Double-balloon catheter versus dinoprostone insert for labour induction: a meta-analysis

Abstract

Objective: To assess the efficacy and safety of a double-balloon catheter versus dinoprostone insert for labour induction.

Study design: PubMed, MEDLINE, Embase, ClinicalTrials.gov, and the Cochrane Central Register of Clinical Trials databases were searched from 1985 to April 2018. Randomized controlled trials that compared a double-balloon catheter and dinoprostone insert for cervical ripening were identified. Eligible study populations consisted of women with singleton pregnancies that had any indication for labour induction and were randomly assigned to undergo induction with a double-balloon catheter or dinoprostone insert. The main outcomes were incidence of vaginal delivery within 24 h and caesarean section, and neonatal outcomes.

Results: Five randomized trials (603 women; 305 with a double-balloon catheter and 298 with a dinoprostone insert) were eligible for inclusion. No differences were observed between the two groups in terms of vaginal delivery within 24 h [relative risk (RR) 1.21, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.93-1.59] and incidence of caesarean section (RR 0.99, 95% CI 0.77-1.27). Compared with the double-balloon catheter, the dinoprostone insert was associated with a reduced need for oxytocin administration in the process of labour induction (RR 1.95, 95% CI 1.45-2.62). However, there was a higher incidence of excessive uterine activity (RR 0.17, 95% CI 0.06-0.54) and neonatal umbilical cord arterial blood pH < 7.1 (RR 0.36, 95% CI 0.15-0.84) in the dinoprostone insert group.

Conclusion: This review showed that the efficacy of labour induction using both the double-balloon catheter and dinoprostone insert was similar. However, the double-balloon catheter seemed to be a safer method.

Keywords: Dinoprostone insert; Double-balloon catheter; Induction of labour; Meta-analysis.