Labor Induction in Late-Onset Fetal Growth Restriction: Foley Balloon versus Vaginal Dinoprostone.


Journal

Fetal diagnosis and therapy
ISSN: 1421-9964
Titre abrégé: Fetal Diagn Ther
Pays: Switzerland
ID NLM: 9107463

Informations de publication

Date de publication:
2019
Historique:
received: 19 03 2018
accepted: 02 07 2018
pubmed: 25 9 2018
medline: 28 1 2020
entrez: 25 9 2018
Statut: ppublish

Résumé

To compare vaginal delivery rate and perinatal outcomes of fetuses with late-onset fetal growth restriction (FGR) undergoing labor induction, depending on the method for cervical ripening (dinoprostone vs. Foley balloon). We conducted a retrospective cohort study of 148 consecutive singleton gestations diagnosed with stage I late-onset FGR and Bishop score < 7, in which labor induction was indicated at ≥37 + 0 weeks. Before January 2016, cervical ripening was achieved with 10 mg of vaginal dinoprostone (n = 77) and afterwards with Fo-ley balloon (n = 71). Logistic regression analysis was used to estimate the association between mode of delivery and induction method. Foley balloon had lower percentages of uterine tachysystole with fetal repercussion (4.2 vs. 16.9%, p = 0.01) and cesarean sections for suspected fetal distress (7.0 vs. 26.0%, p < 0.01) when compared to dino-prostone. Lower percentages of cesarean sections were found in the Foley balloon group (15.5 vs. 37.7%, p < 0.01). The odds ratio and adjusted odds ratio of cesarean section with dinoprostone were of 3.3 and 4.4, respectively. Perinatal mortality and severe morbidity were null in both groups. The use of Foley balloon resulted in a higher percentage of vaginal delivery compared to dinoprostone, with a favorable safety profile in both groups.

Identifiants

pubmed: 30248665
pii: 000491784
doi: 10.1159/000491784
doi:

Substances chimiques

Dinoprostone K7Q1JQR04M

Types de publication

Comparative Study Journal Article

Langues

eng

Sous-ensembles de citation

IM

Pagination

67-74

Informations de copyright

© 2018 S. Karger AG, Basel.

Auteurs

Cecilia Villalain (C)

Fetal Medicine Unit - Maternal and Child Health and Development Network (Red SAMID-RD12/0026/0016), Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, University Hospital 12 de Octubre, 12 de Octubre Research Institute (imas12), Complutense University of Madrid, Madrid, Spain.

Ignacio Herraiz (I)

Fetal Medicine Unit - Maternal and Child Health and Development Network (Red SAMID-RD12/0026/0016), Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, University Hospital 12 de Octubre, 12 de Octubre Research Institute (imas12), Complutense University of Madrid, Madrid, Spain, iherraizg@med.ucm.es.

María Soledad Quezada (MS)

Fetal Medicine Unit - Maternal and Child Health and Development Network (Red SAMID-RD12/0026/0016), Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, University Hospital 12 de Octubre, 12 de Octubre Research Institute (imas12), Complutense University of Madrid, Madrid, Spain.

Paula Gómez Arriaga (P)

Fetal Medicine Unit - Maternal and Child Health and Development Network (Red SAMID-RD12/0026/0016), Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, University Hospital 12 de Octubre, 12 de Octubre Research Institute (imas12), Complutense University of Madrid, Madrid, Spain.

Elisa Simón (E)

Fetal Medicine Unit - Maternal and Child Health and Development Network (Red SAMID-RD12/0026/0016), Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, University Hospital 12 de Octubre, 12 de Octubre Research Institute (imas12), Complutense University of Madrid, Madrid, Spain.

Enery Gómez-Montes (E)

Fetal Medicine Unit - Maternal and Child Health and Development Network (Red SAMID-RD12/0026/0016), Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, University Hospital 12 de Octubre, 12 de Octubre Research Institute (imas12), Complutense University of Madrid, Madrid, Spain.

Alberto Galindo (A)

Fetal Medicine Unit - Maternal and Child Health and Development Network (Red SAMID-RD12/0026/0016), Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, University Hospital 12 de Octubre, 12 de Octubre Research Institute (imas12), Complutense University of Madrid, Madrid, Spain.

Articles similaires

[Redispensing of expensive oral anticancer medicines: a practical application].

Lisanne N van Merendonk, Kübra Akgöl, Bastiaan Nuijen
1.00
Humans Antineoplastic Agents Administration, Oral Drug Costs Counterfeit Drugs

Smoking Cessation and Incident Cardiovascular Disease.

Jun Hwan Cho, Seung Yong Shin, Hoseob Kim et al.
1.00
Humans Male Smoking Cessation Cardiovascular Diseases Female
Humans United States Aged Cross-Sectional Studies Medicare Part C
1.00
Humans Yoga Low Back Pain Female Male

Classifications MeSH