Literature DB >> 27640940

Tension compared to no tension on a Foley transcervical catheter for cervical ripening: a randomized controlled trial.

Gary Fruhman1, Jeffrey A Gavard2, Erol Amon3, Kathleen V G Flick3, Collin Miller2, Gilad A Gross3.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Cervical ripening of an unfavorable cervix can be achieved by placement of a transcervical catheter. Advantages of this method include both lower cost and lower risk of tachysystole than other methods. Despite widespread use with varying degrees of applied tension, an unanswered question is whether there is an advantage to placing the transcervical catheter to tension compared with placement without tension.
OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to determine whether tension placed on a transcervical balloon catheter that is inserted for cervical ripening results in a faster time to delivery. STUDY
DESIGN: This was a prospective, randomized controlled trial; 140 women who underwent cervical ripening (Bishop score, ≤6) were assigned randomly to a balloon catheter with applied tension vs no tension. Tension was created when the catheter was taped to the patient's thigh and tension was reapplied in 30-minute increments. There were 67 patients in the tension group and 73 patients in the no tension group. Low-dose oxytocin (maximum, 6 mU/min) was administered after catheter placement. The primary outcome was time from catheter insertion to delivery. A secondary outcome was time from insertion to catheter expulsion. The Kolmogorov-Smirnov test was used to determine whether the data were distributed normally. Survival curves that used lifetables were constructed from time of catheter insertion to delivery and from time of catheter insertion to catheter expulsion and were compared with the use of the Wilcoxon (Gehan) Breslow statistic. A probability value of <.05 was set to denote statistical significance.
RESULTS: Baseline characteristics were similar between groups. The median time from catheter insertion to delivery was not significantly different between the tension group and the no tension group (16.2 vs 16.9 hours; P=.814). The median time from catheter insertion to expulsion, however, was significantly less in the tension group vs the no tension group (2.6 vs 4.6 hours; P<.001), respectively. Vaginal delivery within 24 hours was not significantly different between the tension and no tension groups (41/52 [79%] vs 37/52 [71%]; P=.365) nor were there significant differences in cesarean delivery rates between the tension and no tension groups (17/67 [25%] vs 27/73 [37%]; P=.139).
CONCLUSION: Application of tension did not result in faster delivery times but did result in faster times to catheter expulsion.
Copyright © 2016 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Foley bulb; cervical ripening; induction of labor; tension; transcervical catheter

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2016        PMID: 27640940     DOI: 10.1016/j.ajog.2016.09.082

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Am J Obstet Gynecol        ISSN: 0002-9378            Impact factor:   8.661


  4 in total

Review 1.  Review of Evidence-Based Methods for Successful Labor Induction.

Authors:  Nicole Carlson; Jessica Ellis; Katie Page; Alexis Dunn Amore; Julia Phillippi
Journal:  J Midwifery Womens Health       Date:  2021-05-13       Impact factor: 2.891

2.  Speculum versus digital insertion of Foley catheter for induction of labor in Nulliparas with unripe cervix: a randomized controlled trial.

Authors:  Hang Min Chia; Peng Chiong Tan; Sze Ping Tan; Mukhri Hamdan; Siti Zawiah Omar
Journal:  BMC Pregnancy Childbirth       Date:  2020-05-29       Impact factor: 3.007

Review 3.  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

4.  Induction of labor with Foley catheter and risk of subsequent preterm birth: follow-up study of two randomized controlled trials (PROBAAT-1 and -2).

Authors:  M D T de Vaan; D Blel; K W M Bloemenkamp; M Jozwiak; M L G Ten Eikelder; J W de Leeuw; M A Oudijk; J J H Bakker; R J P Rijnders; D N Papatsonis; M Woiski; B W Mol; R de Heus
Journal:  Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol       Date:  2021-02       Impact factor: 7.299

  4 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.