PMID: 22030144 Clinical Trial.
-
Comparing induction of labour with oral misoprostol or Foley catheter at term: cost-effectiveness analysis of a randomised controlled multi-centre non-inferiority trial.BJOG. 2018 Feb;125(3):375-383. doi: 10.1111/1471-0528.14706. Epub 2017 Aug 8. BJOG. 2018. PMID: 28440898 Clinical Trial.
-
Foley catheter versus vaginal misoprostol: randomized controlled trial (PROBAAT-M study) and systematic review and meta-analysis of literature.Am J Perinatol. 2014 Feb;31(2):145-56. doi: 10.1055/s-0033-1341573. Epub 2013 Apr 5. Am J Perinatol. 2014. PMID: 23564065 Clinical Trial.
-
Balancing the efficacy and safety of misoprostol: a meta-analysis comparing 25 versus 50 micrograms of intravaginal misoprostol for the induction of labour.BJOG. 2015 Mar;122(4):468-76. doi: 10.1111/1471-0528.12935. Epub 2014 Jul 3. BJOG. 2015. PMID: 24989790 Review.
Cited by
-
Methods of induction of labor in women with obesity: A secondary analysis of two multicenter randomized controlled trials.Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand. 2024 Mar;103(3):470-478. doi: 10.1111/aogs.14737. Epub 2024 Jan 6. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand. 2024. PMID: 38183287 Free PMC article.
-
The Induction with Foley OR Misoprostol (INFORM) Study dataset. A dataset of 602 women with hypertensive disease in pregnancy, in India, randomised to either Foley catheter or oral misoprostol for induction of labour.BMC Res Notes. 2021 Sep 10;14(1):355. doi: 10.1186/s13104-021-05772-9. BMC Res Notes. 2021. PMID: 34507611 Free PMC article. Clinical Trial.
-
Mechanical methods for induction of labour.Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2019 Oct 18;10(10):CD001233. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD001233.pub3. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2019. Update in: Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2023 Mar 30;3:CD001233. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD001233.pub4. PMID: 31623014 Free PMC article. Updated. Review.
-
Success of trial of labor in women with a history of previous cesarean section for failed labor induction or labor dystocia: a retrospective cohort study.BMC Pregnancy Childbirth. 2019 May 20;19(1):176. doi: 10.1186/s12884-019-2334-3. BMC Pregnancy Childbirth. 2019. PMID: 31109302 Free PMC article.
-
Implementation of Evidence-Based Cervical Ripening Protocol: Outcomes and Next Steps.AJP Rep. 2020 Oct;10(4):e408-e412. doi: 10.1055/s-0040-1721443. Epub 2020 Dec 3. AJP Rep. 2020. PMID: 33294286 Free PMC article.
Publication types
MeSH terms
Substances
Associated data
LinkOut - more resources
Full Text Sources
Other Literature Sources
Medical