Literature DB >> 21691166

Single-balloon compared with double-balloon catheters for induction of labor: a randomized controlled trial.

Raed Salim1, Noah Zafran, Zohar Nachum, Gali Garmi, Nazik Kraiem, Eliezer Shalev.   

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: To estimate the efficacy of a single-balloon catheter compared with a double-balloon catheter among women with unfavorable cervices undergoing induction of labor.
METHODS: This prospective randomized study was conducted at a university teaching medical center between June 2008 and December 2010. Pregnant women admitted for induction of labor with a live singleton gestation in cephalic presentation with intact membranes and a Bishop score of 6 or less were randomly assigned for cervical ripening by a single-balloon catheter or a double-balloon catheter. The primary outcome was the length of time from catheter insertion until delivery. The secondary outcome was mode of delivery.
RESULTS: Of 368 eligible women screened during the study period, 293 were included in the final analysis; 145 were randomly assigned to receive a single-balloon catheter and 148 received a double-balloon catheter. Demographic and obstetric parameters were comparable between the two groups. Length of time from catheter insertion until delivery was 19.4 (±6.0) and 19.1 (±6.8) hours among the single-balloon and the double-balloon catheter groups, respectively (P=.80). Length of time did not differ when primiparous women were analyzed separately. Incidence of cesarean delivery was 10.3% and 17.6% among the single-balloon and double-balloon catheter groups, respectively (P=.09). The incidence of either vacuum deliveries or cesarean deliveries was significantly lower among the single-balloon group (14.4%) compared with the double-balloon catheter group (25.7%; odds ratio 0.49, 95% confidence interval 0.26-0.92; P=.02).
CONCLUSION: Both the single-balloon and double-balloon catheters are equally efficacious for inducing labor. The double-balloon catheter may be associated with more operative deliveries.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2011        PMID: 21691166     DOI: 10.1097/AOG.0b013e318220e4b7

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


  10 in total

Review 1.  The Renaissance of Transcervical Balloon Catheters for Cervical Ripening and Labour Induction.

Authors:  W Rath; S Kehl
Journal:  Geburtshilfe Frauenheilkd       Date:  2015-11       Impact factor: 2.915

2.  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

3.  Cervical ripening with the balloon catheter and the risk of subsequent preterm birth.

Authors:  N Zafran; G Garmi; S Zuarez-Easton; Z Nachum; R Salim
Journal:  J Perinatol       Date:  2015-06-25       Impact factor: 2.521

4.  Single versus Double-Balloon Transcervical Catheter for Labor Induction: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

Authors:  Samantha X de Los Reyes; Jeanne S Sheffield; Ahizechukwu C Eke
Journal:  Am J Perinatol       Date:  2018-10-31       Impact factor: 3.079

5.  Hygroscopic dilators vs balloon catheter ripening of the cervix for induction of labor in nulliparous women at term: Retrospective study.

Authors:  Ryosuke Shindo; Shigeru Aoki; Naohiro Yonemoto; Yuriko Yamamoto; Junko Kasai; Michi Kasai; Etsuko Miyagi
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2017-12-22       Impact factor: 3.240

Review 6.  Double- versus single-balloon catheters for labour induction and cervical ripening: a meta-analysis.

Authors:  Xiyao Liu; Yu Wang; Fan Zhang; Xiaoni Zhong; Rong Ou; Xin Luo; Hongbo Qi
Journal:  BMC Pregnancy Childbirth       Date:  2019-10-16       Impact factor: 3.007

7.  Safety and efficacy of double-balloon catheter for cervical ripening: a Bayesian network meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.

Authors:  Ge Zhao; Guang Song; Jing Liu
Journal:  BMC Pregnancy Childbirth       Date:  2022-09-06       Impact factor: 3.105

Review 8.  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

9.  Misoprostol Vaginal Insert in Labor Induction: A Cost-Consequences Model for 5 European Countries-An Economic Evaluation Supported with Literature Review and Retrospective Data Collection.

Authors:  Adam Bierut; Jadwiga Dowgiałło-Smolarczyk; Izabela Pieniążek; Jarosław Stelmachowski; Kinga Pacocha; Maciej Sobkowski; Oleg R Baev; Jacek Walczak
Journal:  Adv Ther       Date:  2016-08-22       Impact factor: 3.845

10.  Application effect of single balloon catheters in labor induction of pregnant women in late-term pregnancy and their influences on stress and inflammatory responses.

Authors:  Yun Chai; Miaomiao Qu; Meng Jin
Journal:  Exp Ther Med       Date:  2018-01-18       Impact factor: 2.447

  10 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.