Literature DB >> 29138519

Time-to-delivery and delivery outcomes comparing three methods of labor induction in 7551 nulliparous women: a population-based cohort study.

C Lindblad Wollmann1,2, M Ahlberg1,2, G Petersson1, S Saltvedt2, O Stephansson1,2.   

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: Determine time-to-delivery and mode-of-delivery in labor induction among women with unripe cervix. STUDY
DESIGN: 7551 nulliparous women with singleton deliveries, ⩾37 weeks, Bishop Score ⩽6, induced with dinoprostone, misoprostol or transcervical single balloon catheter. Linear regression analysis was used to estimate mean time-to-delivery with β-estimates and 95% confidence intervals with adjustments. Multivariable logistic regression analysis was used to calculate odds of cesarean delivery, instrumental vaginal delivery, maternal and neonatal outcomes.
RESULTS: Adjusted mean time-to-delivery was 6.9 and 1.5 h shorter, respectively, when inducing labor with balloon catheter (mean 18.3 h, β -6.9, 95% confidence intervals; -7.6 to -6.3) or misoprostol (mean 23.7 h, β -1.5, 95% confidence intervals; -2.3 to -0.8) compared with dinoprostone (mean 25.2 h). There were no significant differences in adverse maternal or infant outcomes between induction methods.
CONCLUSIONS: Balloon catheter is the most effective induction method with respect to time-to-delivery in nulliparous women at term compared with prostaglandin methods.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2017        PMID: 29138519     DOI: 10.1038/jp.2017.122

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Perinatol        ISSN: 0743-8346            Impact factor:   2.521


  19 in total

1.  Labor induction with a Foley balloon inflated to 30 mL compared with 60 mL: a randomized controlled trial.

Authors:  Shani Delaney; Brian L Shaffer; Yvonne W Cheng; Juan Vargas; Teresa N Sparks; Kathleen Paul; Aaron B Caughey
Journal:  Obstet Gynecol       Date:  2010-06       Impact factor: 7.661

Review 2.  Which method is best for the induction of labour? A systematic review, network meta-analysis and cost-effectiveness analysis.

Authors:  Zarko Alfirevic; Edna Keeney; Therese Dowswell; Nicky J Welton; Nancy Medley; Sofia Dias; Leanne V Jones; Gillian Gyte; Deborah M Caldwell
Journal:  Health Technol Assess       Date:  2016-08       Impact factor: 4.014

3.  Term labor induction compared with expectant management.

Authors:  J Christopher Glantz
Journal:  Obstet Gynecol       Date:  2010-01       Impact factor: 7.661

4.  Induction of labour at term with oral misoprostol versus a Foley catheter (PROBAAT-II): a multicentre randomised controlled non-inferiority trial.

Authors:  Mieke L G Ten Eikelder; Katrien Oude Rengerink; Marta Jozwiak; Jan W de Leeuw; Irene M de Graaf; Mariëlle G van Pampus; Marloes Holswilder; Martijn A Oudijk; Gert-Jan van Baaren; Paula J M Pernet; Caroline Bax; Gijs A van Unnik; Gratia Martens; Martina Porath; Huib van Vliet; Robbert J P Rijnders; A Hanneke Feitsma; Frans J M E Roumen; Aren J van Loon; Hans Versendaal; Martin J N Weinans; Mallory Woiski; Erik van Beek; Brenda Hermsen; Ben Willem Mol; Kitty W M Bloemenkamp
Journal:  Lancet       Date:  2016-02-03       Impact factor: 79.321

Review 5.  Mechanical methods for induction of labour.

Authors:  Marta Jozwiak; Kitty W M Bloemenkamp; Anthony J Kelly; Ben Willem J Mol; Olivier Irion; Michel Boulvain
Journal:  Cochrane Database Syst Rev       Date:  2012-03-14

Review 6.  Use of labour induction and risk of cesarean delivery: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Authors:  Ekaterina Mishanina; Ewelina Rogozinska; Tej Thatthi; Rehan Uddin-Khan; Khalid S Khan; Catherine Meads
Journal:  CMAJ       Date:  2014-04-28       Impact factor: 8.262

7.  The association between the length of first stage of labor, mode of delivery, and perinatal outcomes in women undergoing induction of labor.

Authors:  Yvonne W Cheng; Shani S Delaney; Linda M Hopkins; Aaron B Caughey
Journal:  Am J Obstet Gynecol       Date:  2009-07-15       Impact factor: 8.661

8.  Induced Labor in Sweden, 1999-2012: A Population-Based Cohort Study.

Authors:  Cecilia Ekéus; Helena Lindgren
Journal:  Birth       Date:  2016-01-18       Impact factor: 3.689

9.  Induction of labour in nulliparous women with an unfavourable cervix: a randomised controlled trial comparing double and single balloon catheters and PGE2 gel.

Authors:  C E Pennell; J J Henderson; M J O'Neill; S McChlery; S McCleery; D A Doherty; J E Dickinson
Journal:  BJOG       Date:  2009-07-28       Impact factor: 6.531

Review 10.  Systematic review: elective induction of labor versus expectant management of pregnancy.

Authors:  Aaron B Caughey; Vandana Sundaram; Anjali J Kaimal; Allison Gienger; Yvonne W Cheng; Kathryn M McDonald; Brian L Shaffer; Douglas K Owens; Dena M Bravata
Journal:  Ann Intern Med       Date:  2009-08-18       Impact factor: 25.391

View more
  3 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

Review 2.  American College of Nurse-Midwives Clinical Bulletin Number 18: Induction of Labor.

Authors:  Nicole Smith Carlson; Alexis Dunn Amore; Jessica Ann Ellis; Katie Page; Robyn Schafer
Journal:  J Midwifery Womens Health       Date:  2022-01       Impact factor: 2.891

3.  Out-of-Hospital Cervical Ripening With a Synthetic Hygroscopic Cervical Dilator May Reduce Hospital Costs and Cesarean Sections in the United States-A Cost-Consequence Analysis.

Authors:  Sita J Saunders; Rhodri Saunders; Tess Wong; Antonio F Saad
Journal:  Front Public Health       Date:  2021-06-18
  3 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.