Experiences of induction of labor with a catheter - A prospective randomized controlled trial comparing the outpatient and inpatient setting.
balloon catheter
experience
induction of labor
inpatient
outpatient
satisfaction
woman
Journal
Acta obstetricia et gynecologica Scandinavica
ISSN: 1600-0412
Titre abrégé: Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand
Pays: United States
ID NLM: 0370343
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
03 2021
03 2021
Historique:
revised:
20
10
2020
received:
19
03
2020
accepted:
27
10
2020
pubmed:
4
11
2020
medline:
14
4
2021
entrez:
3
11
2020
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
Approximately every fourth labor is induced. In Finland, when labor is induced, it is commonly carried out with a catheter in the inpatient (IP) setting. However, in uncomplicated, full-term pregnancies, induction of labor (IOL) in the outpatient (OP) setting is also possible. Nevertheless, there is only a limited amount of information about the experiences of IOL in OP setting. Our study compared the experiences of catheter IOL in OP and IP settings. We performed a prospective randomized study, including 113 women with uncomplicated full-term pregnancies with planned IOL. After catheter insertion, women were randomized into OP or IP settings: after dropouts, there were 53 women in the OP group and 54 in the IP. The experiences of IOL were evaluated with three sets of visual analog scale (VAS) questionnaires: the general experience questionnaire (eight questions), the concurrent induction experience questionnaire (1, 5, 9, 13 hours; nine questions) and the postpartum experience questionnaire (14 questions). Both groups had low VAS scores, indicating good experiences of IOL. Women in the OP group were less satisfied (mean VAS difference Δ = 7.8, P = .015) and more anxious (Δ = 4.8, P = .008) than were women in the IP group. In the course of the IOL, all women became less satisfied (Δ = 8.4, P = .001), had more contraction pain (Δ = 8.9, P = .020) and had a higher frequency of contractions (Δ = 9.9, P = .004) but they were more relaxed and experienced less fear (Δ = 6.9, P = .036, Δ = 5.3, P = .001, respectively). There was no interaction between group and time. According to the postpartum experience questionnaire, both groups had a similar good general experience of IOL (P = .736) but the OP group had more fear (Δ = 9.5, P = .009) and was more anxious (Δ = 9.0, P = .007). Most of the women would choose catheter IOL in a subsequent pregnancy (OP 82.6%, IP 87.0%). The women in the OP setting were less satisfied and more anxious than were the women in the IP setting. However, the differences were marginal and the general experience after IOL was good. IOL in an OP setting is thus a viable option in low-risk full-term pregnancies. Therefore, when using catheter IOL, both setting options should be available.
Types de publication
Journal Article
Randomized Controlled Trial
Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
410-417Informations de copyright
© 2020 Nordic Federation of Societies of Obstetrics and Gynecology (NFOG). Published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd.
Références
Dögl M, Vanky E, Heimstad R. Changes in induction methods have not influenced cesarean section rates among women with induced labor. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand. 2016;95:112-115.
WHO recommendations for induction of labour. Available online at: https://apps.who.int/iris/bitstream/handle/10665/44531/9789241501156_eng.pdf?sequence=1 (accessed 2011).
Leopold B, Sciscione A. Is there a place for outpatient preinduction cervical ripening? Obstet Gynecol Clin North Am. 2017;44:583-591.
Kelly AJ, Alfirevic Z, Ghosh A. Outpatient versus inpatient induction of labour for improving birth outcomes. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2013;(11):CD007372. Update. In: Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2020 Aug 27.
Sciscione AC, Nguyen L, Manley J, Pollock M, Maas B, Colmorgen G. A randomized comparison of transcervical Foley catheter to intravaginal misoprostol for preinduction cervical ripening. Obstet Gynecol. 2001;97:603-607.
de Vaan MDT, ten Eikelder MLG, Jozwiak M, et al. Mechanical methods for induction of labour. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2019;(10):CD001233.
Sciscione AC, Bedder CL, Hoffman MK, Ruhstaller K, Shlossman PA. The timing of adverse events with Foley catheter preinduction cervical ripening; Implications for outpatient use. Am J Perinatol. 2014;31:781-786.
Greenberg V, Khalifeh A. Intracervical Foley balloon catheter for cervical ripening and labor induction: a review. Semin Perinatol. 2015;39:441-443.
Diederen M, Gommers J, Wilkinson C, Turnbull D, Mol B. Safety of the balloon catheter for cervical ripening in outpatient care: complications during the period from insertion to expulsion of a balloon catheter in the process of labour induction: a systematic review. BJOG. 2018;125:1086-1095.
Policiano C, Pimenta M, Martins D, Clode N. Outpatient versus inpatient cervix priming with Foley catheter: a randomized trial. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol. 2017;210:1-6.
Levine LD, Sciscione AC. Foley catheter for outpatient cervical ripening: review of the evidence and a proposed model of care. Am J Perinatol. 2019;36:1528-1532.
Alfirevic Z, Gyte GM, Nogueira Pileggi V, Plachcinski R, Osoti AO, Finucane EM. Home versus inpatient induction of labour for improving birth outcomes. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2020;(8):CD007372.
Henry A, Madan A, Reid R, et al. Outpatient Foley catheter versus inpatient prostaglandin E2 gel for induction of labour: a randomised trial. BMC Pregnancy Childbirth. 2013;13:25.
Lim SE, Tan TL, Ng GYH, Tagore S, Kyaw EEP, Yeo GSH. Patient satisfaction with the cervical ripening balloon as a method for induction of labour: A randomised controlled trial. Singapore Med J. 2018;59:419-424.
Shechter-Maor G, Haran G, Sadeh-Mestechkin D, Ganor-Paz Y, Fejgin MD, Biron-Shental T. Intra-vaginal prostaglandin E2 versus double-balloon catheter for labor induction in term oligohydramnios. J Perinatol. 2015;35:95-98.
Wilkinson C, Adelson P, Turnbull D. A comparison of inpatient with outpatient balloon catheter cervical ripening: a pilot randomized controlled trial. BMC Pregnancy Childbirth. 2015;15:126.
Wang MJ, Jauk VC, George ADM, et al. Patient satisfaction with outpatient cervical ripening in parous women. Am J Perinatol. 2020. https://doi.org/10.1055/s-0040-1705170. Epub ahead of print.
Coates R, Cupples G, Scamell A, McCourt C. Women’s experiences of induction of labour: qualitative systematic review and thematic synthesis. Midwifery. 2019;69:17-28.
Oster C, Adelson PL, Wilkinson C, Turnbull D. Inpatient versus outpatient cervical priming for induction of labour: Therapeutic landscapes and women’s preferences. Heal Place. 2011;17:379-385.
Rauf Z, Alfirevic Z. Outpatient approaches to elective induction of labor. Clin Obstet Gynecol. 2014;57:391-400.
Biem SR, Turnell RW, Olatunbosun O, Tauh M, Biem HJ. A randomized controlled trial of outpatient versus inpatient labour induction with vaginal controlled-release prostaglandin-E2: effectiveness and satisfaction. J Obstet Gynaecol Can. 2003;25:23-31.
Turnbull D, Adelson P, Oster C, Bryce R, Fereday J, Wilkinson C. Psychosocial outcomes of a randomized controlled trial of outpatient cervical priming for induction of labor. Birth. 2013;40:75-80.
Kruit H, Heikinheimo O, Ulander V-M, et al. Foley catheter induction of labor as an outpatient procedure. J Perinatol. 2016;36:618-622.
Shetty A, Burt R, Rice P, Templeton A. Women’s perceptions, expectations and satisfaction with induced labour - A questionnaire-based study. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol. 2005;123:56-61.
Waldenström U, Hildingsson I, Rubertsson C, Rådestad I. A negative birth experience: prevalence and risk factors in a national sample. Birth. 2004;31:17-27.
Henderson J, Redshaw M. Women’s experience of induction of labor: a mixed methods study. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand. 2013;92:1159-1167.
Adler K, Rahkonen L, Kruit H. Maternal childbirth experience in induced and spontaneous labour measured in a visual analog scale and the factors influencing it; A two-year cohort study. BMC Pregnancy Childbirth. 2020;20:415.
Larsson C, Saltvedt S, Edman G, Wiklund I, Andolf E. Factors independently related to a negative birth experience in first-time mothers. Sex Reprod Healthc. 2011;2:83-89.
Patabendige M, Jayawardane A. Foley catheter for cervical priming in induction of labour at University Obstetrics Unit, Colombo, Sri Lanka: a clinical audit with a patient satisfaction survey. BMC Res Notes. 2017;10:155.
Chavakula PR, Benjamin SJ, Abraham A, Londhe V, Jeyaseelan V, Mathews JE. Misoprostol versus Foley catheter insertion for induction of labor in pregnancies affected by fetal growth restriction. Int J Gynaecol Obs. 2015;129(2):152-155.