Speculum versus digital insertion of Foley catheter for induction of labor in Nulliparas with unripe cervix: a randomized controlled trial.


Journal

BMC pregnancy and childbirth
ISSN: 1471-2393
Titre abrégé: BMC Pregnancy Childbirth
Pays: England
ID NLM: 100967799

Informations de publication

Date de publication:
29 May 2020
Historique:
received: 18 11 2019
accepted: 22 05 2020
entrez: 31 5 2020
pubmed: 31 5 2020
medline: 30 1 2021
Statut: epublish

Résumé

Induction of labor (IoL) is an increasingly common obstetric procedure. Foley catheter IoL is recommended by WHO. It is associated with the lowest rate of uterine hyperstimulation syndrome and similar duration to delivery and vaginal delivery rate compared to other methods. Insertion is typically via speculum but digital insertion has been reported to be faster, better tolerated and with similar universal insertion success compared to speculum insertion in a mixed population of nulliparas and multiparas. Transcervical procedure is more challenging in nulliparas and when the cervix is unripe. We evaluated the ease and tolerability of digital compared to speculum insertion of Foley catheter for induction of labor in nulliparas with unripe cervixes. A randomized trial was performed in a university hospital in Malaysia. Participants were nulliparas at term with unripe cervixes (Bishop Score ≤ 5) admitted for IoL who were randomized to digital or speculum-aided transcervical Foley catheter insertion in lithotomy position. Primary outcomes were insertion duration, pain score [11-point Visual Numerical Rating Scale (VNRS)], and failure. All primary outcomes were recorded after the first insertion. Data from 86 participants were analysed. Insertion duration (with standard deviation) was 2.72 ± 1.85 vs. 2.25 ± 0.55 min p = 0.12, pain score (VNRS) median [interquartile range] 3.5 [2-5] vs. 3 [2-5] p = 0.72 and failure 2/42 (5%) vs. 0/44 (0%) p = 0.24 for digital vs speculum respectively. There was no significant difference found between the two groups for all three primary outcomes. Induction to delivery 30.7 ± 9.4 vs 29.6 ± 11.5 h p = 0.64, Cesarean section 25/60 (64%) vs 28/64 (60%) RR 0.9 95% CI p = 0.7 and maternal satisfaction VNRS score with the birth process 7 [IQR 6-8] vs 7 [7-8] p = 0.97 for digital vs. speculum arms respectively. Other labor, delivery and neonatal secondary outcomes were not significantly different. Digital and speculum insertion in nulliparas with unripe cervixes had similar insertion performance. As digital insertion required less equipment and consumables, it could be the preferred insertion method for the equally adept and the insertion technique to train towards. This trial was registered with ISRCTN registration number 13804902 on 15 November 2017.

Sections du résumé

BACKGROUND BACKGROUND
Induction of labor (IoL) is an increasingly common obstetric procedure. Foley catheter IoL is recommended by WHO. It is associated with the lowest rate of uterine hyperstimulation syndrome and similar duration to delivery and vaginal delivery rate compared to other methods. Insertion is typically via speculum but digital insertion has been reported to be faster, better tolerated and with similar universal insertion success compared to speculum insertion in a mixed population of nulliparas and multiparas. Transcervical procedure is more challenging in nulliparas and when the cervix is unripe. We evaluated the ease and tolerability of digital compared to speculum insertion of Foley catheter for induction of labor in nulliparas with unripe cervixes.
METHODS METHODS
A randomized trial was performed in a university hospital in Malaysia. Participants were nulliparas at term with unripe cervixes (Bishop Score ≤ 5) admitted for IoL who were randomized to digital or speculum-aided transcervical Foley catheter insertion in lithotomy position. Primary outcomes were insertion duration, pain score [11-point Visual Numerical Rating Scale (VNRS)], and failure. All primary outcomes were recorded after the first insertion.
RESULTS RESULTS
Data from 86 participants were analysed. Insertion duration (with standard deviation) was 2.72 ± 1.85 vs. 2.25 ± 0.55 min p = 0.12, pain score (VNRS) median [interquartile range] 3.5 [2-5] vs. 3 [2-5] p = 0.72 and failure 2/42 (5%) vs. 0/44 (0%) p = 0.24 for digital vs speculum respectively. There was no significant difference found between the two groups for all three primary outcomes. Induction to delivery 30.7 ± 9.4 vs 29.6 ± 11.5 h p = 0.64, Cesarean section 25/60 (64%) vs 28/64 (60%) RR 0.9 95% CI p = 0.7 and maternal satisfaction VNRS score with the birth process 7 [IQR 6-8] vs 7 [7-8] p = 0.97 for digital vs. speculum arms respectively. Other labor, delivery and neonatal secondary outcomes were not significantly different.
CONCLUSION CONCLUSIONS
Digital and speculum insertion in nulliparas with unripe cervixes had similar insertion performance. As digital insertion required less equipment and consumables, it could be the preferred insertion method for the equally adept and the insertion technique to train towards.
TRIAL REGISTRATION BACKGROUND
This trial was registered with ISRCTN registration number 13804902 on 15 November 2017.

Identifiants

pubmed: 32471369
doi: 10.1186/s12884-020-03029-0
pii: 10.1186/s12884-020-03029-0
pmc: PMC7257160
doi:

Types de publication

Journal Article Randomized Controlled Trial

Langues

eng

Sous-ensembles de citation

IM

Pagination

330

Subventions

Organisme : Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, University of Malaya
ID : Internal funding

Références

Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2017 Jan;216(1):67.e1-67.e9
pubmed: 27640940
Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand. 2018 Sep;97(9):1051-1060
pubmed: 29607491
Obstet Gynecol. 2010 Jun;115(6):1239-45
pubmed: 20502296
Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2012 Jun;206(6):486.e1-9
pubmed: 22520652
Fertil Steril. 2008 Feb;89(2):438-43
pubmed: 17482613
BJOG. 2017 Jul;124(8):1274-1283
pubmed: 27348806
BJOG. 2016 Feb;123(3):346-54
pubmed: 26538408
Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand. 2011 Sep;90(9):997-1004
pubmed: 21615714
Aust N Z J Obstet Gynaecol. 2019 Apr;59(2):235-242
pubmed: 29943804
Obstet Gynecol. 1996 Jul;88(1):87-92
pubmed: 8684769
N Engl J Med. 2018 Aug 09;379(6):513-523
pubmed: 30089070
BMC Med Res Methodol. 2005 Apr 20;5:13
pubmed: 15840177
Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2016 Mar;214(3):397.e1-397.e10
pubmed: 26723197
J Obstet Gynaecol Res. 2018 Jan;44(1):27-34
pubmed: 29271034

Auteurs

Hang Min Chia (HM)

Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, Faculty of Medicine, University of Malaya, Lembah Pantai, 50603, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia.

Peng Chiong Tan (PC)

Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, Faculty of Medicine, University of Malaya, Lembah Pantai, 50603, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia. pctan@um.edu.my.

Sze Ping Tan (SP)

King's College London, The Strand, London, WC2R 2LS, UK.

Mukhri Hamdan (M)

Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, Faculty of Medicine, University of Malaya, Lembah Pantai, 50603, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia.

Siti Zawiah Omar (SZ)

Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, Faculty of Medicine, University of Malaya, Lembah Pantai, 50603, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia.

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