| Literature DB >> 36184583 |
Chaoyue Wen1, Xuemin Liu1, Ying Wang1, Jun Wang2.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: This study aims to evaluate the efficacy and safety of the modified application of COOK Cervical Ripening Balloon (CCRB) for induction of labor (IOL) at term in primipara.Entities:
Keywords: COOK Cervical Ripening Balloon; Cervical ripening; Induction of labor; Term pregnancy
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2022 PMID: 36184583 PMCID: PMC9526905 DOI: 10.1186/s12884-022-05035-w
Source DB: PubMed Journal: BMC Pregnancy Childbirth ISSN: 1471-2393 Impact factor: 3.105
Fig. 1Flowchart demonstrating
Fig. 2Operating procedures for the control group (left) and the study group (right)
Baseline clinical characteristics of the two groups
| Variable | Control group | Study group | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Age (y,‾X ± s) | 30.54 ± 3.15 | 30.21 ± 3.71 | 0.478 |
| Gravidity (n, min–max) | 1–3 | 1–3 | 0.265 |
| Height (m,‾X ± s) | 1.64 ± 0.59 | 1.65 ± 0.48 | 0.777 |
| Body weight (kg,‾X ± s) | 75.29 ± 10.05 | 73.45 ± 9.86 | 0.168 |
| BMI (kg/m2,‾X ± s) | 27.85 ± 3.50 | 27.11 ± 3.64 | 0.123 |
| Gestational age (week,‾X ± s) | 39.85 ± 0.85 | 39.93 ± 0.71 | 0.425 |
| Indications of IOL, n(%) | |||
| Delayed pregnancy | 47 (40.17) | 41 (37.96) | 0.735 |
| Oligohydramnios | 35 (29.91) | 33 (30.56) | 0.917 |
| HDP | 23 (19.66) | 18 (16.67) | 0.561 |
| PGDM and GDM | 8 (6.84) | 10 (9.26) | 0.504 |
| Suspected macrosomia | 4 (3.42) | 6 (5.56) | 0.437 |
| Initial Bishop scores (‾X ± s) | 2.85 ± 0.97 | 2.99 ± 1.09 | 0.294 |
| Birth weight (g,‾X ± s) | 3392.09 ± 356.46 | 3408.06 ± 378.66 | 0.745 |
Abbreviations: BMI Body mass index, HDP Hypertensive disorders of pregnancy, PGDM Pregestational diabetes mellitus, GDM Gestational diabetes mellitus
Student’s T-test, Chi-square test, and Wilcoxon test were used
Primary outcomes of the two groups
| Variable | Control group | Study group | |
|---|---|---|---|
| CCRB was discharged within 12 h, n (%) | 30 (25.6) | 22 (20.4) | 0.349 |
| The improved Bishop scores at 12 h (‾X ± s) | |||
| Total scores | 2.52 ± 0.79 | 3.06 ± 0.97 | 0.000* |
| Dilation | 1.17 ± 0.38 | 1.62 ± 0.51 | 0.000* |
| Cervical consistency | 0.91 ± 0.32 | 0.94 ± 0.27 | 0.332 |
| Effacement | 0.60 ± 0.49 | 0.66 ± 0.48 | 0.362 |
| Position of cervix | 0.18 ± 0.39 | 0.19 ± 0.40 | 0.775 |
| Station | -0.33 ± 0.50 | -0.36 ± 0.57 | 0.696 |
| The improved Bishop scores when CCRB was discharged (‾X ± s) | |||
| Total scores | 2.52 ± 0.79 | 4.37 ± 0.87 | 0.000* |
| Dilation | 1.17 ± 0.38 | 2.03 ± 0.21 | 0.000* |
| Cervical consistency | 0.91 ± 0.32 | 1.00 ± 0.36 | 0.040* |
| Effacement | 0.60 ± 0.49 | 1.30 ± 0.65 | 0.000* |
| Position of cervix | 0.18 ± 0.39 | 0.25 ± 0.44 | 0.201 |
| Station | -0.33 ± 0.50 | -0.20 ± 0.47 | 0.044 |
| Successful induction rate, n (%) | 112 (95.73) | 108(100) | 0.030* |
| Spontaneous delivery rate, n (%) | 93 (79.49) | 94(87.04) | 0.131 |
| Cesarean section rate, n (%) | 24 (20.51) | 14(12.96) | 0.131 |
| Indications of cesarean section, n (%) | |||
| Abnormal fetal heart rate | 10 (8.55) | 9(8.33) | 0.954 |
| Abnormal stage of labor | 6 (5.13) | 4 (3.70) | 0.604 |
| Psychological factors | 8 (6.84) | 1 (0.93) | 0.024* |
Student’s T-test, Chi-square test, and Wilcoxon test were used
* p < 0.05 was considered statistically significant
Delivery process of the two groups
| Variable | Control group ( | Study group | |
|---|---|---|---|
| First stage of labor (h,‾X ± s) | 7.27 ± 2.90 | 6.17 ± 2.85 | 0.010* |
| Total stage of labor (h, ‾X ± s) | 8.09 ± 3.11 | 7.07 ± 3.18 | 0.028* |
| Delivery rate within 24 h, n (%) | 52 (55.91) | 75 (79.79) | 0.000* |
| Pain scores during placement of CCRB (‾X ± s) | 3.94 ± 1.15 | 4.10 ± 1.33 | 0.379 |
| Labor analgesia during labor, n (%) | 33 (35.48) | 21 (22.34) | 0.047* |
Student’s T-test and Chi-square test were used
* p < 0.05 was considered statistically significant
Fig. 3Remaining not delivery cases at the time from placement of CCRB to vaginal delivery (excluding cesarean delivery cases)
Cervical ripening effects with different initial Bishop scores
| Variable | Initial Bishop scores ≤ 3 | Initial Bishop scores 4–6 | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Control group | Study group | Control group | Study group | |||
| The improved Bishop scores at 12 h (‾X ± s) | ||||||
| Total scores | 2.56 ± 0.70 | 3.11 ± 0.99 | 0.000* | 2.41 ± 0.89 | 2.93 ± 1.08 | 0.051 |
| Dilation | 1.11 ± 0.31 | 1.53 ± 0.50 | 0.000* | 1.33 ± 0.48 | 1.83 ± 0.46 | 0.000* |
| Cervical consistency | 0.95 ± 0.27 | 1.02 ± 0.13 | 0.106 | 0.78 ± 0.42 | 0.80 ± 0.41 | 0.841 |
| Effacement | 0.61 ± 0.49 | 0.61 ± 0.49 | 0.969 | 0.59 ± 0.50 | 0.73 ± 0.45 | 0.271 |
| Position of cervix | 0.20 ± 0.40 | 0.20 ± 0.41 | 0.931 | 0.11 ± 0.32 | 0.20 ± 0.41 | 0.367 |
| Station | -0.30 ± 0.46 | -0.25 ± 0.44 | 0.503 | -0.41 ± 0.57 | -0.63 ± 0.72 | 0.198 |
| The improved Bishop scores when CCRB was discharged (‾X ± s) | ||||||
| Total scores | 2.56 ± 0.70 | 4.56 ± 0.87 | 0.000* | 2.41 ± 0.89 | 3.93 ± 0.74 | 0.000* |
| Dilation | 1.11 ± 0.31 | 2.03 ± 0.25 | 0.000* | 1.33 ± 0.48 | 2.03 ± 0.18 | 0.000* |
| Cervical consistency | 0.95 ± 0.27 | 1.09 ± 0.29 | 0.006* | 0.78 ± 0.42 | 0.80 ± 0.41 | 0.841 |
| Effacement | 0.61 ± 0.49 | 1.33 ± 0.69 | 0.000* | 0.59 ± 0.50 | 1.23 ± 0.57 | 0.000* |
| Position of cervix | 0.20 ± 0.40 | 0.28 ± 0.45 | 0.264 | 0.11 ± 0.32 | 0.23 ± 0.43 | 0.226 |
| Station | -0.30 ± 0.46 | -0.17 ± 0.42 | 0.093 | -0.41 ± 0.57 | -0.37 ± 0.56 | 0.786 |
| First stage of labor (h, ‾X ± s) | 7.72 ± 2.77 | 6.42 ± 2.86 | 0.009* | 6.16 ± 2.95 | 5.64 ± 2.82 | 0.502 |
| Total stage of labor (h, ‾X ± s) | 8.52 ± 3.09 | 7.36 ± 3.20 | 0.036* | 7.02 ± 2.93 | 6.47 ± 3.11 | 0.494 |
Student’s T-test was used
* p < 0.05 was considered statistically significant
Delivery-related risks and outcomes of the two groups
| Variable | Control group | Study group | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Placental abruption, n (%) | 0 | 0 | - |
| Intrauterine infection, n (%) | 2(2.15) | 2(2.13) | 0.991 |
| Postpartum hemorrhage, n (%) | 7(7.53) | 5(5.32) | 0.538 |
| Cervical laceration, n (%) | 1(1.08) | 2(2.13) | 0.567 |
| Perineal laceration, n (%) | 10(11.11) | 19(20.21) | 0.074 |
| Forceps delivery, n (%) | 3(3.23) | 4(4.26) | 0.711 |
| Episiotomy, n (%) | 79(84.95) | 69(73.40) | 0.052 |
| Umbilical cord prolapse, n (%) | 0 | 0 | - |
| Apgar score (min–max) | |||
| 1-min score | 9 -10 | 9 -10 | 0.286 |
| 5-min score | 10–10 | 10–10 | - |
| Neonatal hypoxic or asphyxia, n (%) | 0 | 0 | - |
| Neonatal death, n (%) | 0 | 0 | - |
Chi-square test and Wilcoxon test were used
Effects of the different timing of rupture of membranes on the delivery process
| Group | n | First stage (h) | Total stage (h) | Induction-delivery time (h) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Control group | 93 | |||
| Before regular contractions# | 22 | 6.23 ± 1.60 | 7.04 ± 1.68 | 25.20 ± 13.03 |
| After regular contractions# | 71 | 7.59 ± 3.13 | 8.41 ± 3.37 | 29.75 ± 9.83 |
|
| 0.009* | 0.070 | 0.135 | |
| Study group | 94 | |||
| Before regular contractions# | 26 | 6.12 ± 2.77 | 6.90 ± 2.97 | 20.38 ± 5.32 |
| After regular contractions# | 68 | 6.28 ± 3.11 | 7.53 ± 3.70 | 25.00 ± 8.60 |
|
| 0.816 | 0.390 | 0.015* |
Student’s T-test was used
* p < 0.05 was considered statistically significant
“#” amniotomy or spontaneous rupture of membranes before or after regular contractions
Fig. 4Ultrasonic images of the uterine balloon with different volumes. A: Control group; B: Study group