Advertisement

Double-balloon catheter versus dinoprostone insert for labour induction: a meta-analysis

  • Yi-Ran Liu
  • Cai-Xiu Pu
  • Xiao-Yan Wang
  • Xue-Yan Wang
Review

Abstract

Objective

To assess the efficacy and safety of a double-balloon catheter versus dinoprostone insert for labour induction.

Study design

PubMed, MEDLINE, Embase, ClinicalTrials.gov, and the Cochrane Central Register of Clinical Trials databases were searched from 1985 to April 2018. Randomized controlled trials that compared a double-balloon catheter and dinoprostone insert for cervical ripening were identified. Eligible study populations consisted of women with singleton pregnancies that had any indication for labour induction and were randomly assigned to undergo induction with a double-balloon catheter or dinoprostone insert. The main outcomes were incidence of vaginal delivery within 24 h and caesarean section, and neonatal outcomes.

Results

Five randomized trials (603 women; 305 with a double-balloon catheter and 298 with a dinoprostone insert) were eligible for inclusion. No differences were observed between the two groups in terms of vaginal delivery within 24 h [relative risk (RR) 1.21, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.93–1.59] and incidence of caesarean section (RR 0.99, 95% CI 0.77–1.27). Compared with the double-balloon catheter, the dinoprostone insert was associated with a reduced need for oxytocin administration in the process of labour induction (RR 1.95, 95% CI 1.45–2.62). However, there was a higher incidence of excessive uterine activity (RR 0.17, 95% CI 0.06–0.54) and neonatal umbilical cord arterial blood pH < 7.1 (RR 0.36, 95% CI 0.15–0.84) in the dinoprostone insert group.

Conclusion

This review showed that the efficacy of labour induction using both the double-balloon catheter and dinoprostone insert was similar. However, the double-balloon catheter seemed to be a safer method.

Keywords

Double-balloon catheter Dinoprostone insert Induction of labour Meta-analysis 

Notes

Author contributions

YL: Project development, data collection, data analysis, manuscript writing/editing. CP, XW: Data collection, data analysis. XW: Project development, data analysis, manuscript editing.

Funding

This study was not funded.

Compliance with ethical standards

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no confict of interest.

Ethical approval

This article does not contain any studies with human participants or animals performed by any of the authors.

References

  1. 1.
    Osterman MJ, Martin JA (2014) Recent declines in induction of labor by gestational age. NCHS Data Brief 155:1–8Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Edwards RK, Szychowski JM, Berger JL, Petersen M, Ingersoll M, Bodea-Braescu AV, Lin MG (2014) Foley catheter compared with the controlled-release dinoprostone insert: a randomized controlled trial. Obstet Gynecol 123(6):1280–1287.  https://doi.org/10.1097/AOG.0000000000000238 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Lokkegaard E, Lundstrom M, Kjaer MM, Christensen IJ, Pedersen HB, Nyholm H (2015) Prospective multi-centre randomised trial comparing induction of labour with a double-balloon catheter versus dinoprostone. J Obstet Gynaecol 35(8):797–802.  https://doi.org/10.3109/01443615.2015.1011101 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Kehl S, Weiss C, Wamsler M, Beyer J, Dammer U, Heimrich J, Faschingbauer F, Sutterlin M, Beckmann MW, Schleussner E (2016) Double-balloon catheter and sequential vaginal prostaglandin E2 versus vaginal prostaglandin E2 alone for induction of labor after previous cesarean section. Arch Gynecol Obstet 293(4):757–765.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s00404-015-3907-7 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Lim CE, Ng RW, Xu K (2013) Non-hormonal methods for induction of labour. Curr Opin Obstet Gynecol 25(6):441–447.  https://doi.org/10.1097/GCO.0000000000000027 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Jozwiak M, Oude Rengerink K, Benthem M, van Beek E, Dijksterhuis MG, de Graaf IM, van Huizen ME, Oudijk MA, Papatsonis DN, Perquin DA, Porath M, van der Post JA, Rijnders RJ, Scheepers HC, Spaanderman ME, van Pampus MG, de Leeuw JW, Mol BW, Bloemenkamp KW, Group PS (2011) Foley catheter versus vaginal prostaglandin E2 gel for induction of labour at term (PROBAAT trial): an open-label, randomised controlled trial. Lancet 378(9809):2095–2103.  https://doi.org/10.1016/s0140-6736(11)61484-0 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Levy R, Kanengiser B, Furman B, Ben Arie A, Brown D, Hagay ZJ (2004) A randomized trial comparing a 30-ml and an 80-ml Foley catheter balloon for preinduction cervical ripening. Am J Obstet Gynecol 191(5):1632–1636.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajog.2004.03.033 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    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 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Kehl S, Ziegler J, Schleussner E, Tuschy B, Berlit S, Kirscht J, Hagele F, Weiss C, Siemer J, Sutterlin M (2015) Sequential use of double-balloon catheter and oral misoprostol versus oral misoprostol alone for induction of labour at term (CRB plus trial): a multicentre, open-label randomised controlled trial. BJOG 122(1):129–136.  https://doi.org/10.1111/1471-0528.13116 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Chen W, Xue J, Peprah MK, Wen SW, Walker M, Gao Y, Tang Y (2016) A systematic review and network meta-analysis comparing the use of Foley catheters, misoprostol, and dinoprostone for cervical ripening in the induction of labour. BJOG 123(3):346–354.  https://doi.org/10.1111/1471-0528.13456 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Liu A, Lv J, Hu Y, Lang J, Ma L, Chen W (2014) Efficacy and safety of intravaginal misoprostol versus intracervical dinoprostone for labor induction at term: a systematic review and meta-analysis. J Obstet Gynaecol Res 40(4):897–906.  https://doi.org/10.1111/jog.12333 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Cromi A, Ghezzi F, Uccella S, Agosti M, Serati M, Marchitelli G, Bolis P (2012) A randomized trial of preinduction cervical ripening: dinoprostone vaginal insert versus double-balloon catheter. Am J Obstet Gynecol 207(2):125.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajog.2012.05.020 (e121-e127) CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Suffecool K, Rosenn BM, Kam S, Mushi J, Foroutan J, Herrera K (2014) Labor induction in nulliparous women with an unfavorable cervix: double balloon catheter versus dinoprostone. J Perinat Med 42(2):213–218.  https://doi.org/10.1515/jpm-2013-0152 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Shechter-Maor G, Haran G, Sadeh-Mestechkin D, Ganor-Paz Y, Fejgin MD, Biron-Shental T (2015) Intra-vaginal prostaglandin E2 versus double-balloon catheter for labor induction in term oligohydramnios. J Perinatol 35(2):95–98.  https://doi.org/10.1038/jp.2014.173 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Du C, Liu Y, Liu Y, Ding H, Zhang R, Tan J (2015) Double-balloon catheter vs. dinoprostone vaginal insert for induction of labor with an unfavorable cervix. Arch Gynecol Obstet 291(6):1221–1227.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s00404-014-3547-3 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Wang W, Zheng J, Fu J, Zhang X, Ma Q, Yu S, Li M, Hou L (2014) Which is the safer method of labor induction for oligohydramnios women? Transcervical double balloon catheter or dinoprostone vaginal insert. J Matern Fetal Neonatal Med 27(17):1805–1808.  https://doi.org/10.3109/14767058.2014.880880 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

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

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Chongqing Health Center for Women and ChildrenChongqingChina

Personalised recommendations