Advertisement

Archives of Gynecology and Obstetrics

, Volume 297, Issue 5, pp 1089–1100 | Cite as

Single versus double-balloon catheters for the induction of labor of singleton pregnancies: a meta-analysis of randomized and quasi-randomized controlled trials

  • Héctor Lajusticia
  • Samuel J. Martínez-Domínguez
  • Gonzalo R. Pérez-Roncero
  • Peter Chedraui
  • Faustino R. Pérez-López
  • The Health Outcomes and Systematic Analyses (HOUSSAY) Project
Review

Abstract

Objective

To compare the efficacy of single- versus double-balloon catheter (SBC vs. DBC) for cervical ripening and labor induction with an unfavorable cervix.

Methods

Systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) or quasi-RCTs (qRCT) regarding the use of SBC or DBC for labor induction of live singleton cephalic pregnancies (≥ 35 weeks) of any parity with an unripe cervix (Bishop score ≤ 6). Nine research databases were searched for original articles published in all languages up to November 2017 comparing both devices for labor induction. Five RCTs and one qRCT were included. Primary outcome measures were time from intervention (device placement) to birth time, vaginal delivery and cesarean section rates, and maternal satisfaction with the procedure. Risk of bias was evaluated with the Cochrane tool. Random effects models were used to combine data for meta-analyses. Summary measures were reported as mean differences and risk ratios (RR) with 95% confidence intervals.

Results

Regardless of parity, pooled analyses of the six trials (n = 1060 women) found that mean intervention to birth time, vaginal delivery and cesarean section rates, and maternal satisfaction to the procedure were similar for both studied groups (SBC vs. DBC).

Conclusion

Measured primary outcome measures were similar regardless of the type of device used for labor induction of singleton pregnancies.

Keywords

Cervical ripening Cervical priming Double-balloon catheter Single-balloon catheter Single-balloon Foley catheter Double-balloon Cook catheter Induction of labor 

Notes

Authors’ contributions

HL carried out the search strategy, extracted data and assessed the risk of bias. SJMD carried out the search strategy, extracted data and performed the meta-analyses. GRPR conceived the study, searched clinical trial registries and interpreted the results. PC searched clinical trial registries and interpreted the results. FRPL designed, conceived, supervised and interpreted the study, and drafted the article. All authors approved the final manuscript.

Funding

The authors received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Compliance with ethical standards

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Ethical standards

This systematic review and meta-analysis was performed following the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analysis (PRISMA) statement for meta-analyses. Formal institutional review board approval was not required due to the fact that this analysis consisted of the pooling of published studies.

Supplementary material

404_2018_4713_MOESM1_ESM.docx (168 kb)
Supplementary material 1 (DOCX 169 kb)

References

  1. 1.
    Tenore JL (2003) Methods for cervical ripening and induction of labor. Am Fam Physician 67:2123–2128PubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    ACOG Committee on Practice Bulletins—Obstetrics (2009) ACOG Practice Bulletin No. 107: induction of labor. Obstet Gynecol 114:386–397CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Marroquin GA, Tudorica N, Salafia CM, Hecht R, Mikhail M (2013) Induction of labor at 41 weeks of pregnancy among primiparas with an unfavorable bishop score. Arch Gynecol Obstet 288:989–993CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Bond DM, Gordon A, Hyett J, de Vries B, Carberry AE, Morris J (2015) Planned early delivery versus expectant management of the term suspected compromised baby for improving outcomes. Cochrane Database Syst Rev.  https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858 PubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Jozwiak M, Bloemenkamp KW, Kelly AJ, Mol BW, Irion O, Boulvain M (2012) Mechanical methods for induction of labour. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 14: CD001233Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Melamed N, Yariv O, Hiersch L, Wiznitzer A, Meizner I, Yogev Y (2013) Labor induction with prostaglandin E2: characteristics of response and prediction of failure. J Matern Fetal Neonatal Med 26:132–136CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Chen W, Xue J, Gaudet L, Walker M, Wen SW (2015) Meta-analysis of foley catheter plus misoprostol versus misoprostol alone for cervical ripening. Int J Gynaecol Obstet 129:193–198CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Antonazzo P, Laoreti A, Personeni C, Grossi E, Martinelli A, Cetin I (2016) Vaginal dinoprostone versus intravenous oxytocin for labor induction in patients not responsive to a first dose of dinoprostone: a randomized prospective study. Reprod Sci 23:779–784CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Chen W, Xue J, Peprah MK et al (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 123:346–354CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    West HM, Jozwiak M, Dodd JM (2017) Methods of term labour induction for women with previous cesarean section. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 6:CD009792Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Hill JB, Thigpen BD, Bofill JA, Magann E, Moore LE, Martin JN Jr (2009) A randomized clinical trial comparing vaginal misoprostol versus cervical Foley plus oral misoprostol for cervical ripening and labor induction. Am J Perinatol 26:33–38CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Pevzner L, Rayburn WF, Rumney P, Wing DA (2009) Factors predicting successful labor induction with dinoprostone and misoprostol vaginal inserts. Obstet Gynecol 114:261–267CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Moher D, Liberati A, Tetzlaff J, Altman DG, PRISMA Group (2009) Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: the PRISMA statement. PLoS Med 6:e1000097CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Higgins JPT, Green S, editors (2017) Cochrane handbook for systematic reviews of interventions. Version 5.1.0. http://www.cochrane-handbook.org. Accessed 23 Nov 2017
  15. 15.
    Egger M, Davey Smith G, Schneider M, Minder C (1997) Bias in metaanalysis detected by a simple, graphical test. BMJ 315:629–634CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    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 29:1919–1925CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    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 25:723–727CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Mei-Dan E, Walfisch A, Valencia C, Hallak M (2014) Making cervical ripening EASI: a prospective controlled comparison of single versus double balloon catheters. J Matern Fetal Neonatal Med 27:1765–1770CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Pennell CE, Henderson JJ, O’Neill MJ, McChlery 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 116:1443–1452CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Salin R, Zafran N, Nachum Z, Garmi G, Kraiem N, Shalev E (2011) Single-balloon compared with double-balloon catheters for induction of labor. Obstet Gynecol 118:79–86CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Sayed Ahmed WA, Ibrahim ZM, Ashor OE, Mohamed ML, Ahmed MR, Elshahat AM (2016) Use of the Foley catheter versus a double balloon cervical ripening catheter in pre-induction cervical ripening in postdate primigravidae. J Obstet Gynaecol Res 42:1489–149422CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Cheng JM, Corstiaan A, Hoeks SE, van der Ent M, Jewbali LS, van Domburg RT et al (2009) Percutaneous left ventricular assist devices vs. intra-aortic balloon pump counterpulsation for treatment of cardiogenic shock: a meta-analysis of controlled trials. Eur Heart J 30:2102–210823CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Hozo SP, Djulbegovic B, Hozo I (2005) Estimating the mean and variance from the median, range, and the size of a sample. BMC Med Res Methodol 5:13CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Wing DA (2017) Techniques for ripening the unfavorable cervix prior to induction. UpToDate https://www.uptodate.com/contents/techniques-for-ripening-the-unfavorable-cervix-prior-to-induction Accessed 21 Nov 2017
  25. 25.
    Vaknin Z, Kurzweil Y, Sherman D (2010) Foley catheter balloon vs locally applied prostaglandins for cervical ripening and labor induction: a systematic review and metaanalysis. Am J Obstet Gynecol 203:418–429CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Henry A, Madan A, Reid R et al (2013) Outpatient Foley catheter versus inpatient prostaglandin E2 gel for induction of labour: a randomised trial. BMC Pregnancy Childbirth 13:25CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Wilkinson C, Adelson P, Turnbull D (2015) A comparison of inpatient with outpatient balloon catheter cervical ripening: a pilot randomized controlled trial. BMC Pregnancy Childbirth 15:126CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Cromi A, Ghezzi F, Tomera S, Uccella S, Lischetti B, Bolis PF (2007) Cervical ripening with the foley’s catheter. Int J Gynecol Obstet 97:105–109CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Karjane N, Brock E, Walsh S (2006) Induction of labor using a foley balloon, with and without extra-amniotic saline infusion. Obstet Gynecol 107:234–239CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Lin M, Reid K, Treaster M, Nuthalapaty FS, Ramsey PS, Lu GC (2007) Transcervical foley catheter with and without extra amniotic saline infusion for labor induction: a randomized controlled trial. Obstet Gynecol 110:558–565CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Atad J, Bornstein J, Calderon I, Petrikovsky BM, Sorokin Y, Abramovici H (1991) Non pharmaceutical ripening of the unfavorable cervix and induction of labor by a novel double balloon device. Obstet Gynecol 77:146–152PubMedGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Boyon C, Monsarrat N, Clouqueur E, Deruelle P (2014) Cervical ripening: is there an advantage for a double-balloon device in labor induction? Gynecol Obstet Fertil 42:674–680CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Ezebialu IU, Eke AC, Eleje GU, Nwachukwu CE (2015) Methods for assessing pre-induction cervical ripening. Cochrane Database Syst Rev.  https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.CD010762.pub2 PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Kehila M, Abouda HS, Sahbi K, Cheour H, Chanoufi MB (2016) Ultrasound cervical length measurement in prediction of labor induction outcome. J Neonatal Perinatal Med 9:127–131CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

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

Authors and Affiliations

  • Héctor Lajusticia
    • 1
  • Samuel J. Martínez-Domínguez
    • 1
  • Gonzalo R. Pérez-Roncero
    • 1
  • Peter Chedraui
    • 2
    • 3
  • Faustino R. Pérez-López
    • 1
    • 4
  • The Health Outcomes and Systematic Analyses (HOUSSAY) Project
  1. 1.Red de Investigación en Ginecología, Obstetricia y ReproducciónInstituto Aragonés de Ciencias de la Salud (IACS)ZaragozaSpain
  2. 2.Institute of Biomedicine, Research Area for Women’s Health, Facultad de Ciencias MédicasUniversidad Católica de Santiago de GuayaquilGuayaquilEcuador
  3. 3.Facultad de Ciencias de la SaludUniversidad Católica Nuestra Señora de la AsunciónAsunciónParaguay
  4. 4.Departamento de Obstetricia y Ginecología, Faculty of MedicineHospital Lozano-Blesa, University of ZaragozaZaragozaSpain

Personalised recommendations