Vaginal dinoprostone versus double-balloon catheter for labor induction in low-risk nulliparous women: A prospective cohort study
Main Article Content
Abstract
This study aimed to evaluate pregnancy outcomes in low-risk nulliparous women undergoing labor induction with vaginal dinoprostone insert versus double-balloon catheter. A prospective cohort study was conducted among low-risk nulliparous women with gestational age between 39⁰⁄₇ and 40⁶⁄₇ weeks at Hanoi Obstetrics and Gynecology Hospital, from January 7, 2021 to December 31, 2023. Among 410 participants, 211 underwent labor induction with vaginal dinoprostone and 199 with double-balloon catheter. The rate of progression to the active phase of labor after induction was significantly lower in the dinoprostone group than in the double-balloon catheter group (66.8% vs. 92.0%; p < 0.001). The vaginal delivery rate was 49.3% in the dinoprostone group and 41.2% in the double-balloon group (RR = 1.20; 95% CI: 0.96 – 1.48). Dinoprostone was associated with a significantly higher rate of uterine tachysystole (2.8% vs. 1.0%). Both vaginal dinoprostone and double-balloon cervical catheter are effective and relatively safe methods for labor induction in low-risk nulliparous women. However, dinoprostone tends to be associated with a higher rate of uterine tachysystole compared to the double-balloon catheter.
Article Details
Keywords
Nulliparity, labor induction, vaginal dinoprostone, double-balloon catheter, low-risk pregnancy
References
2. Tsakiridis I, Mamopoulos A, Athanasiadis A, Dagklis T. Induction of Labor: An Overview of Guidelines. Obstet Gynecol Surv. 2020;75(1):61-72. doi:10.1097/OGX.0000000000000752
3. Penfield CA, Wing DA. Labor Induction Techniques. Obstet Gynecol Clin North Am. 2017;44(4):567-582. doi:10.1016/j.ogc.2017.08.011
4. Calder A, Loughney A, Weir C, Barber J. Induction of labour in nulliparous and multiparous women: a UK, multicentre, open-label study of intravaginal misoprostol in comparison with dinoprostone. BJOG Int J Obstet Gynaecol. 2008;115(10):1279-1288. doi:10.1111/j.1471-0528.2008.01829.x
5. Du Y, Zhu L, Cui L, Jin B, Ou J. Double-balloon catheter versus prostaglandin E2 for cervical ripening and labour induction: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials. BJOG Int J Obstet Gynaecol. 2017;124(6):891-899. doi:10.1111/1471-0528.14256
6. Yan J, Yin B, Lv H. Comparing the effectiveness and safety of Dinoprostone vaginal insert and double-balloon catheter as cervical ripening treatments in Chinese patients. Front Med. 2022;9:976983. doi:10.3389/fmed.2022.976983
7. Grobman WA, Rice MM, Reddy UM, et al. Labor Induction versus Expectant Management in Low-Risk Nulliparous Women. N Engl J Med. 2018;379(6):513-523. doi:10.1056/NEJMoa1800566
8. SMFM Statement on Elective Induction of Labor in Low-Risk Nulliparous Women at Term: the ARRIVE Trial. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2019;221(1):B2-B4. doi:10.1016/j.ajog.2018.08.009
9. Bộ Y tế. Hướng dẫn chẩn đoán và điều trị các bệnh sản phụ khoa năm 2015.
10. Zou G. A Modified Poisson Regression Approach to Prospective Studies with Binary Data. Am J Epidemiol. 2004;159(7):702-706. doi:10.1093/aje/kwh090
11. Liu YR, Pu CX, Wang XY, Wang XY. Double-balloon catheter versus dinoprostone insert for labour induction: a meta-analysis. Arch Gynecol Obstet. 2019;299(1):7-12. doi:10.1007/s00404-018-4929-8
12. Main EK, Chang SC, Cheng YW, Rosenstein MG, Lagrew DC. Hospital-Level Variation in the Frequency of Cesarean Delivery Among Nulliparous Women Who Undergo Labor Induction. Obstet Gynecol. 2020;136(6):1179-1189. doi:10.1097/AOG.0000000000004139
13. Vallikkannu N, Laboh N, Tan PC, Hong JGS, Hamdan M, Lim BK. Foley catheter and controlled release dinoprostone versus foley catheter labor induction in nulliparas: a randomized trial. Arch Gynecol Obstet. 2022;306(4):1027-1036. doi:10.1007/s00404-021-06383-2
14. Thái Bằng, Đinh Thanh Hà, Cao Xuân Thành, Bùi Đức Toàn, Nguyễn Như Thu Trúc. Nghiên cứu hiệu quả khởi phát chuyển dạ bằng Propess tại Bệnh viện Đa khoa Quốc tế Vinmec Nha Trang. Tạp chí Phụ Sản. 2023;21(4-5):75-81. doi:10.46755/vjog.2023.4-5.1629
15. Cromi A, Ghezzi F, Uccella S, et al. A randomized trial of preinduction cervical ripening: dinoprostone vaginal insert versus double-balloon catheter. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2012;207(2):125.e1-125.e7. doi:10.1016/j.ajog.2012.05.020
16. Nguyễn Hữu Thời, Dương Mỹ Linh, Bùi Quang Nghĩa, Phan Thị Vân. Kết quả khởi phát chuyển dạ bằng sonde foley và dinoprostone ở thai ≥ 37 tuần tại bệnh viện đa khoa trung ương cần thơ năm 2022-2023. Tạp chí Y Dược học Cần Thơ. 2023;(65):212-218. doi:10.58490/ctump.2023i65.1485
17. Diguisto C, Gouge AL, 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(2):e1003448. doi:10.1371/journal.pmed.1003448
18. Chen W, Xue J, Peprah M, et al. 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 Int J Obstet Gynaecol. 2016;123(3):346-354. doi:10.1111/1471-0528.13456
19. Jozwiak M, Bloemenkamp KW, Kelly AJ, Mol BWJ, Irion O, Boulvain M. Mechanical methods for induction of labour. Cochrane Pregnancy and Childbirth Group, ed. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. Published online March 14, 2012. doi:10.1002/14651858.CD001233.pub2