Literature DB >> 11704164

Transcervical Foley catheter for preinduction cervical ripening in an outpatient versus inpatient setting.

A C Sciscione1, M Muench, M Pollock, T M Jenkins, J Tildon-Burton, G H Colmorgen.   

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: To compare use of the Foley catheter for preinduction cervical ripening in an inpatient versus outpatient setting.
METHODS: A randomized trial was conducted from May 1998 to December 1999. Women with a term gestation in the vertex presentation, a reactive nonstress test, an amniotic fluid index above the fifth percentile, and a Bishop score of no more than 5 were included. The primary outcome variable was a change in Bishop score. A Foley catheter with a 30-mL balloon was placed through the cervix on gentle traction in each group. The outpatient group was then discharged home with written instructions and returned in the morning for induction. The inpatient group was admitted to labor and delivery, with induction started upon extrusion of the Foley.
RESULTS: Sixty-one women were randomized into the outpatient group, and 50 women into the inpatient group. Maternal age, gravidity, previous cesarean delivery, and gestational age did not differ between the groups. The median Bishop score at entry was 3.0 for each group (P =.97). The mean change in Bishop scores after catheter placement was not different between the inpatient and outpatient groups (3.0 versus 3.0; P =.74). The maximum dose of oxytocin, time of oxytocin, epidural rate, induction time, 1-minute and 5-minute Apgar scores, and cord pH were not significantly different. The outpatient group on average avoided 9.6 hours of hospitalization. There were no adverse events or maternal morbidity in either group.
CONCLUSIONS: The Foley bulb is as effective in the outpatient as the inpatient setting for preinduction cervical ripening.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2001        PMID: 11704164     DOI: 10.1016/s0029-7844(01)01579-4

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Obstet Gynecol        ISSN: 0029-7844            Impact factor:   7.661


  15 in total

1.  A Tribute to Nancy C. Chescheir, MD.

Authors:  Dwight J Rouse; Thomas W Riggs; John O Schorge
Journal:  Obstet Gynecol       Date:  2021-01-01       Impact factor: 7.661

2.  Labor induction utilizing the Foley balloon: a randomized trial comparing standard placement versus immediate removal.

Authors:  K J Sharma; B H Grubbs; P M Mullin; N Opper; R H Lee
Journal:  J Perinatol       Date:  2015-01-08       Impact factor: 2.521

3.  Patient satisfaction with the cervical ripening balloon as a method for induction of labour: a randomised controlled trial.

Authors:  Sheri Ee-Lin Lim; Toh Lick Tan; Grace Yang Huang Ng; Shephali Tagore; Ei Ei Phyo Kyaw; George Seow Heong Yeo
Journal:  Singapore Med J       Date:  2018-08       Impact factor: 1.858

Review 4.  Outpatient versus inpatient induction of labour for improving birth outcomes.

Authors:  Anthony J Kelly; Zarko Alfirevic; Therese Dowswell
Journal:  Cochrane Database Syst Rev       Date:  2009-04-15

5.  Foley catheter induction of labor as an outpatient procedure.

Authors:  H Kruit; O Heikinheimo; V-M Ulander; A Aitokallio-Tallberg; I Nupponen; J Paavonen; L Rahkonen
Journal:  J Perinatol       Date:  2016-04-14       Impact factor: 2.521

6.  IMOP: randomised placebo controlled trial of outpatient cervical ripening with isosorbide mononitrate (IMN) prior to induction of labour - clinical trial with analyses of efficacy, cost effectiveness and acceptability.

Authors:  Shrikant Bollapragada; Fiona Mackenzie; John Norrie; Stavros Petrou; Margaret Reid; Ian Greer; Inass Osman; Jane E Norman
Journal:  BMC Pregnancy Childbirth       Date:  2006-07-25       Impact factor: 3.007

7.  A comparison of inpatient with outpatient balloon catheter cervical ripening: a pilot randomized controlled trial.

Authors:  Chris Wilkinson; Pamela Adelson; Deborah Turnbull
Journal:  BMC Pregnancy Childbirth       Date:  2015-05-28       Impact factor: 3.007

8.  Outpatient Foley catheter versus inpatient prostaglandin E2 gel for induction of labour: a randomised trial.

Authors:  Amanda Henry; Arushi Madan; Rachel Reid; Sally K Tracy; Kathryn Austin; Alec Welsh; Daniel Challis
Journal:  BMC Pregnancy Childbirth       Date:  2013-01-29       Impact factor: 3.007

Review 9.  Mechanical methods for induction of labour.

Authors:  Marieke Dt de Vaan; Mieke Lg Ten Eikelder; Marta Jozwiak; Kirsten R Palmer; Miranda Davies-Tuck; Kitty Wm Bloemenkamp; Ben Willem J Mol; Michel Boulvain
Journal:  Cochrane Database Syst Rev       Date:  2019-10-18

10.  Home versus inpatient induction of labour for improving birth outcomes.

Authors:  Zarko Alfirevic; Gillian Ml Gyte; Vicky Nogueira Pileggi; Rachel Plachcinski; Alfred O Osoti; Elaine M Finucane
Journal:  Cochrane Database Syst Rev       Date:  2020-08-27
View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.