Advertisement

Archives of Gynecology and Obstetrics

, Volume 298, Issue 5, pp 881–887 | Cite as

Efficiency of the Foley catheter versus the double balloon catheter during the induction of second trimester pregnancy terminations: a randomized controlled trial

  • Gözde Demirezen
  • Berna Aslan Çetin
  • Begüm Aydoğan Mathyk
  • Nadiye Köroğlu
  • Gökhan Yildirim
Maternal-Fetal Medicine
  • 40 Downloads

Abstract

Purpose

To compare induction-to-delivery intervals of Foley catheters and double balloon catheters in second trimester pregnancy terminations.

Methods

This randomized parallel study was conducted on women who underwent second trimester terminations between December 2016 and December 2017. Pregnant women in the second trimester with a Bishop score < 6 were included in the study. Participants were randomized into two groups, the first being the Foley catheter group and the second being the double balloon catheter group. The time frames from insertion of catheters to the delivery were recorded in each group. A multiple regression analysis was carried out to examine the contribution of factors to the induction-to-delivery interval. A survival analysis was conducted to compare the Foley method and the double balloon method.

Results

A total of 91 pregnant women were included in the final analysis. The induction-to-delivery interval was shorter in the Foley catheter group than in the double balloon catheter group (38 h 54 min ± 21 h 6 min versus 58 h 17 min ± 25 h 56 min). We also found that women with intrauterine fetal death (IUFD) had a shorter time to delivery compared to women with live fetuses (39 h 12 min ± 18 h 46 min vs 51 h 30 min ± 26 h 42 min, p = 0.04). Women with a history of vaginal delivery also had a shorter induction-to-delivery time compared to women who never delivered vaginally before (38 h 12 min ± 17 h 42 min vs 53 h 54 min ± 27 h 18 min, p = 0.004). In the multiple regression analysis, the most significant contributor to the induction-to-delivery time was the method used for induction of labor and followed by other factors including the viability of the fetus (live/IUFD), history of vaginal delivery and PPROM. The survival analysis showed that the induction-to-delivery interval was significantly shorter in the Foley catheter group than in the double balloon catheter group (HR 2.51, 95% CI 1.57–4.00, p = 0.001).

Conclusion

During the termination of second trimester pregnancies time from induction of labor to delivery is shorter with the Foley catheter compared to double balloon catheter.

Keywords

Second trimester Pregnancy termination Foley catheter Double balloon catheter 

Notes

Author contributions

GD: Data collection, manuscript writing. BAÇ: Manuscript writing, data analysis. BAM: Manuscript editing, data analysis. NK: Data collection. GY: Project development.

Compliance with ethical standards

Conflict of interest

The author declares that they have no conflict of interest.

Ethical approval

All procedures performed were in accordance with the ethical standards of the institutional and national research committee and with the 1964 Helsinki declaration and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards.

Informed consent

Informed consent was obtained from all individual participants included in the study.

References

  1. 1.
    Sedgh G, Henshaw S, Singh S, Ahman E, Shah IH (2007) Induced abortion: estimated rates and trends worldwide. Lancet 370(9595):1338–1345.  https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(07)61575-X CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    (2013) ACOG Practice Bulletin No. 135: Second-trimester abortion. Obstet Gynecol 121(6):1394–1406.  https://doi.org/10.1097/01.aog.0000431056.79334.cc
  3. 3.
    Wildschut H, Both MI, Medema S, Thomee E, Wildhagen MF, Kapp N (2011) Medical methods for mid-trimester termination of pregnancy. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 1:CD005216.  https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.cd005216.pub2 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Yapar EG, Senöz S, Urkütür M, Batioglu S, Gökmen O (1996) Second trimester pregnancy termination including fetal death: comparison of five different methods. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol 69(2):97–102CrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Velipasaoglu M, Ozdemir CY, Ozek B, Ayaz R, Tanir HM (2018) Sequential use of Foley catheter with misoprostol for second trimester pregnancy termination in women with and without caesarean scars: a prospective cohort study. J Matern Fetal Neonatal Med 31(5):677–681.  https://doi.org/10.1080/14767058.2017.1293037 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Rezk MA, Sanad Z, Dawood R, Emarh M, Masood A (2015) Comparison of intravaginal misoprostol and intracervical Foley catheter alone or in combination for termination of second trimester pregnancy. J Matern Fetal Neonatal Med 28(1):93–96.  https://doi.org/10.3109/14767058.2014.905909 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Salim R, Zafran N, Nachum Z, Garmi G, Kraiem N, Shalev E (2011) Single-balloon compared with double-balloon catheters for induction of labor: a randomized controlled trial. Obstet Gynecol 118(1):79–86.  https://doi.org/10.1097/AOG.0b013e318220e4b7 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Hoppe KK, Schiff MA, Peterson SE, Gravett MG (2016) 30 mL Single-versus 80 mL double-balloon catheter for pre-induction cervical ripening: a randomized controlled trial. J Matern Fetal Neonatal Med 29(12):1919–1925.  https://doi.org/10.3109/14767058.2015.1067297 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Pennell CE, Henderson JJ, O’Neill MJ, McChlery S, McCleery S, Doherty DA, Dickinson JE (2009) Induction of labour in nulliparous women with an unfavourable cervix: a randomised controlled trial comparing double and single balloon catheters and PGE2 gel. BJOG 116(11):1443–1452.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1471-0528.2009.02279.x CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Mei-Dan E, Walfisch A, Suarez-Easton S, Hallak M (2012) Comparison of two mechanical devices for cervical ripening: a prospective quasi-randomized trial. J Matern Fetal Neonatal Med 25(6):723–727.  https://doi.org/10.3109/14767058.2011.591459 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Rath W, Kehl S (2015) The renaissance of transcervical balloon catheters for cervical ripening and labour induction. Geburtshilfe Frauenheilkd 75(11):1130–1139.  https://doi.org/10.1055/s-0035-1558094 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Smith JA (2013) Balloon dilators for labor induction: a historical review. J Med Ethics Hist Med 6:10PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Atad J, Bornstein J, Calderon I, Petrikovsky BM, Sorokin Y, Abramovici H (1991) Nonpharmaceutical ripening of the unfavorable cervix and induction of labor by a novel double balloon device. Obstet Gynecol 77(1):146–152PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Yang F, Huang S, Long Y, Huang L (2018) Double-balloon versus single-balloon catheter for cervical ripening and labor induction: a systematic review and meta-analysis. J Obstet Gynaecol Res 44(1):27–34.  https://doi.org/10.1111/jog.13551 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Lajusticia H, Martínez-Domínguez SJ, Pérez-Roncero GR, Chedraui P, Pérez-López FR, Project HOaSAH (2018) Single versus double-balloon catheters for the induction of labor of singleton pregnancies: a meta-analysis of randomized and quasi-randomized controlled trials. Arch Gynecol Obstet 297(5):1089–1100.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s00404-018-4713-9 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Rab MT, Mohammed AB, Zahran KA, Hassan MM, Eldeen AR, Ebrahim EM, Yehia M (2015) Transcervical Foley’s catheter versus Cook balloon for cervical ripening in stillbirth with a scarred uterus: a randomized controlled trial. J Matern Fetal Neonatal Med 28(10):1181–1185.  https://doi.org/10.3109/14767058.2014.947576 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Tu YA, Chen CL, Lai YL, Lin SY, Lee CN (2017) Transcervical double-balloon catheter as an alternative and salvage method for medical termination of pregnancy in midtrimester. Taiwan J Obstet Gynecol 56(1):77–80.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tjog.2015.12.024 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    McMaster K, Sanchez-Ramos L, Kaunitz AM (2015) Evaluation of a transcervical Foley Catheter as a source of infection: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Obstet Gynecol 126(3):539–551.  https://doi.org/10.1097/AOG.0000000000001002 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Diederen M, Gommers J, Wilkinson C, Turnbull D, Mol B (2018) 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 125(9):1086–1095.  https://doi.org/10.1111/1471-0528.15047 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Gommers JSM, Diederen M, Wilkinson C, Turnbull D, Mol BWJ (2017) Risk of maternal, fetal and neonatal complications associated with the use of the transcervical balloon catheter in induction of labour: a systematic review. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol 218:73–84.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejogrb.2017.09.014 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Obstetrics and Gynecology DepartmentTekirdağ State HospitalTekirdağTurkey
  2. 2.Department of Obstetrics and Gynecologyİstanbul Kanuni Sultan Süleyman Training and Research HospitalIstanbulTurkey
  3. 3.Division of Reproductive Endocrinology and Infertility, Obstetrics and Gynecology DepartmentUniversity of North CarolinaChapel HillUSA

Personalised recommendations