Evaluating misoprostol and mechanical methods for induction of labour: Scientific Impact Paper No. 68 April 2022.
Journal
BJOG : an international journal of obstetrics and gynaecology
ISSN: 1471-0528
Titre abrégé: BJOG
Pays: England
ID NLM: 100935741
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
07 2022
07 2022
Historique:
pubmed:
29
4
2022
medline:
22
6
2022
entrez:
28
4
2022
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
Increasingly, births around the world are started artificially using medications or other methods. This process is known as induction of labour. As it becomes more common, methods are needed to meet the different clinical needs and birth preferences of women. Induction of labour typically includes a combination of the medication dinoprostone inserted into the vagina, artificial rupture of membranes ('releasing the waters'), and synthetic oxytocin (hormone given via a drip). This paper reviews some of the methods less commonly used for induction in the UK, namely a drug called misoprostol, which can be given orally or vaginally, and 'mechanical' methods, where labour is started by stretching the cervix (neck of the womb), most commonly with a soft silicone tube with a balloon near the tip, filled with water. Low-dose oral misoprostol tablets are now commercially available in the UK. Other methods for labour induction are not reviewed in detail in this paper. The evidence suggests mechanical induction of labour (using a balloon catheter) and misoprostol are both at least as safe and effective as using the standard drug, dinoprostone. There is evidence to suggest a balloon catheter may reduce the chance of serious negative outcomes for babies when compared with dinoprostone, and that giving low-dose oral misoprostol results in fewer caesarean births. Where possible and after informed consent, the method of induction of labour should be personalised to suit the individual woman, her clinical condition, and the setting in which she is giving birth. Local contexts and resources also need to be taken into account. To date, research into women's perspectives and experiences of induction of labour have been significantly lacking.
Identifiants
pubmed: 35478481
doi: 10.1111/1471-0528.17136
doi:
Substances chimiques
Oxytocics
0
Misoprostol
0E43V0BB57
Oxytocin
50-56-6
Dinoprostone
K7Q1JQR04M
Types de publication
Journal Article
Review
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
e61-e65Informations de copyright
© 2022 John Wiley & Sons Ltd.
Références
National maternity and perinatal audit clinical report 2019 [cited 2021 May 6]. Available from: https://maternityaudit.org.uk/Audit/Charting/Clinical
Nabi HA, Aflaifel NB, Weeks AD. A hundred years of induction of labour methods. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol. 2014;179:236-9.
Alfirevic Z, Keeney E, Dowswell T, Welton NJ, Medley N, Dias S, et al. Which method is best for the induction of labour? A systematic review, network meta-analysis and cost-effectiveness analysis. Health Technol Assess. 2016;20:1-584.
National Institute for Health and Care Excellence. Inducing labour [B] methods for the induction of labour. NICE guideline [NG207]; 2021 [cited 2022 Jan 28]. Available from: https://www.nice.org.uk/guidance/ng207/evidence/b-methods-for-the-induction-of-labour-pdf-9266825055
National Institute for Health and Care Excellence. Insertion of a double balloon catheter for induction of labour in pregnant women without previous caesarean section. NICE Interventional procedures guidance [IPG528]; 2015 [cited 2018 Aug 9]. Available from: https://www.nice.org.uk/guidance/IPG528
World Health Organization. WHO recommendations for induction of labour. World Health Organization, Dept. of Reproductive Health and Research; 2011 [Updated 2018; cited 2020 Jan 8]. Available from: https://www.who.int/reproductivehealth/publications/maternal_perinatal_health/9789241501156/en/
Morris JL, Winikoff B, Dabash R, Weeks A, Faundes A, Gemzell-Danielsson K, et al. FIGO's updated recommendations for misoprostol used alone in gynecology and obstetrics. Int J Obstet Gynaecol. 2017;137:363-6.
Norgine Pharmaceuticals Limited. Angusta 25 microgram tablets, SmPC 2021 [cited 2021 Aug 2]. Available from: https://www.medicines.org.uk/emc/product/12147/smpc
Tang OS, Gemzell-Danielsson K, Ho PC. Misoprostol: pharmacokinetic profiles, effects on the uterus and side-effects. Int J Obstet Gynaecol. 2007;99(Suppl 2):S160-7.
Alfirevic Z, Keeney E, Dowswell T, Welton NJ, Dias S, Jones LV, et al. Labour induction with prostaglandins: a systematic review and network meta-analysis. BMJ. 2015;350:h217.
Kerr RS, Kumar N, Williams MJ, Cuthbert A, Aflaifel N, Haas DM, et al. Low-dose oral misoprostol for induction of labour. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2021;6:CD014484.
Wang X, Zhang C, Li X, Qi H, Liu Q, Lei J. Safety and efficacy of titrated oral misoprostol solution versus vaginal dinoprostone for induction of labor: a single-center randomized control trial. Int J Gynaecol Obstet. 2020;154:436-43. https://doi.org/10.1002/ijgo.13546
de Vaan MDT, ten Eikelder MLG, Jozwiak M, Palmer KR, Davies-Tuck M, Bloemenkamp KW, et al. Mechanical methods for induction of labour. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2019;10:CD001233.
Pennell CE, Henderson JJ, O'Neill MJ, McCleery S, Doherty DA, Dickinson JE. Induction of labour in nulliparous women with an unfavourable cervix: a randomised controlled trial comparing double and single balloon catheters and PGE2 gel. BJOG. 2009;116:1143-52.
Ten Eikelder ML, Oude Rengerink K, Jozwiak M, de Leeuw JW, de Graaf IM, van Pampus MG, et al. Induction of labour at term with oral misoprostol versus a Foley catheter (PROBAAT-II): a multicentre randomised controlled non-inferiority trial. Lancet. 2016;387:1619-28.
Kemper JI, Li W, Goni S, Flanagan M, Weeks A, Alfirevic Z, et al. Foley catheter vs oral misoprostol for induction of labor: individual participant data meta-analysis. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2021;57:215-23.
Saad AF, Villarreal J, Eid J, Spencer N, Ellis V, Hankins GD, et al. A randomized controlled trial of Dilapan-S vs Foley balloon for preinduction cervical ripening (DILAFOL trial). Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2019;220(275):e1-9.
Comparison of misoprostol ripening efficacy with Dilapan (COMRED) [cited 2021 May 6]. Available from: https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT03670836
An RCT of a synthetic osmotic cervical dilator for induction of labour in comparison to dinoprostone vaginal insert (SOLVE) [cited 2021 May 6]. Available from: https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT03001661
McMaster K, Sanchez-Ramos L, Kaunitz AM. Evaluation of a transcervical Foley catheter as a source of infection: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Obstet Gynecol. 2015;126:539-51.
Huisman C, Ten Eikelder M, Mast K, Rengerink O, Jozwiak K, van Dunné M, et al. Balloon catheter for induction of labor in women with one previous cesarean and an unfavorable cervix. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand. 2019;98:920-8.
Alfirevic Z, Gyte GMI, 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.
Dierderen M, Gommers JSM, Wilkinson C, Turnbull D. Safety of balloon catheter for cervical ripening in outpatient care: complications during the period from insertion to expulsion of the balloon catheter in the process of labour induction: a systematic review. BJOG. 2018;125:1086-95.
Vogel JP, Osoti AO, Kelly AJ, Livio S, Norman JE, Alfirevic Z. Pharmacological and mechanical interventions for labour induction in outpatient settings. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2017;9:CD007701.
Helmig RB, Hvidman LE. An audit of oral administration of Angusta® (misoprostol) 25 μg for induction of labor in 976 consecutive women with a singleton pregnancy in a university hospital in Denmark. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand. 2020;99:1396-402.
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.
Royal College of Midwives. Midwifery care for induction of labour. RCM midwifery blue top guidance No 2. London: RCM; 2019 [cited 2022 Jan 28]. Available from: https://www.rcm.org.uk/media/5460/midwifery-care-for-induction-of-labour-a4-2019-16pp_2v2.pdf
Mundle S, Bracken H, Khedikar D, Mulik J, Faragher B, Easterling T, et al. Foley catheterisation versus oral misoprostol for induction of labour in hypertensive women in India (INFORM): a multicentre, open-label, randomised controlled trial. Lancet. 2017;390:669-80.
Devillard E, Delabaere A, Rouzaire M, Pereira B, Accoceberry M, Houlle C, et al. Induction of labour in case of premature rupture of membranes at term with an unfavourable cervix: protocol for a randomised controlled trial comparing double balloon catheter (+oxytocin) and vaginal prostaglandin (RUBAPRO) treatments. BMJ Open. 2019;9:e026090.
Kruit H, Tihtonen K, Raudaskoski T, Ulander VM, Aitokallio-Tallberg A, Heikinheimo O, et al. Foley catheter or oral misoprostol for induction of labor in women with term premature rupture of membranes: a randomized multicenter trial. Am J Perinatol. 2016;33:866-72.