Anthony J Kelly1, Zarko Alfirevic, Arpita Ghosh. 1. Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, Brighton and Sussex University Hospitals NHS Trust, Royal Sussex County Hospital, Eastern Road, Brighton, UK, BN2 5BE.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: More than 20% of women undergo induction of labour in some countries. The different methods used to induce labour have been the focus of previous reviews, but the setting in which induction takes place (hospital versus outpatient settings) may have implications for maternal satisfaction and costs. It is not known whether some methods of induction that are effective and safe in hospital are suitable in outpatient settings. OBJECTIVES: To assess the effects on outcomes for mothers and babies of induction of labour for women managed as outpatients versus inpatients. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Pregnancy and Childbirth Group's Trials Register (30 June 2013). SELECTION CRITERIA: Published and unpublished randomised and quasi-randomised trials in which inpatient and outpatient methods of cervical ripening or induction of labour have been compared. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently assessed trial reports for inclusion. Two review authors carried out data extraction and assessment of risk of bias independently. MAIN RESULTS: We included four trials, with a combined total of 1439 women in the review; each trial examined a different method of induction and we were unable to pool the results from trials.1. Vaginal PGE2 (two studies including 1028 women). There were no differences between women managed as outpatients versus inpatients for most review outcomes. There was no evidence of a difference between the likelihood of women requiring instrumental delivery in either setting (risk ratio (RR) 1.29; 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.79 to 2.13). The overall length of hospital stay was similar in the two groups.2. Controlled release PGE2 10 mg (one study including 300 women). There was no evidence of differences between groups for most review outcomes, including success of induction. During the induction period itself, women in the outpatient group were more likely to report high levels of satisfaction with their care (satisfaction rated seven or more on a nine-point scale, RR 1.42; 95% CI 1.11 to 1.81), but satisfaction scores measured postnatally were similar in the two groups.3. Foley catheter (one study including 111 women). There was no evidence of differences between groups for caesarean section rates, total induction time and the numbers of babies admitted to neonatal intensive care. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: The data available to evaluate the efficacy or potential hazards of outpatient induction are limited. It is, therefore, not yet possible to determine whether induction of labour is effective and safe in outpatient settings.
BACKGROUND: More than 20% of women undergo induction of labour in some countries. The different methods used to induce labour have been the focus of previous reviews, but the setting in which induction takes place (hospital versus outpatient settings) may have implications for maternal satisfaction and costs. It is not known whether some methods of induction that are effective and safe in hospital are suitable in outpatient settings. OBJECTIVES: To assess the effects on outcomes for mothers and babies of induction of labour for women managed as outpatients versus inpatients. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Pregnancy and Childbirth Group's Trials Register (30 June 2013). SELECTION CRITERIA: Published and unpublished randomised and quasi-randomised trials in which inpatient and outpatient methods of cervical ripening or induction of labour have been compared. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently assessed trial reports for inclusion. Two review authors carried out data extraction and assessment of risk of bias independently. MAIN RESULTS: We included four trials, with a combined total of 1439 women in the review; each trial examined a different method of induction and we were unable to pool the results from trials.1. Vaginal PGE2 (two studies including 1028 women). There were no differences between women managed as outpatients versus inpatients for most review outcomes. There was no evidence of a difference between the likelihood of women requiring instrumental delivery in either setting (risk ratio (RR) 1.29; 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.79 to 2.13). The overall length of hospital stay was similar in the two groups.2. Controlled release PGE2 10 mg (one study including 300 women). There was no evidence of differences between groups for most review outcomes, including success of induction. During the induction period itself, women in the outpatient group were more likely to report high levels of satisfaction with their care (satisfaction rated seven or more on a nine-point scale, RR 1.42; 95% CI 1.11 to 1.81), but satisfaction scores measured postnatally were similar in the two groups.3. Foley catheter (one study including 111 women). There was no evidence of differences between groups for caesarean section rates, total induction time and the numbers of babies admitted to neonatal intensive care. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: The data available to evaluate the efficacy or potential hazards of outpatient induction are limited. It is, therefore, not yet possible to determine whether induction of labour is effective and safe in outpatient settings.
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
Authors: Michelle R Wise; Joy Marriott; Malcolm Battin; John M D Thompson; Michael Stitely; Lynn Sadler Journal: Trials Date: 2020-02-17 Impact factor: 2.279
Authors: Joshua P Vogel; Alfred O Osoti; Anthony J Kelly; Stefania Livio; Jane E Norman; Zarko Alfirevic Journal: Cochrane Database Syst Rev Date: 2017-09-13