OJOG  Vol.5 No.14 , December 2015
Labor Induction with Transcervical Catheter versus Oral Misoprostol in Primiparous Women and Women with an Unripe Cervix
Abstract: Objective: To compare labor induction with transcervical catheter to oral misoprostol treatment in primiparous women and women with an unripe cervix, who are at high risk for unsuccessful labor induction. Study Design: A retrospective study was carried out in a university hospital in Sweden. Primary outcomes were vaginal birth within 24 hours and the cesarean section rate. Secondary outcomes were the induction to vaginal delivery interval, chorioamnionitis and neonatal asphyxia. Results: Vaginal birth within 24 hours was obtained more frequently after catheter compared with misoprostol in primiparous women (p < 0.001) and women with Bishop scores 3 - 4 (p < 0.001), but not in women with Bishop scores 0 - 2 (p = 0.07). The cesarean section rates were comparable in all groups (p > 0.05). The induction to vaginal delivery interval was 8 - 12 hours shorter after catheter (p < 0.001). The rates of chorioamnionitis and newborns with an Apgar score < 7 at 5 min were comparable (p > 0.05). Conclusion: Labor induction with transcervical catheter resulted in a higher rate of vaginal birth within 24 hours and an 8 - 12 hour shorter induction to vaginal delivery interval compared to treatment with oral misoprostol. This was obtained without increasing the rates of cesarean section, chorioamnionitis or neonatal asphyxia.
Cite this paper: Thorbiornson, A. , Vladic, T. and Stjernholm, Y. (2015) Labor Induction with Transcervical Catheter versus Oral Misoprostol in Primiparous Women and Women with an Unripe Cervix. Open Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology, 5, 819-826. doi: 10.4236/ojog.2015.514116.

[1]   World health Organization (2011) WHO Recommendations for Induction of Labour. World Health Organization, Geneva.

[2]   The Swedish National Board of Health and Welfare (2013) Pregnancies, Deliveries and Newborn Babies. The Swedish Medical Birth Register 1973-2012.

[3]   Caughey, A.B., Sundaram, V., Kaimal, A.J., Cheng, Y.W., Gienger, A., Little, S.E., et al. (2009) Maternal and Neonatal Outcomes of Elective Induction of Labor (Review). Evidence Report/Technology Assessment, 176, 1-257.

[4]   Jozwiak, M., Bloemenkamp, K.W.M., Kelly, A.J., Mol, B.W.J., Irion, O. and Boulvain, M. (2012) Mechanical Methods for Induction of Labour (Review). Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, 2012, Article ID: CD001233.

[5]   Alfirevic, Z., Aflaifel, N. and Weeks, A. (2014) Oral Misoprostol for Induction of Labour. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, 2014, Article ID: CD001338.

[6]   Woodman, W.B. (1863) Induction of Labor at Eight Months and Delivery of a Living Child in Less than Four Hours by Dr Barnes’ Method. Lancet, 81, 10-11.

[7]   Challis, J.R. and Smith, S.K. (2001) Fetal Endocrine Signals and Preterm Labor. Biology of the Neonate, 79, 163-167.

[8]   Hertelendy, F. and Zakar, T. (2004) Prostaglandins, the Myometrium and the Cervix. Prostaglandins, Leukotrienes & Essential Fatty Acids, 70, 207-222.

[9]   Ferguson, J.K. (1941) A Study of the Motility of the Intact Uterus at Term. Surgery, Gynecology, and Obstetrics, 73, 359-366.

[10]   Ulmsten, U., Wingerup, L. and Ekman, G. (1983) Local Application of Prostaglandin E2 for Cervical Ripening or Induction of Term Labor. Clinical Obstetrics & Gynecology, 26, 95-105.

[11]   The Swedish Medical Products Agency (2012) Laboratory Study on Preparation of Cytotec for Labour Induction. Laboratory Report No. 297: 2012/507712.

[12]   World Health Organization (1977) WHO: Recommended Definitions, Terminology and Format for Statistical Tables Related to the Perinatal Period and Use of a New Certificate for Cause of Perinatal Deaths. Acta Obstetricia et Gynecologica Scandinavica, 56, 247-253.

[13]   Bishop, E.H. (1964) Pelvic Scoring for Elective Induction. Obstetrics & Gynecology, 24, 266-268.

[14]   Apgar, V. (1953) A Proposal for a New Method of Evaluation of the Newborn Infant. Current Researches in Anesthesia & Analgesia, 32, 260-267.

[15]   Thorbiornson, A., Vladic, T., Vladic Stjernholm, Y. (In Manuscript) Advantage for Labor Induction with Oral Prostaglandin-E1 Compared with Vaginal Prostaglandin-E2 in Primiparous Women and Women with an Unripe Cervix.

[16]   Spong, C.Y., Berghella, V., Wenstrom, K.D., Mercer, B.M., Saade, G.R. (2012) Preventing the First Cesarean Delivery: Summary of a Joint Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development, Society for Maternal-Fetal Medicine and American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists Workshop. Obstetrics & Gynecology, 120, 1181-1193.

[17]   Heinemann, J., Gillen, G., Sanchez-Ramos, L. and Kaunitz, A.M. (2008) Do Mechanical Methods of Cervical Ripening Increase Infectious Morbidity? A Systematic Review. American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology, 189, 177-188.

[18]   Abramovici, D., Goldwasser, S., Mabie, B.C., Mercer, B.M., Goldwasser, R. and Sibai, B.M. (1999) A Randomized Comparison of oral Misoprostol versus Foley Catheter and Oxytocin for Induction of Labor at Term. American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology, 181, 1108-1112.

[19]   Goonewardene, M., Kumara, D.M.A., Ziard, M.H. and Bhabu, B. (2014) Intracervical Foley Catheter vs Oral Misoprostol for Preinduction Cervical Ripening of Postdated Pregnancies. Sri Lanka Journal of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, 3, 66-70.

[20]   Ten Eikelder, M.L., Neervoort, F., Rengerink, K.O., Jozwiak, M., de Leeuw, J.W., de Graaf, I., et al. (2013) Induction of Labour with a Foley Catheter or Oral Misoprostol at Term: The PROBAAT-II Study, a Multicenter Randomized Controlled Trial. BMC Pregnancy and Childbirth, 13, 183.