A Girault1. 1. Service de gynécologie-obstétrique, maternité Port-Royal, université de Paris, DHU risques et grossesse, AP-HP, 123, boulevard de Port-Royal, 75014 Paris, France; Epidemiology and statistics research center/CRESS, Inserm, INRA, université de Paris, 75004 Paris, France. Electronic address: aude.girault@aphp.fr.
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: To assess the studies comparing induction methods in women with term prelabor rupture of the membranes and establish if one is superior to the others. METHODS: The MedLine database, the Cochrane Library and the recommendations from the French and foreign obstetrical societies or colleges have been consulted. RESULTS: The included studies compared medical induction methods: oxytocin (intravenous), dinoprostone (vaginal gel, pessary or intracervical gel), and misoprostol (oral or vaginal route); and a mechanical induction method: the Foley catheter. The primary outcome measures were: labor induction to delivery interval, number of women delivered within 12 or 24hours of initiation of induction and cesarean delivery rate. The small sample size of the included studies as well as the limited number of reported complications does not provide a reasonable basis for concluding on the secondary outcome measures: pyrexia, chorioamnionitis, uterine tachysystole, Apgar scores of<7 at 5minutes. Induction of labor with misoprostol (oral and vaginal) reduced the labor induction to delivery interval compared with dinoprostone (LE2). This interval was unchanged when comparing induction with oxytocin and Foley catheter (LE2). The data comparing this interval in women induced with dinoprostone versus oxytocin and misoprostol versus oxytocin is limited or inconsistent. The cesarean delivery rate was comparable in women induced with dinoprostone (vaginal gel) versus oxytocin (LE2), misoprostol (oral and vaginal route) versus oxytocin (LE2), Foley catheter versus oxytocin (LE2), misoprostol versus dinoprostone (LE2) and misoprostol versus Foley catheter (LE2). The number of women delivered within 24hours of initiation of induction was comparable when induced with oral misoprostol versus oxytocin (LE2) and Foley catheter versus oxytocin (LE2). There is a lack of data for this outcome when comparing dinoprostone versus oxytocin, vaginal misoprotsol versus oxytocin, and misoprostol (oral and vaginal) versus dinoprostone. No induction method is superior to another for nulliparous women or women with unfavorable cervix (LE2). CONCLUSION: The superiority of an induction method, in terms of effectiveness or safety, could not be established with the current available data for women with term prelabor rupture of the membranes. An increased risk of chorioamnionitis due to induction using Foley catheter could not be ruled out by the available data. All medical methods are suitable for inducing women with term prelabor rupture of the membranes (Grade B).
OBJECTIVES: To assess the studies comparing induction methods in women with term prelabor rupture of the membranes and establish if one is superior to the others. METHODS: The MedLine database, the Cochrane Library and the recommendations from the French and foreign obstetrical societies or colleges have been consulted. RESULTS: The included studies compared medical induction methods: oxytocin (intravenous), dinoprostone (vaginal gel, pessary or intracervical gel), and misoprostol (oral or vaginal route); and a mechanical induction method: the Foley catheter. The primary outcome measures were: labor induction to delivery interval, number of women delivered within 12 or 24hours of initiation of induction and cesarean delivery rate. The small sample size of the included studies as well as the limited number of reported complications does not provide a reasonable basis for concluding on the secondary outcome measures: pyrexia, chorioamnionitis, uterine tachysystole, Apgar scores of<7 at 5minutes. Induction of labor with misoprostol (oral and vaginal) reduced the labor induction to delivery interval compared with dinoprostone (LE2). This interval was unchanged when comparing induction with oxytocin and Foley catheter (LE2). The data comparing this interval in women induced with dinoprostone versus oxytocin and misoprostol versus oxytocin is limited or inconsistent. The cesarean delivery rate was comparable in women induced with dinoprostone (vaginal gel) versus oxytocin (LE2), misoprostol (oral and vaginal route) versus oxytocin (LE2), Foley catheter versus oxytocin (LE2), misoprostol versus dinoprostone (LE2) and misoprostol versus Foley catheter (LE2). The number of women delivered within 24hours of initiation of induction was comparable when induced with oral misoprostol versus oxytocin (LE2) and Foley catheter versus oxytocin (LE2). There is a lack of data for this outcome when comparing dinoprostone versus oxytocin, vaginal misoprotsol versus oxytocin, and misoprostol (oral and vaginal) versus dinoprostone. No induction method is superior to another for nulliparous women or women with unfavorable cervix (LE2). CONCLUSION: The superiority of an induction method, in terms of effectiveness or safety, could not be established with the current available data for women with term prelabor rupture of the membranes. An increased risk of chorioamnionitis due to induction using Foley catheter could not be ruled out by the available data. All medical methods are suitable for inducing women with term prelabor rupture of the membranes (Grade B).
Keywords:
Déclenchement; Induction; Rupture des membranes à terme avant travail; Rupture prématurée des membranes à terme; Term prelabor rupture of the membranes