BACKGROUND: Induction of labor with mechanical methods or pharmacological agents is used in about 20-30% of all pregnant women. We specialized in comparing the effectiveness and safety of dinoprostone versus transcervical Foley catheter for induction of labor in term pregnant women with an unfavorable cervix with adequate samples.
OBJECTIVE: To compare the effectiveness and safety of dinoprostone versus transcervical Foley catheter for induction of labor in term pregnant women with an unfavorable cervix.
METHODS: This is a parallel, open-label randomized controlled trial in two maternal centers in Shanghai, China between October 2019 and July 2022. Women with a singleton pregnancy in cephalic presentation at term and an unfavorable cervix (Bishop score < 6) scheduled for induction of labor were eligible. 1,860 women were randomly allocated to cervical ripening with either a dinoprostone vaginal insert (10mg) or a 60cc Foley catheter for up to 24 hours. The primary outcomes were vaginal delivery rate and time to vaginal delivery. Secondary outcomes included time to delivery and maternal and neonatal morbidity. Analysis was done from an intention-to-treat perspective. The trial was registered with the China trial registry (CTR2000038435).
RESULTS: The vaginal birth rates were 72.8% (677/930) vs. 69.9% (650/930) in vaginal dinoprostone and Foley catheter, respectively (aRR 1.04, 95% CI 0.98 to 1.10, risk difference: 0.03). Time to vaginal delivery was not significantly different between the two groups (sub-distribution hazard ratio 1.11, 95% CI 0.99-1.24). Vaginal dinoprostone was more likely complicated with hyperstimulation with fetal heart rate changes (5.8% vs. 2.8%, aRR 2.09, 95% CI 1.32-3.31) and placenta abruption (0.9% vs. 0.1%, aRR: 8.04, 95% CI 1.01-64.15), while Foley catheter was more likely complicated with suspected intrapartum infection (5.1% vs. 8.2 %, aRR: 0.62, 95% CI 0.44-0.88) and postpartum infection (1.4% vs. 3.7%, aRR: 0.38, 95% CI 0.20-0.72). The composite of poor neonatal outcomes was not significantly different between the two groups (4.5% vs. 3.8%, aRR 1.21, 95% CI 0.78 to 1.88), while more neonatal asphyxia occurred in the dinoprostone group (1.2% vs. 0.2%, aRR 5.39, 95% CI 1.22 to 23.92). In a subgroup analysis, vaginal dinoprostone decreased vaginal birth rate slightly in multiparous women (90.6% vs. 97.0%, aRR 0.93, 95% CI 0.88 to 0.99).
CONCLUSIONS: In term pregnant women with an unfavorable cervix, induction of labor with vaginal dinoprostone or Foley catheter has similar effectiveness. Foley catheter leads to better safety for neonates, while it may result in a higher risk of maternal infection. Furthermore, Foley catheter should be preferred in multiparous women.

暂无摘要。

Background: Induction of labor (IOL) in nulliparas with premature rupture of membranes (PROM) and an unfavorable cervix at term poses challenges. Our study sought to investigate the impact of prostaglandin E2 (PGE2) compared to oxytocin on the duration of IOL in this specific group of parturients. Methods: This was retrospective matched-case study. All nulliparas with term PROM who underwent induction between January 2006 to April 2023 at Shaare Zedek Medical Center were identified. Cases induced by either PGE2 or oxytocin were matched by the following criteria: (1) time from PROM to IOL; (2) modified Bishop score prior to IOL ≤ 5; (3) newborn birthweight; and (4) vertex position. The primary outcome was time from IOL to delivery. Results: Ninety-five matched cases were identified. All had a modified Bishop score ≤ 5. Maternal age (26 ± 4.7 years old, p = 0.203) and gestational age at delivery (38.6 ± 0.6, p = 0.701) were similar between the groups. Matched factors including time from PROM to IOL (23.5 ± 19.2 versus 24.3 ± 21.4 p = 0.780), birth weight of the newborn (3111 g versus 3101 g, p = 0.842), and occiput anterior position (present on 98% in both groups p = 0.687) were similar. Time from IOL to delivery was significantly shorter by 3 h and 36 min in the group induced with oxytocin than in the group induced with PGE2 (p = 0.025). Within 24 h, 55 (58%) of those induced with PGE2 delivered, compared to 72 (76%) of those induced with oxytocin, (p = 0.033). The cesarean delivery rates [18 (19%) versus 17 (18%)], blood transfusion rates [2 (2%) versus 3 (3%)], and Apgar scores (8.8 versus 8.9) were similar between the groups (PGE2 versus oxytocin, respectively), p ≥ 0.387. Conclusions: Induction with oxytocin, among nulliparas with term PROM and an unfavorable cervix, was associated with a shorter time from IOL to delivery and a higher rate of vaginal delivery within 24 h, with no difference in short-term maternal or neonatal adverse outcomes.

Women with preexisting diabetes and gestational diabetes mellitus (GDM) are at higher risk for adverse maternal and neonatal outcomes. However, there is no consensus on a uniform approach regarding mode of birth (MOB) for all forms of diabetes. The aim of the study is to compare MOB in women with preexisting diabetes and GDM and possible factors influencing it. A retrospective cohort study of women with GDM and preexisting diabetes between 2015 and 2021 at a tertiary referral center was conducted. One thousand three hundred eighty-five singleton pregnancies were included. One thousand twenty-two (74.4%) women had a vaginal birth (VB) and 351 (25.6%) a caesarean section. Preexisting diabetes was significantly associated with caesarean section compared to GDM (OR 2.43). Five hundred fifty-one (40.1%) women underwent induction of labor, and 122 (22.1%) women had a secondary caesarean after IOL. Women induced due to spontaneous rupture of membrane (SROM) achieved the highest rate of VB at 93%. The lowest rates of VB occurred if indication for induction was for preeclampsia or hypertension. IOL was significantly less successful in preexisting diabetes with a VB achieved in 56.4% for type 1 diabetes and 52.6% of type 2 diabetes compared to GDM (78.2% in GDM; 81.2% in IGDM; OR 3.25, 95% CI 1.70-6.19, p < 0.001). The rate of VB was higher who were induced preterm compared to women with term IOL (n = 240 (81.9%) vs. n = 199 (73.2%); p < 0.05). Parity, previous VB and SROM favored VB after IOL, whereas preexisting diabetes, hypertension, and IOL after 40 + 0 weeks are independent risk factors for caesarean delivery.

OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to evaluate if induction of labor (IOL) is associated with an increased risk of severe perineal laceration.
METHODS: A systematic search was conducted in MEDLINE, Ovid, Scopus, ClinicalTrials.gov, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, and CINHAL using a combination of keywords and text words related to \"induction of labor,\" \"severe perineal laceration,\" \"third-degree laceration,\" \"fourth-degree laceration,\" and \"OASIS\" from inception of each database until January 2023.
METHODS: We included all randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing IOL to expectant management of a singleton, cephalic pregnancy at term gestation that reported rates of severe perineal laceration.
UNASSIGNED: The primary outcome of interest was severe perineal laceration, defined as 3rd- or 4th-degree perineal lacerations. We conducted meta-analyses using the random effects model of DerSimonian and Laird to determine the relative risks (RR) or mean differences with 95% confidence intervals (CIs). Bias was assessed using guidelines established by Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions.
RESULTS: A total of 11,187 unique records were screened and ultimately eight RCTs were included, involving 13,297 patients. There was no statistically significant difference in the incidence of severe perineal lacerations between the IOL and expectant management groups (209/6655 [3.1%] vs 202/6641 [3.0%]; RR 1.03, 95% CI 0.85, 1.26). There was a statistically significant decrease in the rate of cesarean birth (1090/6655 [16.4%] vs 1230/6641 [18.5%], RR 0.89, 95% CI 0.82, 0.95) and fetal macrosomia (734/2696 [27.2%] vs 964/2703 [35.7%]; RR 0.67: 95% CI 0.50, 0.90) in the IOL group.
CONCLUSIONS: There is no significant difference in the risk of severe perineal lacerations between IOL and expectant management in this meta-analysis of RCTs. Furthermore, there is a lower rate of cesarean births in the IOL group, indicating more successful vaginal deliveries with similar rates of severe perineal lacerations. Patients should be counseled that in addition to the known benefits of induction, there is no increased risk of severe perineal lacerations.

OBJECTIVE: To determine whether equivocal prelabor rupture of membranes (PROM) cases are associated with adverse outcomes.
METHODS: A retrospective study was conducted in a tertiary medical center between July 2012 and March 2022. The cohort comprised all women diagnosed with term PROM (≥37 gestational weeks), divided into two groups. (1) Certain PROM-suggestive history of a watery vaginal discharge confirmed by visualization of fluid leaking from the cervix or pooling in the vagina on speculum examination. (2) Uncertain PROM-suggestive history of a watery vaginal discharge not supported by speculum examination. All patients were hospitalized and gave birth spontaneously or following either expectant management for up to 24 h from PROM or induction. The primary outcome measure was cesarean delivery (CD) rate. Secondary outcome measures were adverse maternal/neonatal events.
RESULTS: Of the 2012 women included in the study, 1750 had certain PROM and 262 uncertain PROM. CD rate was 5.8% in the certain PROM group and 8.8% in the uncertain PROM group; the difference was not statistically significant (P = 0.074). There was a significant between-group difference in the rate of CD due to failed induction on univariate analysis (0.69% vs 2.67%, respectively, P = 0.007), but it was not maintained on multivariate logistic regression (odds ratio 0.37, 95% confidence interval: 0.12-1.17). Other maternal and neonatal outcomes were similar in the two groups.
CONCLUSIONS: Our findings indicate that following the same management guidelines for equivocal cases of ruptured membranes as for confirmed cases of term PROM did not compromise maternal or fetal outcomes.

BACKGROUND: Studies that have compared induction of labor in individuals with 1 prior cesarean delivery to expectant management have shown conflicting results.
OBJECTIVE: To determine the association between clinical outcomes and induction of labor at 39 weeks in a national sample of otherwise low-risk patients with 1 prior cesarean delivery.
METHODS: This cross-sectional study analyzed 2016 to 2021 US Vital Statistics birth certificate data. Individuals with vertex, singleton pregnancies, and 1 prior cesarean delivery were included. Patients with prior vaginal deliveries, delivery before 39 weeks 0 days or after 42 weeks 6 days of gestation, and medical comorbidities were excluded. The primary exposure of interest was induction of labor at 39 weeks 0 days to 39 weeks 6 days compared to expectant management with delivery from 40 weeks 0 days to 42 weeks 6 days. The primary outcome was vaginal delivery. The main secondary outcomes were separate maternal and neonatal morbidity composites. The maternal morbidity composite included uterine rupture, operative vaginal delivery, peripartum hysterectomy, intensive care unit admission, and transfusion. The neonatal morbidity composite included neonatal intensive care unit admission, Apgar score less than 5 at 5 minutes, immediate ventilation, prolonged ventilation, and seizure or serious neurological dysfunction. Unadjusted and adjusted log binomial regression models accounting for demographic variables and the exposure of interest (induction vs expectant management) were performed. Results are presented as unadjusted and adjusted risk ratios with 95% confidence intervals.
RESULTS: From 2016 to 2021, a total of 198,797 individuals with vertex, singleton pregnancies, and 1 prior cesarean were included in the primary analysis. Of these individuals, 25,915 (13.0%) underwent induction of labor from 39 weeks 0 days to 39 weeks 6 days and 172,882 (87.0%) were expectantly managed with deliveries between 40 weeks 0 days and 42 weeks 6 days. In adjusted analyses, patients induced at 39 weeks were more likely to have a vaginal delivery when compared to those expectantly managed (38.0% vs 31.8%; adjusted risk ratio 1.32, 95% confidence interval 1.28, 1.36). Among those who had vaginal deliveries, induction of labor was associated with increased likelihood of operative vaginal delivery (11.1% vs 10.0; adjusted risk ratio 1.15, 95% confidence interval 1.07, 1.24). The maternal morbidity composite occurred in 0.9% of individuals in both the induction and expectant management groups (adjusted risk ratio 0.92, 95% confidence interval 0.79, 1.06). The rates of uterine rupture (0.3%), peripartum hysterectomy (0.04% vs 0.05%), and intensive care unit admission (0.1% vs 0.2%) were all relatively low and did not differ significantly between groups. There was also no significant difference in the neonatal morbidity composite between the induction and expectant management groups (7.3% vs 6.7%; adjusted risk ratio 1.04, 95% confidence interval 0.98, 1.09).
CONCLUSIONS: When compared to expectant management, elective induction of labor at 39 weeks in low-risk patients with 1 prior cesarean delivery was associated with a significantly higher likelihood of vaginal delivery with no difference in composite maternal and neonatal morbidity outcomes. Prospective studies are needed to better elucidate the risks and benefits of induction of labor in this patient population.

OBJECTIVE: To compare mode of delivery and maternal and neonatal outcomes using cervical ripening balloon (CRB) for induction of labor (IOL) in nulliparous patients vs. those undergoing first trial of labor after cesarean (TOLAC).
METHODS: Retrospective cohort study including data from two tertiary medical centers. Included were all patients with a singleton pregnancy and a gestational age > 37+0 weeks and no prior vaginal birth undergoing IOL with CRB. Nulliparous patients (nulliparous group) were compared to patients with one prior cesarean delivery (CD) and no prior vaginal delivery (TOLAC group). Patients who withdrew consent for trial of labor at any time in both groups were excluded. The primary outcome was mode of delivery.
RESULTS: Overall, 161 patients were included in the TOLAC group and 1577 in the nulliparous group. The rate of CD was similar in both groups and remained similar after adjusting for confounders (29.8 % vs. 28.9 %, p = 0.86, OR 1.1, 95 %, CI 0.76-1.58). CD due to fetal distress was more common in the TOLAC group (75 % vs. 56 %, p = 0.014). Other maternal outcomes and neonatal outcomes were similar in the two groups.
CONCLUSIONS: Comparable vaginal delivery rates may be achieved in patients with or without a previous CD attempting their first trial of labor, with a cervical ripening balloon for labor induction, without increasing adverse maternal or neonatal outcomes.

BACKGROUND: Previous studies had found that the mechanical methods were as effective as pharmacological methods in achieving vaginal delivery. However, whether balloon catheter induction is suitable for women with severe cervical immaturity and whether it will increase the related risks still need to be further explored.
OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the efficacy and safety of Foley catheter balloon for labor induction at term in primiparas with different cervical scores.
METHODS: A total of 688 primiparas who received cervical ripening with a Foley catheter balloon were recruited in this study. They were divided into 2 groups: Group 1 (Bishop score ≤ 3) and Group 2 (3 < Bishop score < 7). Detailed medical data before and after using of balloon were faithfully recorded.
RESULTS: The cervical Bishop scores of the two groups after catheter placement were all significantly higher than those before (Group 1: 5.49 ± 1.31 VS 2.83 ± 0.39, P<0.05; Group 2: 6.09 ± 1.00 VS 4.45 ± 0.59, P<0.05). The success rate of labor induction in group 2 was higher than that in group 1 (P<0.05). The incidence of intrauterine infection in Group 1 was higher than that in Group 2 (18.3% VS 11.3%, P<0.05).
CONCLUSIONS: The success rates of induction of labor by Foley catheter balloon were different in primiparas with different cervical conditions, the failure rate of induction of labor and the incidence of intrauterine infection were higher in primiparas with severe cervical immaturity.

OBJECTIVE: If a small for gestational age (SGA) foetus needs to be delivered because of severity (<3rd centile) attempting induction of labor theoretically increases the risk of caesarean section and neonatal acidosis, but these risks are poorly understood. This article aims to assess the risk of caesarean section and neonatal acidosis in attempted vaginal birth of a moderately preterm foetus in the setting of severe SGA.
METHODS: A single-centre hospital-based observational study conducted over a period of 17 consecutive years in mothers with a single foetus in cephalic presentation with severe SGA (<3rd centile) needing foetal extraction. Neonatal acidosis was considered moderate if pH<7.10 and severe if pH<7.0. The degree of severity of SGA was estimated according to the birth weight ratio.
RESULTS: Four hundred and thirty-four foetuses with severe SGA were included during the period, 140 of whom were born after induction (32.3%). In this group, 66.4% of women achieved a vaginal birth (66.4%; 95% CI [58.0-74.2]) and the risk of moderate or severe acidosis was doubled compared with the group of foetuses who had undergone a planned caesarean section (7.9% vs. 3.1%, OR=2.7 [1.1-6.7]). Neither gestational age nor the degree of growth restriction was significantly related to the risk of caesarean section or to the risk of moderate or severe neonatal acidosis.
CONCLUSIONS: In cases of severe SGA before 37weeks\' gestation, induction of labour allows vaginal delivery in two-thirds of cases. It is accompanied by a doubling of the risk of moderate or severe neonatal acidosis.