Advertisement

Tension compared to no tension on a Foley transcervical catheter for cervical ripening: a randomized controlled trial

Published:September 15, 2016DOI:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajog.2016.09.082

      Background

      Cervical ripening of an unfavorable cervix can be achieved by placement of a transcervical catheter. Advantages of this method include both lower cost and lower risk of tachysystole than other methods. Despite widespread use with varying degrees of applied tension, an unanswered question is whether there is an advantage to placing the transcervical catheter to tension compared with placement without tension.

      Objective

      The purpose of this study was to determine whether tension placed on a transcervical balloon catheter that is inserted for cervical ripening results in a faster time to delivery.

      Study Design

      This was a prospective, randomized controlled trial; 140 women who underwent cervical ripening (Bishop score, ≤6) were assigned randomly to a balloon catheter with applied tension vs no tension. Tension was created when the catheter was taped to the patient’s thigh and tension was reapplied in 30-minute increments. There were 67 patients in the tension group and 73 patients in the no tension group. Low-dose oxytocin (maximum, 6 mU/min) was administered after catheter placement. The primary outcome was time from catheter insertion to delivery. A secondary outcome was time from insertion to catheter expulsion. The Kolmogorov-Smirnov test was used to determine whether the data were distributed normally. Survival curves that used lifetables were constructed from time of catheter insertion to delivery and from time of catheter insertion to catheter expulsion and were compared with the use of the Wilcoxon (Gehan) Breslow statistic. A probability value of <.05 was set to denote statistical significance.

      Results

      Baseline characteristics were similar between groups. The median time from catheter insertion to delivery was not significantly different between the tension group and the no tension group (16.2 vs 16.9 hours; P=.814). The median time from catheter insertion to expulsion, however, was significantly less in the tension group vs the no tension group (2.6 vs 4.6 hours; P<.001), respectively. Vaginal delivery within 24 hours was not significantly different between the tension and no tension groups (41/52 [79%] vs 37/52 [71%]; P=.365) nor were there significant differences in cesarean delivery rates between the tension and no tension groups (17/67 [25%] vs 27/73 [37%]; P=.139).

      Conclusion

      Application of tension did not result in faster delivery times but did result in faster times to catheter expulsion.

      Key words

      To read this article in full you will need to make a payment

      Purchase one-time access:

      Academic & Personal: 24 hour online accessCorporate R&D Professionals: 24 hour online access
      One-time access price info
      • For academic or personal research use, select 'Academic and Personal'
      • For corporate R&D use, select 'Corporate R&D Professionals'

      Subscribe:

      Subscribe to American Journal of Obstetrics & Gynecology
      Already a print subscriber? Claim online access
      Already an online subscriber? Sign in
      Institutional Access: Sign in to ScienceDirect

      References

      1. Osterman M, Martin J. Recent declines in induction of labor by gestational age. Available at: http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/databriefs/db155.pdf. Accessed January 5, 2016.

        • Bishop E.H.
        Pelvic scoring for elective induction.
        Obstet Gynecol. 1964; 24: 266-268
        • American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists
        ACOG Practice Bulletin No. 107: Induction of labor.
        Obstet Gynecol. 2009; 114: 386-397
        • Ramirez M.M.
        Labor induction: a review of current methods.
        Obstet Gynecol Clin North Am. 2011; 38 (ix): 215-225
        • Wing D.A.
        • Lovett K.
        • Paul R.H.
        Disruption of prior uterine incision following misoprostol for labor induction in women with previous cesarean delivery.
        Obstet Gynecol. 1998; 91: 828-830
        • American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists
        ACOG Practice Bulletin No. 115: Vaginal birth after previous cesarean delivery.
        Obstet Gynecol. 2010; 116: 450-463
        • Sciscione A.C.
        • Bedder C.L.
        • Hoffman M.K.
        • Ruhstaller K.
        • Shlossman P.A.
        The timing of adverse events with Foley catheter preinduction cervical ripening; implications for outpatient use.
        Am J Perinatol. 2014; 31: 781-786
        • Smith J.A.
        Balloon dilators for labor induction: a historical review.
        J Med Ethics Hist Med. 2013; 6: 10
        • Embrey M.P.
        • Mollison B.G.
        The unfavourable cervix and induction of labour using a cervical balloon.
        J Obstet Gynaecol Br Commonw. 1967; 74: 44-48
        • Edwards R.K.
        • Szychowski J.M.
        • Berger J.L.
        • et al.
        Foley catheter compared with the controlled-release dinoprostone insert: a randomized controlled trial.
        Obstet Gynecol. 2014; 123: 1280-1287
        • Jozwiak M.
        • Oude Rengerink K.
        • Benthem M.
        • et al.
        Foley catheter versus vaginal prostaglandin E2 gel for induction of labour at term (PROBAAT trial): an open-label, randomised controlled trial.
        Lancet. 2011; 378: 2095-2103
        • Cromi A.
        • Ghezzi F.
        • Agosti M.
        • et al.
        Is transcervical Foley catheter actually slower than prostaglandins in ripening the cervix? A randomized study.
        Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2011; 204: 338.e1-338.e7
        • Henry A.
        • Madan A.
        • Reid R.
        • et al.
        Outpatient Foley catheter versus inpatient prostaglandin E2 gel for induction of labour: a randomised trial.
        BMC Pregnancy Childbirth. 2013; 13: 25
        • Sciscione A.C.
        • McCullough H.
        • Manley J.S.
        • Shlossman P.A.
        • Pollock M.
        • Colmorgen G.H.
        A prospective, randomized comparison of Foley catheter insertion versus intracervical prostaglandin E2 gel for preinduction cervical ripening.
        Am J Obstet Gynecol. 1999; 180: 55-60
        • Sciscione A.C.
        • Nguyen L.
        • Manley J.
        • Pollock M.
        • Maas B.
        • Colmorgen G.
        A randomized comparison of transcervical Foley catheter to intravaginal misoprostol for preinduction cervical ripening.
        Obstet Gynecol. 2001; 97: 603-607
        • Kandil M.
        • Emarh M.
        • Sayyed T.
        • Masood A.
        Foley catheter versus intra-vaginal misoprostol for induction of labor in post-term gestations.
        Arch Gynecol Obstet. 2012; 286: 303-307
        • Gelisen O.
        • Caliskan E.
        • Dilbaz S.
        • et al.
        Induction of labor with three different techniques at 41 weeks of gestation or spontaneous follow-up until 42 weeks in women with definitely unfavorable cervical scores.
        Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol. 2005; 120: 164-169
        • Ten Eikelder M.L.
        • Oude Rengerink K.
        • Jozwiak M.
        • et al.
        Induction of labour at term with oral misoprostol versus a Foley catheter (PROBAAT-II): a multicentre randomised controlled non-inferiority trial.
        Lancet. 2016; 387: 1619-1628
        • Tuuli M.G.
        • Keegan M.B.
        • Odibo A.O.
        • Roehl K.
        • Macones G.A.
        • Cahill A.G.
        Progress of labor in women induced with misoprostol versus the Foley catheter.
        Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2013; 209: 237.e1-237.e7
        • Mahomed K.
        Foley catheter under traction versus extra-amniotic prostaglandin gel in pre-treatment of unripe cervix: a randomised controlled trial.
        Cent Afr J Med. 1988; 34: 98-102
        • Kashanian M.
        • Nazemi M.
        • Malakzadegan A.
        Comparison of 30-mL and 80-mL Foley catheter balloons and oxytocin for preinduction cervical ripening.
        Int J Gynaecol Obstet. 2009; 105: 174-175
        • Moraes Filho O.B.
        • Albuquerque R.M.
        • Cecatti J.G.
        A randomized controlled trial comparing vaginal misoprostol versus Foley catheter plus oxytocin for labor induction.
        Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand. 2010; 89: 1045-1052
        • Fitzpatrick C.B.
        • Grotegut C.A.
        • Bishop T.S.
        • Canzoneri B.J.
        • Heine R.P.
        • Swamy G.K.
        Cervical ripening with foley balloon plus fixed versus incremental low-dose oxytocin: a randomized controlled trial.
        J Matern Fetal Neonatal Med. 2012; 25: 1006-1010
        • Pettker C.M.
        • Pocock S.B.
        • Smok D.P.
        • Lee S.M.
        • Devine P.C.
        Transcervical Foley catheter with and without oxytocin for cervical ripening: a randomized controlled trial.
        Obstet Gynecol. 2008; 111: 1320-1326
        • Carbone J.F.
        • Tuuli M.G.
        • Fogertey P.J.
        • Roehl K.A.
        • Macones G.A.
        Combination of Foley bulb and vaginal misoprostol compared with vaginal misoprostol alone for cervical ripening and labor induction: a randomized controlled trial.
        Obstet Gynecol. 2013; 121: 247-252
        • Lanka S.
        • Surapaneni T.
        • Nirmalan P.K.
        Concurrent use of Foley catheter and misoprostol for induction of labor: a randomized clinical trial of efficacy and safety.
        J Obstet Gynaecol Res. 2014; 40: 1527-1533
        • Perry Jr., K.G.
        • Larmon J.E.
        • May W.L.
        • Robinette L.G.
        • Martin R.W.
        Cervical ripening: a randomized comparison between intravaginal misoprostol and an intracervical balloon catheter combined with intravaginal dinoprostone.
        Am J Obstet Gynecol. 1998; 178: 1333-1340
        • Ugwu E.O.
        • Onah H.E.
        • Obi S.N.
        • et al.
        Effect of the Foley catheter and synchronous low dose misoprostol administration on cervical ripening: a randomised controlled trial.
        J Obstet Gynaecol. 2013; 33: 572-577
        • Ghanaie M.M.
        • Jafarabadi M.
        • Milani F.
        • Asgary S.A.
        • Karkan M.F.
        A randomized controlled trial of foley catheter, extra-amniotic saline infusion and prostaglandin e2 suppository for labor induction.
        J Family Reprod Health. 2013; 7: 49-55
        • Maslovitz S.
        • Lessing J.B.
        • Many A.
        Complications of trans-cervical Foley catheter for labor induction among 1,083 women.
        Arch Gynecol Obstet. 2010; 281: 473-477
        • Lin M.G.
        • Reid K.J.
        • Treaster M.R.
        • Nuthalapaty F.S.
        • Ramsey P.S.
        • Lu G.C.
        Transcervical Foley catheter with and without extraamniotic saline infusion for labor induction: a randomized controlled trial.
        Obstet Gynecol. 2007; 110: 558-565
        • Karjane N.W.
        • Brock E.L.
        • Walsh S.W.
        Induction of labor using a foley balloon, with and without extra-amniotic saline infusion.
        Obstet Gynecol. 2006; 107: 234-239
        • Levy R.
        • Kanengiser B.
        • Furman B.
        • Ben Arie A.
        • Brown D.
        • Hagay Z.J.
        A randomized trial comparing a 30-mL and an 80-mL Foley catheter balloon for preinduction cervical ripening.
        Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2004; 191: 1632-1636
        • Delaney S.
        • Shaffer B.L.
        • Cheng Y.W.
        • et al.
        Labor induction with a Foley balloon inflated to 30 mL compared with 60 mL: a randomized controlled trial.
        Obstet Gynecol. 2010; 115: 1239-1245
        • Forgie M.M.
        • Greer D.M.
        • Kram J.J.
        • Bernhard K.A.
        • Salvo N.P.
        • Siddiqui D.S.
        Foley catheter placement for induction of labor with or without stylette: a randomized clinical trial.
        Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2016; 214 (397.e1-397)
        • Heinemann J.
        • Gillen G.
        • Sanchez-Ramos L.
        • Kaunitz A.M.
        Do mechanical methods of cervical ripening increase infectious morbidity? A systematic review.
        Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2008; 199: 177-188
        • Gibson K.S.
        • Mercer B.M.
        • Louis J.M.
        Inner thigh taping vs traction for cervical ripening with a Foley catheter: a randomized controlled trial.
        Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2013; 209: 272.e1-272.e7
        • Steel R.G.D.
        • Torrie J.H.
        Nonparametric statistics.
        in: Principles and procedures of statistics: a biomedical approach. McGraw-Hill, New York1980: 540-542
        • Demets D.L.
        • Lan K.K.
        Interim analysis: the alpha spending function approach.
        Stat Med. 1994; 13: 1341-1352
        • Schulz K.F.
        • Grimes D.A.
        Sample size slippages in randomised trials: exclusions and the lost and wayward.
        Lancet. 2002; 359: 781-785
        • Sciscione A.C.
        Methods of cervical ripening and labor induction: mechanical.
        Clin Obstet Gynecol. 2014; 57: 369-376
        • Manabe Y.
        • Manabe A.
        • Takahashi A.
        F prostaglandin levels in amniotic fluid during balloon-induced cervical softening and labor at term.
        Prostaglandins. 1982; 23: 247-256
        • Lutgendorf M.A.
        • Johnson A.
        • Terpstra E.R.
        • Snider T.C.
        • Magann E.F.
        Extra-amniotic balloon for preinduction cervical ripening: a randomized comparison of weighted traction versus unweighted.
        J Matern Fetal Neonatal Med. 2012; 25: 581-586
        • Cabrera I.B.
        • Quinones J.N.
        • Durie D.
        • Rust J.
        • Smulian J.C.
        • Scorza W.E.
        Use of intracervical balloons and chorioamnionitis in term premature rupture of membranes.
        J Matern Fetal Neonatal Med. 2016; 29: 967-971
      2. FOLCROM Trial: Foley Catheter in Rupture of Membranes. Available at: https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT01973036. Accessed January 24, 2016.

        • Jozwiak M.
        • Bloemenkamp K.W.
        • Kelly A.J.
        • Mol B.W.
        • Irion O.
        • Boulvain M.
        Mechanical methods for induction of labour.
        Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2012; 3: CD001233
        • Schulz K.F.
        • Grimes D.A.
        Generation of allocation sequences in randomised trials: chance, not choice.
        Lancet. 2002; 359: 515-519