Combination of Foley and prostaglandins versus Foley and oxytocin for cervical ripening: a network meta-analysis
- PMID: 32387325
- DOI: 10.1016/j.ajog.2020.05.007
Combination of Foley and prostaglandins versus Foley and oxytocin for cervical ripening: a network meta-analysis
Abstract
Background: Trial and meta-analysis data revealed a reduction in time to delivery for Foley and prostaglandins or Foley and oxytocin vs Foley alone. However, there are limited data for the comparison of the 2 combination methods against each other.
Objective: This study aimed to determine whether Foley and prostaglandins or Foley and oxytocin decrease the time to vaginal delivery using a network meta-analysis.
Study design: A network meta-analysis (PROSPERO CRD42018081948) was performed comparing Foley and prostaglandins (prostaglandin E1 or prostaglandin E2) vs Foley and oxytocin for cervical ripening. Foley alone and prostaglandins alone were used as nodes for indirect comparison. Database searches were performed from inception to March 2020 with data abstracted from published manuscripts. Eligibility criteria included randomized trials comparing Foley and oxytocin with Foley and prostaglandins (misoprostol or dinoprostone). Trials that compared Foley catheter or prostaglandins with a combination of Foley and prostaglandins or Foley and concurrent oxytocin were also included. Nulliparous and multiparous women were analyzed together. Foley catheters of any catheter material or size and >24 weeks' gestational age with a live fetus were included. Quasi-randomized, cohorts, and other combination methods for cervical ripening were not included. Prostaglandin E1 and prostaglandin E2 combined methods were analyzed separately in a planned subanalysis. The primary outcome was the mean time from induction to vaginal delivery in hours. Secondary outcomes included time from induction to delivery, delivery within 24 hours, cesarean delivery, chorioamnionitis, endometritis, epidural use, tachysystole, postpartum hemorrhage, meconium, neonatal intensive care unit admission, and 5-minute appearance, pulse, grimace, activity, and respiration score of <7. Data were analyzed as a network meta-analysis using multivariate meta-regression.
Results: A total of 30 randomized controlled trials with a total of 6465 women were considered eligible for inclusion in this network meta-analysis. When compared with Foley alone, the use of Foley-oxytocin reduced the time to vaginal delivery by 4.2 hours (mean duration, -4.2 hours; 95% confidence interval, -6.5 to -1.9). Foley-prostaglandins reduced the time to vaginal delivery compared with Foley but did not meet statistical significance (mean duration, -2.9 hours; 95% confidence interval, -5.7 to 0.0; P=.05). When compared head-to-head, there was no difference in the time to vaginal delivery between Foley-prostaglandins and Foley-oxytocin (mean duration, 1.3 hours; 95% confidence interval, -2.0 to 4.7). There was no difference in the rate of cesarean delivery, chorioamnionitis, epidural, tachysystole, postpartum hemorrhage, meconium, neonatal intensive care unit admissions, or 5-minute appearance, pulse, grimace, activity, and respiration score of <7 for Foley-prostaglandins vs Foley-oxytocin, although the rate of endometritis was high for Foley-prostaglandins. In the subanalysis by prostaglandin type, there was no difference in the time to vaginal delivery for Foley-misoprostol vs Foley-dinoprostone vs Foley-oxytocin. However, Foley-dinoprostone had a definite trend toward longer time to all deliveries compared with that of both Foley-misoprostol and Foley-oxytocin (P=.05).
Conclusion: Time to vaginal delivery was similar when comparing Foley with combined misoprostol, combined dinoprostone, and combined oxytocin. Dinoprostone comparisons are limited by small sample size but suggest longer time to delivery compared with Foley and misoprostol or oxytocin. No significant differences were observed in maternal or neonatal adverse events except for endometritis, but this was limited by the sample size, varied reporting of studies used in the indirect comparisons, and definitions of infectious morbidity use in the studies.
Keywords: Foley balloon; dinoprostone; induction; labor; misoprostol.
Copyright © 2020 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
Similar articles
-
Transcervical Foley Balloon Plus Vaginal Misoprostol versus Vaginal Misoprostol Alone for Cervical Ripening in Nulliparous Obese Women: A Multicenter, Randomized, Comparative-Effectiveness Trial.Am J Perinatol. 2021 Aug;38(S 01):e123-e128. doi: 10.1055/s-0040-1708805. Epub 2020 Apr 16. Am J Perinatol. 2021. PMID: 32299108 Clinical Trial.
-
Comparison of intracervical Foley catheter used alone or combined with a single dose of dinoprostone gel for cervical ripening: a randomised study.J Obstet Gynaecol. 2019 May;39(4):461-467. doi: 10.1080/01443615.2018.1534090. Epub 2019 Feb 12. J Obstet Gynaecol. 2019. PMID: 30747025 Clinical Trial.
-
Safety and efficacy of double-balloon catheter for cervical ripening: a Bayesian network meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.BMC Pregnancy Childbirth. 2022 Sep 6;22(1):688. doi: 10.1186/s12884-022-04988-2. BMC Pregnancy Childbirth. 2022. PMID: 36068489 Free PMC article.
-
Mechanical methods for induction of labour.Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2023 Mar 30;3(3):CD001233. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD001233.pub4. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2023. PMID: 36996264 Free PMC article. Review.
-
Methods for the induction of labor: efficacy and safety.Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2024 Mar;230(3S):S669-S695. doi: 10.1016/j.ajog.2023.02.009. Epub 2023 Jul 13. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2024. PMID: 38462252 Review.
Cited by
-
GRADE Use in Evidence Syntheses Published in High-Impact-Factor Gynecology and Obstetrics Journals: A Methodological Survey.J Clin Med. 2023 Jan 5;12(2):446. doi: 10.3390/jcm12020446. J Clin Med. 2023. PMID: 36675377 Free PMC article.
-
Obstetric protocols in the setting of a pandemic.Semin Perinatol. 2020 Oct;44(6):151295. doi: 10.1016/j.semperi.2020.151295. Epub 2020 Jul 24. Semin Perinatol. 2020. PMID: 32829954 Free PMC article.
-
Obesity at term: What to consider? How to deliver?Arch Gynecol Obstet. 2024 May;309(5):1725-1733. doi: 10.1007/s00404-023-07354-5. Epub 2024 Feb 7. Arch Gynecol Obstet. 2024. PMID: 38326633 Review.
-
Is Unfavourable Cervix prior to Labor Induction Risk for Adverse Obstetrical Outcome in Time of Universal Ripening Agents Usage? Single Center Retrospective Observational Study.J Pregnancy. 2020 Sep 1;2020:4985693. doi: 10.1155/2020/4985693. eCollection 2020. J Pregnancy. 2020. PMID: 32953176 Free PMC article.
-
Clinical comparison of vaginal misoprostol combined with a foley balloon versus vaginal misoprostol alone for inducing labor: a prospective cohort study.BMC Pregnancy Childbirth. 2025 Mar 15;25(1):295. doi: 10.1186/s12884-025-07375-9. BMC Pregnancy Childbirth. 2025. PMID: 40089692 Free PMC article.
Publication types
MeSH terms
Substances
LinkOut - more resources
Full Text Sources
Medical