Literature DB >> 29203813

Comparison of single- and double-balloon catheters for labor induction: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.

Raed Salim1,2, Naama Schwartz3, Noah Zafran4,5, Sivan Zuarez-Easton4, Gali Garmi4,5, Shabtai Romano4,5.   

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: There is a paucity of head-to-head randomized trials that compare single- and double-balloon catheters, and the results of the available data in terms of time from catheter insertion to delivery and delivery mode are mixed. This meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials compares the efficacy of single- and double-balloon catheters in women undergoing labor induction. STUDY
DESIGN: Searches were made in MEDLINE, EMBASE, PubMed, ClinicalTrials.gov, and the Cochrane Library from inception through June 2016. Peer-reviewed randomized and quasi-randomized trials that compared single- and double-balloon catheters head-to-head for cervical ripening or labor induction were identified. Eligible study populations consisted of women with singleton pregnancies that had any indication for labor induction and were randomly assigned to undergo induction with a single- or a double-balloon catheter. The primary outcome was time from catheter insertion to delivery and delivery mode. The secondary outcomes were intrapartum fever or chorioamnionitis, woman's satisfaction, and neonatal Apgar score.
RESULTS: Of the 520 records identified, five randomized trials (996 women; 491 with single-balloon and 505 with double-balloon catheters) were considered eligible and included in the meta-analysis. Time from catheter insertion to delivery did not differ between the two types of catheter (p = 0.527; WMD -0.87; 95% CI: -3.55, 1.82). The incidence of cesarean delivery also did not differ (p = 0.844; RR 0.97; 95% CI: 0.69, 1.35). Delivery within 24 h, delivery mode, incidences of intrapartum fever or chorioamnionitis, and neonatal Apgar score <7 at 5 min did not differ between the two types of catheter as well. Women who were induced with the single-balloon catheter were more satisfied (p = 0.029; WMD 0.56; 95% CI: 0.06, 1.06).
CONCLUSION: Time from catheter insertion to delivery and delivery mode were comparable between the two types of catheter.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2017        PMID: 29203813     DOI: 10.1038/s41372-017-0005-7

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


  1 in total

1.  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

  1 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.