Predictors of efficacy for cervical ripening among the Bishop score criteria in nulliparous women at term.
bishop score
cervical ripening
cervical-ripening balloon
dinoprostone
induction of labor
vaginal delivery
Journal
International journal of gynaecology and obstetrics: the official organ of the International Federation of Gynaecology and Obstetrics
ISSN: 1879-3479
Titre abrégé: Int J Gynaecol Obstet
Pays: United States
ID NLM: 0210174
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
Jun 2023
Jun 2023
Historique:
revised:
17
11
2022
received:
30
01
2022
accepted:
22
11
2022
medline:
17
5
2023
pubmed:
26
11
2022
entrez:
25
11
2022
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
To determine predictors of efficacy for cervical ripening among the Bishop score criteria in nulliparous women at term. Prospective observational study of nulliparous women with singleton term fetuses in vertex presentation, intact membranes, and an unfavorable cervix (Bishop score < 6) who underwent cervical ripening with a cervical-ripening balloon (CRB; n = 47) or dinoprostone vaginal insert (PG; n = 28). The authors analyzed Bishop score criteria (dilatation, effacement, fetal station, consistency, position) before and after device removal. Primary outcome was favorable cervix (Bishop score ≥ 6) after device removal. Secondary outcomes were vaginal delivery, modification of Bishop score criteria, and perinatal morbidity. Rates of favorable cervix after cervical ripening were similar between groups (66.7% with CRB vs. 59.3% with PG; P = 0.526). Vaginal delivery (76.6% vs. 78.6%; P = 0.843) and perinatal morbidity did not differ between groups. CRB appeared to be more effective than PG in increasing consistency (+0.7 ± 0.2 vs. +0.3 ± 0.2; P = 0.001) and dilatation of the cervix (+1.3 ± 0.3 vs. +0.9 ± 0.3; P = 0.005). No Bishop score criterion was found as a significant predictor for vaginal delivery. CRB seems to be more effective than PG in increasing the consistency and dilatation of the cervix. Efficacy of CRB and PG for vaginal delivery was similar.
Substances chimiques
Oxytocics
0
Dinoprostone
K7Q1JQR04M
Types de publication
Observational Study
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
934-941Informations de copyright
© 2022 International Federation of Gynecology and Obstetrics.
Références
World Health Organization. WHO recommendations for induction of labour. Department of Reproductive Health and Research. [WHO website]. 2011. https://www.who.int/reproductivehealth/publications/maternal_perinatal_health/9789241501156/en. Accessed January 11, 2022.
Blondel B, Coulm B, Bonnet C, Goffinet F, Le Ray C. National Coordination Group of the National Perinatal Surveys. Trends in perinatal health in metropolitan France from 1995 to 2016: results from the French National Perinatal Surveys. J Gynecol Obstet Hum Reprod. 2017;2017(46):701-713.
Blanc-Petitjean P, Salomé M, Dupont C, et al. Overview of induction of labor practices in France. Gynecol Obstet Fertil Senol. 2019;47:555-561.
Jozwiak M, Oude Rengerink K, Benthem M, et al. Foley catheter versus vaginal prostaglandin E2 gel for induction of labour at term (PROBAAT trial): an open-label, randomised controlled trial. Lancet. 2011;378:2095-2103.
Diguisto C, Le Gouge A, Arthuis C, et al. Cervical ripening in prolonged pregnancies by silicone double balloon catheter versus vaginal dinoprostone slow release system: the MAGPOP randomised controlled trial. PLoS Med. 2021;18:e1003448.
Ten Eikelder ML, Neervoort F, Oude Rengerink K, et al. Induction of labour with a Foley catheter or oral misoprostol at term: the PROBAAT-II study, a multicentre randomised controlled trial. BMC Pregnancy Childbirth. 2013;13:67.
Jozwiak M, ten Eikelder M, Oude Rengerink K, et al. Foley catheter versus vaginal misoprostol: randomized controlled trial (PROBAAT-M study) and systematic review and meta-analysis of literature. Am J Perinatol. 2014;31:145-156.
Jozwiak M, Bloemenkamp KWM, Kelly AJ, Mol BWJ, Irion O, Boulvain M. Mechanical methods for induction of labour. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2012;3:CD001233.
Ducarme G, Chesnoy V, Petit L. Factors predicting unsuccessful labor induction with dinoprostone in post-term pregnancy with unfavorable cervix. J Gynecol Obstet Biol Reprod. 2015;44:28-33.
Ducarme G, Martin S, Chesnoy V, Planche L, Berte MP, Netier-Herault E. Prospective observational study investigating the effectiveness, safety, women's experiences and quality of life at 3 months regarding cervical ripening methods for induction of labor at term - the MATUCOL study protocol. Plos One. 2022;17:e0262292.
American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists. Task force on hypertension in pregnancy hypertension in pregnancy report of the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists' task force on hypertension in pregnancy. Obstet Gynecol. 2013;22:1122-1131.
International Association of Diabetes Pregnancy Study Groups. Recommendations on the diagnosis and classification of hyperglycaemia in pregnancy. Diabetes Care. 2010;33:676-682.
Ego A. Definitions: small for gestational age and intrauterine growth retardation. J Gynecol Obstet Biol Reprod. 2013;42:872-894.
Lyndrup J, Legarth J, Weber T, Nickelsen C, Guldbaek E. Predictive value of pelvic scores for induction of labor by local PGE2. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol. 1992;47:17-23.
Sulkowski C, Schneider F, Tessier V, Toullalan O, Grouin A. Interest of cervical ripening using double balloon catheters for labour induction in term nulliparous women. J Gynecol Obstet Hum Reprod. 2019;48:669-672.
Blanc-Petitjean P, Carbonne B, Deneux-Tharaux C, et al. Comparison of effectiveness and safety of cervical ripening methods for induction of labour: a population-based study using coarsened exact matching. Paediatr Perinat Epidemiol. 2019;33:313-322.
Baumont M, Dap M, Schweizer C, Morel O, Boukerrou M. Retrospective comparison of effectiveness of balloon catheter versus dinoprostone for cervical ripening. Gynecol Obstet Fertil Senol. 2021;49:660-664.