Induction of labour with a Foley catheter or oral misoprostol at term: the PROBAAT-II study, a multicentre randomised controlled trial

BMC Pregnancy and Childbirth

Kitty W M Bloemenkamp⁵  Ben Willem J Mol²  Marion Heres⁴  Hans Versendaal⁶  Erik van Beek^1,12  Frans Roumen^1,15  Martina Porath^1,14  Huib van Vliet^1,10  A Hanneke Feitsma^1,13  Paula JM Pernet⁸  Mallory Woiski^1,11  Paulien van der Salm⁹  Martijn Oudijk⁹  Maureen Franssen¹  Maria G van Pampus³  Irene de Graaf²  Jan-Willem de Leeuw⁷  Marta Jozwiak⁵  Katrien Oude Rengerink²  Femke Neervoort³  Mieke LG ten Eikelder⁵ 

[1] Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, University Medical Centre Groningen, Groningen, the Netherlands;Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, Academic Medical Centre, Amsterdam, the Netherlands;Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, Onze Lieve Vrouwe Gasthuis, Amsterdam, the Netherlands;Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, Sint Lucas Andreas Hospital, Amsterdam, the Netherlands;Department of Obstetrics K-6-P-35, Leiden University Medical Centre, P.O. Box 9600, Leiden 2300 RC, the Netherlands;Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, Maasstad Hospital, Rotterdam, the Netherlands;Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, Ikazia Hospital, Rotterdam, the Netherlands;Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, Kennemer Gasthuis, Haarlem, the Netherlands;Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, University Medical Centre Utrecht, Utrecht, the Netherlands;Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, Catharina Hospital, Eindhoven, the Netherlands;Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, Radboud University, Nijmegen, the Netherlands;Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, Sint Antonius Hospital, Nieuwegein, the Netherlands;Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, HAGA Hospital, Den Haag, the Netherlands;Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, Maxima Medical Centre, Veldhoven, the Netherlands;Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, Atrium Medical Centre, Heerlen, the Netherlands

关键词: Unfavourable cervix;    Bishop score;    Hyperstimulation;    Post partum haemorrhage;    Asphyxia;    Foley catheter;    Oral misoprostol;    Induction of labour;   

Others  :  1138143
DOI  :  10.1186/1471-2393-13-67

 received in 2013-02-09, accepted in 2013-03-12,  发布年份 2013

【 摘 要 】

Background

Induction of labour is a common obstetric procedure. At present, different methods are used for induction of labour in women with an unfavourable cervix. Recently, we showed that in term women with an unfavorable cervix the use of a Foley catheter in comparison with vaginal Prostaglandin E2 gel, results in a comparable vaginal delivery rate. A meta-analysis on the subject indicated lower rates of hyperstimulation, and probably as a sequel fewer cases of postpartum haemorrhage. Misoprostol (PgE1) is another type of prostaglandin frequently used for labour induction, recommended by the international federation of gynaecology and obstetrics (FIGO). Misoprostol can be administered by vaginal, rectal and oral route. There is evidence that oral administration results in less asphyxia and hyperstimulation than vaginal administration. At present, valid comparisons between oral misoprostol and Foley catheter are lacking. Therefore, we propose a randomised controlled trial comparing Foley catheter to oral misoprostol in order to assess safety and cost-effectiveness.

Methods/Design

We plan a multicentre, randomised, controlled, open-label clinical trial among term pregnant women with a vital singleton in cephalic presentation, unfavorable cervix, intact membranes and an indication for induction of labour. After informed consent, women will be randomly allocated by a webbased randomisation system to transcervical Foley catheter or oral misoprostol (50 mcg every 4 hours). The primary outcome will be a composite of complications of uterine hyperstimulation, i.e. post partum haemorrhage and asphyxia. Secondary outcomes are mode of delivery, maternal and neonatal morbidity, costs and women’s preference. Serious adverse events such as severe maternal or neonatal morbitity or mortality will be monitored and reported to an independent data safety monitory board. With a sample size of 1860 women we will be able to demonstrate a 5% non-inferiority of the Foley catheter as compared to misoprostol for the composite outcome.

Discussion

Worldwide, various methods are being used for labour induction. Results of the proposed trial will contribute to the answer which method of induction of labour is most safe, cost-effective, and patient friendly and will help to construct evidence based guidelines.

Trial registration

The Netherlands Trial Register NTR3466

【 授权许可】

   
2013 ten Eikelder et al.; licensee BioMed Central Ltd.

【 参考文献 】

• [1]Battista L, Chung JH, Lagrew DC, Wing DA: Complications of labor induction among multiparous women in a community-based hospital system. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2007, 197:241-247.
• [2]Vrouenraets FP, Roumen FJ, Dehing CJ, van den Akker ES, Aarts MJ, Scheve EJ: Bishop score and risk of cesarean delivery after induction of labor in nulliparous women. Obstet Gynecol 2005, 105:690-697.
• [3]Goldberg AB, Greenberg MB, Darney PD: Misoprostol and pregnancy. N Engl J Med 2001, 344:38-47.
• [4]Alfirevic Z, Weeks A: Oral misoprostol for induction of labour. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2006, CD001338.
• [5]Hofmeyr GJ, Gulmezoglu AM, Pileggi C: Vaginal misoprostol for cervical ripening and induction of labour. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2010, CD000941.
• [6]Internet: NICE guideline Induction of labour 2008. Accessed August 9th 2011 [http://www.nice.org.uk/CG070 webcite]
• [7]Internet: “Inductie van de baring” Guideline 2006. Accessed April 12th 2012 [http://nvog-documenten.nl/index.php?pagina=/richtlijn/pagina.php&fSelectNTG_85=86&fSelectedSub=85 webcite]
• [8]Internet: WHO recommendations for induction of labour 2011. Accessed December 4th 2012 [http://whqlibdoc.who.int/publications/2011/9789241501156_eng.pdf webcite]
• [9]Jozwiak M, Oude Rengerink K, Benthem M, van Beek E, Dijksterhuis MG, de Graaf IM, van Huizen ME, Oudijk MA, Papatsonis DN, Perquin DA, Porath M, van der Post JA, Rijnders RJ, Scheepers HC, Spaanderman ME, van Pampus MG, de Leeuw JW, Mol BW, Bloemenkamp KW: 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.
• [10]Abramovici D, Goldwasser S, Mabie BC, Mercer BM, Goldwasser R, Sibai BM: A randomized comparison of oral misoprostol versus Foley catheter and oxytocin for induction of labor at term. Am J Obstet Gynecol 1999, 181:1108-1112.
• [11]Culver J, Strauss RA, Brody S, Dorman K, Timlin S, McMahon MJ: A randomized trial comparing vaginal misoprostol versus Foley catheter with concurrent oxytocin for labor induction in nulliparous women. Am J Perinatol 2004, 21:139-146.
• [12]Fox NS, Saltzman DH, Roman AS, Klauser CK, Moshier E, Rebarber A: Intravaginal misoprostol versus Foley catheter for labour induction: a meta-analysis. BJOG 2011, 118:647-654.
• [13]Jozwiak M, Bloemenkamp KW, Kelly AJ, Mol BW, Irion O, Boulvain M: Mechanical methods for induction of labour. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2012., 3CD001233
• [14]Oliveira MV, Oberst PV, Leite GK, Aguemi A, Kenj G, Leme VD, Sass N: Cervical Foley catheter versus vaginal misoprostol for cervical ripening and induction of labor: a randomized clinical trial. Revista brasileira de ginecologia e obstetrícia: revista da Federação Brasileira das Sociedades de Ginecologia e Obstetrícia 2010, 32:346-351.
• [15]van Gemund N, Scherjon S, LeCessie S, van Leeuwen JH, van RJ, Kanhai HH: A randomised trial comparing low dose vaginal misoprostol and dinoprostone for labour induction. BJOG 2004, 111:42-49.
• [16]Wijma K, Wijma B: Wijma Delivery Expectancy/Experience Questionnaire. Sweden: (W-DEQ version B). © 2004 Klaas Wijma, PhD, Professor Unit of Health Psychology/Gender and Medicine Faculty of Health Sciences, Linköping University;
• [17]Jones B, Jarvis P, Lewis JA, Ebbutt AF: Trials to assess equivalence: the importance of rigorous methods. BMJ 1996, 313:36-39.