ﺑﺎﺯﮔﺸﺖ ﺑﻪ ﺻﻔﺤﻪ ﻗﺒﻠﯽ
خرید پکیج
تعداد ایتم قابل مشاهده باقیمانده : 4 مورد

Induction of labor: Techniques for preinduction cervical ripening

Induction of labor: Techniques for preinduction cervical ripening
Author:
William Grobman, MD
Section Editor:
Charles J Lockwood, MD, MHCM
Deputy Editor:
Vanessa A Barss, MD, FACOG
Literature review current through: Aug 2021. | This topic last updated: Aug 02, 2021.

INTRODUCTION — When labor is induced, cervical status has an impact on the duration of induction and the likelihood of vaginal delivery. If the cervical status is unfavorable, a ripening process is generally employed prior to induction to shorten the duration of induction and maximize the possibility of vaginal delivery. Although cervical status at induction provides insight into the chance of cesarean delivery, it does not predict whether avoiding labor induction and managing the patient expectantly will result in a higher chance of vaginal delivery [1,2].

The two major techniques for cervical ripening are (1) mechanical interventions, such as insertion of balloon catheters or, less commonly, hygroscopic cervical dilators, and (2) application of pharmacologic agents, such as prostaglandins. These techniques will be reviewed in this topic. General issues regarding induction of labor and use of oxytocin are discussed separately. (See "Induction of labor with oxytocin".)

CANDIDATES FOR CERVICAL RIPENING — There is no universally accepted definition of favorable or unfavorable cervix. Many clinicians consider a Bishop score <6 (table 1) indicative of an unfavorable cervix and the need for a ripening agent, while others use a lower threshold (eg, ≤3 or 4) [3].

Conversely, if at admission the cervix is assessed to be favorable, oxytocin is initiated for induction without use of a cervical ripening agent. (See "Induction of labor with oxytocin".)

INPATIENT VERSUS OUTPATIENT CERVICAL RIPENING — Most patients undergo cervical ripening in the hospital. Outpatient approaches to cervical ripening for indications for which maternal and/or fetal monitoring are not otherwise necessary during the ripening phase could be useful in reducing the duration of hospitalization and costs of medical care. Investigators have used both prostaglandins and mechanical means for outpatient ripening; in the United States, there has been a tendency to prefer the latter given the greater chance of tachysystole with prostaglandin agents. Nevertheless, the available body of evidence is insufficient to support a recommendation for the most effective and safest approach, but it does suggest that outpatient approaches are feasible [4-6].

If institutions decide to proceed with outpatient ripening, they should follow clear protocols that describe preprocedure patient evaluation (eg, nonstress test or biophysical profile, ultrasound for fetal presentation); list contraindications for outpatient ripening, which are broader than those for inpatient ripening where continuous maternal and fetal monitoring is possible; and include a period of transient monitoring after initiating ripening (eg, after placement of a mechanical device) to assess for conditions (eg, rupture of membranes) that would preclude discharging the patient to home.

A survey of United Kingdom obstetric providers indicated that more than 17 percent of units were currently or soon-to-be providing outpatient induction of labor. The vast majority began the procedures in the hospital, used the time-released prostaglandin E2 insert, and monitored women with cardiotocodynamometry after insertion [7]. Only 40 percent, however, had clear procedures for management once the woman had gone home. The authors stated that there is a need for robust comparative research to establish the safety and cost-effectiveness of outpatient labor induction.

Investigators in the United States have reported that outpatient preinduction cervical ripening using a balloon catheter can be safely performed in properly selected patients [8-11]. The procedure generally has been limited to low-risk women with a singleton, live, vertex fetus at ≥37 weeks of gestation; exclusion criteria have included previous cesarean delivery, gestational hypertension or preeclampsia, pregestational diabetes, fetal growth restriction, rupture of membranes, and factors that could preclude prompt return to the hospital in the event of a problem.

The cost-effectiveness of outpatient cervical ripening compared with an inpatient approach has not been established. In an Australian cost-effectiveness analysis run in parallel with a small randomized trial of inpatient prostaglandin gel administration versus outpatient catheter placement, the outpatient arm was not more cost-effective [12]. Although outpatient balloon catheter treatment resulted in fewer inpatient hours and costs prior to birth, it did not reduce overall inpatient hours and failed to achieve comparable rates of vaginal delivery within 12 hours of birthing unit admission. In a randomized trial in the United States comparing the inpatient versus outpatient setting in nulliparas who underwent cervical ripening with a balloon catheter, outcomes were similar, but the outpatient group had a shorter time (4.3 hours) between admission to the hospital and delivery [11].

CHOICE OF RIPENING AGENT — There is no single, clear best practice with respect to the choice of agent used for cervical ripening: both mechanical and pharmacologic agents are acceptable options, in general. The choice should be based on provider or patient preference, unless there is a contraindication for use of a specific agent or technique [13-15]. In the United States, mechanical methods are preferred for outpatient cervical ripening. (See 'Contraindications' below and 'Contraindications' below.)

In general, balloon catheters have no or minimal side effects but necessitate a potentially uncomfortable vaginal procedure for catheter insertion. They have convenient storage requirements (eg, no refrigeration), which is an issue for some prostaglandin agents. Compared with balloon catheters, a theoretical advantage of using prostaglandins is a reduction in the need for oxytocin for augmentation or induction of labor since prostaglandins promote myometrial contractility [13,16]. Conversely, a theoretical disadvantage of using prostaglandins is the potential for excessive uterine activity, leading to fetal heart rate (FHR) abnormalities. However, in clinical trials, neither the theoretical advantage nor disadvantage has resulted in differences in clinically important outcomes (eg, cesarean delivery, neonatal morbidity).

A 2016 network meta-analysis comparing the use of misoprostol (oral, vaginal), dinoprostone, and the balloon catheter for cervical ripening concluded that no method was clearly superior when the rates of failure to achieve vaginal delivery within 24 hours, uterine tachysystole with adverse FHR changes, and cesarean delivery were all taken into account [14]:

Use of vaginal misoprostol or vaginal dinoprostone reduced the risk of failure to achieve vaginal delivery within 24 hours compared with use of a balloon catheter, oral misoprostol, or intracervical dinoprostone, but increased the risk of uterine hyperstimulation with adverse FHR changes compared with other agents.

Use of a balloon catheter for cervical ripening resulted in the lowest risk of uterine hyperstimulation with adverse FHR changes.

Use of oral misoprostol resulted in the lowest risk of cesarean delivery.

This analysis did not consider combined methods (balloon catheter and concurrent prostaglandin or oxytocin), which in some studies have been shown to shorten the time to vaginal delivery and are becoming increasingly common. (See 'Balloon catheter combined with a prostaglandin or oxytocin' below.)

Limitations of available data — Interpretation of available data on cervical ripening is hindered by several factors, which make it difficult to identify the methods of cervical ripening and labor induction, either used alone or in combination, that are most effective. These factors include:

A basic lack of understanding of the physiologic events that initiate and sustain labor.

Wide biologic variation in the progress of normal labor.

Failure of studies to distinguish between cervical ripening and labor induction.

Use of different clinical endpoints in research studies (eg, change in cervical status versus length of labor versus route of delivery).

Few trials comparing multiple methods.

Inadequate data on patient-reported outcomes, such as satisfaction.

WHEN TO DISCONTINUE THE CERVICAL RIPENING AGENT — Once a ripening agent is initiated, it is typically continued until the cervix is favorable. There is no evidence-based time cutoff that prohibits continued efforts at cervical ripening when the cervix remains unfavorable. However, when using a balloon catheter, many clinicians will not continue efforts at cervical ripening if it falls out or if membranes spontaneously rupture.

PROSTAGLANDINS

Overview of use

Mechanism of action — Prostaglandins promote a number of biochemical and biophysical changes that lead to cervical ripening and an increase in myometrial contractility. The mechanisms involved in prostaglandin-induced cervical ripening are beyond the scope of this topic but have been reviewed elsewhere [17,18].

Contraindications

Prostaglandins are contraindicated for cervical ripening or labor induction in term pregnancies with a prior cesarean birth or other prior major uterine surgery (eg, intramyometrial myomectomy that was likely to have significantly compromised the myometrium, repair of major congenital uterine anomalies) because of the association with an increased risk for uterine rupture [19]. (See "Cervical ripening and induction of labor in women with a prior cesarean birth", section on 'Use of prostaglandins'.)

Preexisting regular uterine activity is a relative contraindication to use of prostaglandins, given that the addition of an exogenous uterotonic agent could prompt excessive uterine activity.

When administering prostaglandins for cervical ripening, clinicians should be mindful of baseline uterine activity and consider delaying or avoiding administration if the patient is having ≥2 painful contractions/10 minutes. This is most important in patients who have already received at least one dose of prostaglandin as there appears to be a cumulative uterotonic effect. However, good evidence as to the best threshold of uterine activity for avoiding prostaglandins is not available. Clinicians should use their clinical judgment in making this decision, taking into account patient-specific factors such as grand multiparity, fetal status, the degree of discomfort/pain that the patient has experienced with previous doses, and the total number of doses of prostaglandins administered.

Administration and use of oxytocin and amniotomy

Uterine contraction frequency and intensity should be checked before administration. As discussed above, delaying or avoiding administration if the patient is having ≥2 painful contractions/10 minutes may reduce the risk of tachysystole. (See 'Contraindications' above.)

Uterine activity and fetal heart rate (FHR) should be monitored continuously for at least 30 minutes after administration, and monitoring should be maintained as long as regular uterine activity is present [3].

If labor does not ensue and the cervix remains unfavorable after administration, repeated doses can be given (timing depends on the specific agent) or oxytocin can be initiated (timing depends on the specific agent) [20]. (See 'Specific agents' below and "Induction of labor with oxytocin", section on 'Oxytocin administration'.)

Amniotomy soon after the last dose of misoprostol or removal of a dinoprostone insert shortens the time interval from induction to delivery compared with waiting until spontaneous rupture of membranes [21,22].

Side effects — Side effects of prostaglandins include tachysystole, fever, chills, vomiting, and diarrhea. The frequency of these side effects depends upon the type of prostaglandin, dose, and route of administration. Uterine contractile abnormalities occur in up to 30 percent of cases, depending upon the vehicle and route of administration; other systemic effects occur in up to 5 percent of cases.

Management:

Treatment of maternal discomfort is supportive (eg, acetaminophen, warm blanket, antiemetic).

If tachysystole with an abnormal FHR occurs after placement of a prostaglandin vaginal insert, removal of the insert usually reduces uterine contractility, normalizes the FHR, and does not appear to prolong the time to delivery [23]. However, if prostaglandin gel was applied, removal of remaining gel is not possible. Cervicovaginal lavage is not helpful for removing the drug or reversing adverse effects. Theoretically, remnants of a misoprostol tablet can be removed from the vagina if necessary. A tocolytic drug (eg, terbutaline 250 mcg subcutaneously) can be administered if in utero resuscitation is indicated.

Efficacy — Multiple meta-analyses of randomized trials have established the efficacy of these agents for cervical ripening (change in Bishop score) and improving the chance of delivering vaginally within 12 or 24 hours, but a clear reduction in overall cesarean delivery rate has not been demonstrated consistently [16,24-30].

Specific agents — The optimal type, route, frequency, and dose of prostaglandins for cervical ripening has not been determined despite many studies of their use. Meta-analyses have reported the following relative findings, but reliable absolute rates of vaginal delivery within 24 hours are difficult to cite because of variability in patients and procedures among the underlying trials:

Local administration of prostaglandins via the vagina or endocervix is associated with a lower frequency of side effects than oral administration, while maintaining an acceptable clinical response [25].

Intravaginal misoprostol is associated with the highest probability of achieving vaginal delivery within 24 hours [27].

Intravaginal prostaglandin E2 (PGE2) is more likely to result in vaginal delivery within 24 hours than endocervical PGE2, but both preparations are associated with similar rates of cesarean delivery and tachysystole [26].

Prostaglandin E1 (misoprostol) — Misoprostol (Cytotec) is a prostaglandin E1 analog available as 100 and 200 mcg tablets, which can be broken to provide 25 or 50 mcg doses. It is rapidly absorbed from both the oral and vaginal routes [31]. Either route is reasonable; available data do not indicate that one route of administration is clearly better than another in terms of important health outcomes.

The approved indication for misoprostol is treatment and prevention of gastric ulcer disease related to chronic nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drug use. Administration of this drug for cervical ripening and labor induction is considered an off-label use in the United States. However, there is good evidence that it is an effective alternative to PGE2 preparations for cervical ripening and labor induction [16,28-30,32]. The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG) has stated that use of misoprostol appears as safe and efficacious as other prostaglandin agents when used as a cervical ripening and/or labor induction agent as described below [3].

Vaginal administration — In most patients, a dose such as 25 mcg should be used initially, with redosing intervals of three to six hours [28,33-35]. Oxytocin may be initiated, if necessary, four hours after the final misoprostol dose.

The optimal dose and timing interval of intravaginally applied misoprostol are unknown [28,36-39]. A meta-analysis reported that the 50 mcg dose was more effective than the 25 mcg dose (eg, resulted in a higher chance of delivery after a single dose and of delivery within 24 hours, and a lower chance of oxytocin use), but the 25 mcg dose resulted in lower rates of tachysystole, cesarean delivery for nonreassuring FHR, neonatal intensive care units admission, and meconium passage [40].

Misoprostol 50 mcg at six-hour intervals may be appropriate in some situations, such as inadequate uterine activity at lower doses; however, this dose has been associated with a higher risk of tachysystole [3].

A misoprostol vaginal insert consisting of a controlled-release, retrievable polymer chip for gradual delivery of 200 mcg over 24 hours is available in some countries, but is not available in the United States. In a large randomized trial comparing women who received the misoprostol vaginal insert with those receiving a dinoprostone vaginal insert, use of the misoprostol vaginal insert resulted in a significantly shorter median time to vaginal delivery (21.5 versus 32.8 hours) but also resulted in a higher chance of uterine tachysystole requiring intervention (13.3 versus 4 percent) and did not change the chance of cesarean delivery [41].

Oral administration — When administered orally, the concentration peaks sooner and declines more rapidly than with vaginal administration (figure 1) [31]. Oxytocin may be initiated, if necessary, four hours after the final misoprostol dose.

Despite the large number of trials of oral misoprostol for cervical ripening, there is no clear consensus as to the optimum oral dose, dosing interval, or maximum number of doses. There is also no consensus regarding having the patient swallow a tablet versus a titrated oral misoprostol solution. A 2021 meta-analysis supported the use of low-dose oral misoprostol for induction of labor, and suggested that a starting dose of 25 mcg may offer a good balance of efficacy and safety [30]. It should be noted, however, that the authors considered the recommendation to have only moderate-to-low certainty given imprecision, inconsistency, and study limitations. Included trials compared oral misoprostol protocols of one‐ to two‐hourly versus four‐ to six‐hourly dosing; doses of 20 to 25 mcg versus 50 mcg; and 20 mcg hourly titrated versus 25 mcg two‐hourly static.

Buccal or sublingual administration — Other approaches to use of misoprostol, including buccal and sublingual administration, have been described, but are less well studied and should be considered investigational [42-45]. These routes of administration may avoid first-pass hepatic metabolism associated with oral ingestion and thus increase bioavailability similar to that achieved with vaginal administration. Pharmacokinetic data support the hypothesis that buccal and sublingual routes of administration are associated with more rapid onset of action and greater bioavailability than other routes [42]. Additionally, it is hypothesized that administration using these routes may reduce the risk of tachysystole by avoiding direct uterine effects.

However, a meta-analysis of five small trials (n = 740 women) of sublingual versus vaginal administration found no significant differences in rate of vaginal delivery not achieved within 24 hours (odds ratio [OR] 1.27, 95% CI 0.87-1.84), uterine hyperstimulation syndrome (OR 1.20, 95% CI 0.61-2.33), or cesarean delivery (OR 1.33, 95% CI 0.96-1.85), but uterine tachysystole was increased in the sublingual misoprostol group (OR 1.70, 95% CI 1.02-2.83) [46]. A subsequent well-designed trial (IMPROVE) including 300 women suggested vaginal misoprostol may be superior to the buccal route: time to vaginal delivery was reduced by eight hours, and fewer emergency cesareans were performed for FHR abnormalities [47].

A randomized trial reported that 50 mcg of sublingual misoprostol every four hours was as effective and safe as 100 mcg orally [44].

Prostaglandin E2 — Prepidil and Cervidil are two PGE2 preparations commercially available for cervical ripening in the United States. Other formulations are available worldwide (eg, Prostin E2 gel containing 1 mg or 2 mg dinoprostone for vaginal insertion, Prostin E2 0.5 mg tablet for oral administration). These drugs are more costly than misoprostol.

Prepidil — Prepidil contains 0.5 mg of dinoprostone in 2.5 mL of gel for endocervical administration. The dose can be repeated in 6 to 12 hours if cervical change is inadequate and uterine activity is minimal following the first dose. The manufacturer recommends that the maximum cumulative dose of dinoprostone not exceed 1.5 mg (ie, three doses) within a 24-hour period.

The time interval between the final dose and initiation of oxytocin should be 6 to 12 hours because of the potential for uterine tachysystole with concurrent oxytocin and PGE2 prostaglandin administration. (See "Induction of labor with oxytocin", section on 'Complications'.)

Cervidil — Cervidil is a vaginal insert containing 10 mg of dinoprostone in a timed-release formulation (the medication is released at 0.3 mg/hour). The insert is left in place until active labor begins or for 12 hours. Oxytocin may be initiated anytime beyond 30 minutes after removal of the insert unless there is a contraction or FHR pattern that is a contraindication to oxytocin use.

A theoretical advantage of the vaginal insert over the gel formulation is that the vaginal insert can be removed in cases of uterine tachysystole or abnormalities of the FHR tracing [48,49], although this possibility has not translated into better clinical outcomes than other ripening methods.

MECHANICAL METHODS

Overview of use

Types — Insertion of a balloon catheter (eg, Foley bladder catheter) through the endocervical canal and into the extraamniotic space is the most common mechanical method currently in use. Placement of hygroscopic dilators into the endocervical canal and extending through the internal cervical os is an alternative mechanical method.

Mechanism of action — Mechanical methods of cervical ripening have been theorized to work both by direct physical pressure on the internal cervical os and by causing the release of prostaglandins from the decidua, adjacent membranes, and/or cervix. These effects combine to promote a number of biochemical and biophysical changes that lead to cervical ripening and an increase in myometrial contractility.

Contraindications — There are no absolute contraindications to mechanical methods of cervical ripening in women who are candidates for labor and vaginal delivery. Group B Streptococcus (GBS) colonization is not a contraindication to use of mechanical methods of cervical ripening, and standard chemoprophylaxis should be used when labor begins or at rupture of membranes, whichever occurs first. (See "Early-onset neonatal group B streptococcal disease: Prevention", section on 'Patients undergoing obstetric procedures'.)

Although polyhydramnios is stated as a contraindication to use of a balloon catheter in the Cook Cervical Ripening Balloon package insert, this is not an absolute contraindication to use if induction is indicated, as long as there are no other contraindications to labor induction and vaginal birth (eg, malpresentation, which is more likely in the setting of hydramnios). The author has not seen any evidence that the balloon catheter is more likely to lead to prelabor rupture of membranes, cord prolapse, or adverse perinatal outcomes compared with use of prostaglandins for cervical ripening.

A low-lying placenta is a relative contraindication since the edge of the placenta may be disrupted by manipulation during placement of the device.

Some practitioners do not place mechanical devices for cervical ripening in women with ruptured membranes, some remove the device if membranes rupture at any time after placement, and others limit the duration of cervical ripening to 12 hours if membranes rupture after placement. While there is not total consensus on optimal management in this setting, the package insert for the Cook Cervical Ripening Balloon lists ruptured membranes as a contraindication to placement and an indication for deflation and removal. This author typically does not place a balloon catheter if membranes have ruptured and removes the catheter if rupture of membranes occurs while it is in place, given concerns about increasing the risk of clinical chorioamnionitis. Available data are reviewed separately. (See "Prelabor rupture of the fetal membranes at term: Management", section on 'Active management'.)

In patients with intact membranes who are undergoing cervical ripening for labor induction, the use of a balloon catheter is not absolutely contraindicated in the uncommon scenario of intraamniotic infection.

Side effects — Mechanical methods of cervical ripening do not cause systemic side effects and are associated with a lower rate of tachysystole than prostaglandins [13,16]. Meta-analyses of randomized trials have not found convincing evidence of an increased risk of infectious morbidity in mothers or neonates exposed to mechanical methods of cervical ripening compared with those exposed to prostaglandins [15,50]. Importantly, these trials typically have excluded women with ruptured membranes.

Balloon catheter

Device selection — A double-balloon catheter specifically designed for cervical ripening is commercially available (figure 2); alternatively, a single-balloon catheter (eg, Foley bladder catheter) can be used. In meta-analyses of comparative trials, there were no clinically important differences in outcomes with use of a double- versus a single-balloon catheter [51,52]. However, the single-balloon catheter is less expensive and more readily available.

Procedure — The balloon catheter is placed using aseptic technique. Although continuous uterine activity and fetal heart rate (FHR) monitoring are often used while it is in place, investigators also have assessed and safely used only transient monitoring (eg, 30 minutes) after placement [8-10].

Single-balloon catheter

Ring forceps can be used to pass a deflated single-balloon catheter (30 to 80 mL) through the internal cervical os and into the extraamniotic space [53,54]. Alternatively, the catheter can be inserted manually, similar to an intrauterine pressure catheter. This is usually possible even if the cervix is not dilated since the pregnant cervix is soft and distensible and rarely tightly closed. If it is difficult to pass the catheter, a urologic sound or other rigid device can be inserted into the catheter to facilitate placement.

In a meta-analysis of randomized trials comparing use of larger (60 to 80 mL) versus smaller (30 mL) volumes during cervical ripening, larger balloon volumes resulted in a shorter time from induction to delivery (mean difference 1.97 hours, 95% CI -3.88 to -0.06) but had a similar cesarean delivery rate, time to vaginal delivery, time to catheter expulsion, and maternal and fetal complication rates [55]. These data suggest that either a large or small balloon volume is a reasonable choice.

The balloon is distended with saline. If a sound or other rigid device was used, it is removed before or while beginning instillation of saline. The dilated balloon is then gently retracted so that it rests against the internal os without extending into the endocervical canal.

Many clinicians tape the end of the catheter to the inner thigh, placing it on tension, with readjustment to maintain tension at occasional intervals. A randomized trial noted a decrease in time to balloon expulsion when traction was used but no effect on the time to delivery [56]. Some clinicians attach a weight (eg, 1 L of fluid) to the end of the catheter and suspend it from the end of the bed. Weighted traction may shorten the time to spontaneous expulsion but did not shorten the time to delivery in two randomized trials [56,57].

The catheter is typically left in place until it is extruded; if not extruded, it is removed by 12 hours after insertion. A randomized trial found that removing nonextruded catheters after 12 hours and beginning oxytocin resulted in significantly more vaginal deliveries within 24 hours than waiting 24 hours before removal and oxytocin induction (60 versus 21 percent) and did not lead to an increased risk of cesarean delivery [58]. That said, there is no absolute contraindication to leaving the catheter in place for more than 12 hours.

Double-balloon catheter — The procedure for inserting a double-balloon catheter is similar to that described for the single-balloon catheter (see 'Single-balloon catheter' above), with the following modifications:

The catheter is inserted until the proximal balloon is in the cervical canal, at which point the distal balloon should be intrauterine and in the extraamniotic space.

The intrauterine balloon is inflated with 40 mL saline and gently retracted so that it rests against the internal os.

The proximal balloon should now be outside the external os and is inflated with 20 mL saline.

If the balloons are correctly situated on either end of the cervix, the balloons can now be inflated with up to 80 mL saline per balloon.

Use of oxytocin and amniotomy — After the balloon catheter is extruded or removed, oxytocin is begun and amniotomy is performed, if technically possible [59,60].

Alternatively, oxytocin can be initiated concurrently with the catheter in place. (See 'Balloon catheter combined with a prostaglandin or oxytocin' below.)

Efficacy — Use of balloon catheters has been associated with a mean change in Bishop score of 3.3 to 5.3 [61]. A meta-analysis of mechanical methods for induction of labor reported an unfavorable cervix was still present after 12 hours in only 6 percent of women treated with a balloon catheter compared with 86 percent of women in the no treatment group (relative risk [RR] 0.07, 95% CI 0.03-0.19) [62].

A subsequent meta-analysis compared outcomes using the balloon catheter with outcomes using prostaglandin E2 (PGE2) as well as with oral or vaginal misoprostol (n = 113 trials, >22,000 women) [15]. Major findings were:

The balloon catheter and PGE2 were similarly effective:

Vaginal delivery not achieved in 24 hours – RR 1.01, 95% CI 0.82-1.26

Cesarean delivery – RR 1.00, 95% CI 0.92-1.09

The balloon catheter may be slightly less effective than low-dose vaginal misoprostol:

Vaginal delivery not achieved in 24 hours – RR 1.09, 95% CI 0.85-1.39

Cesarean delivery – RR 1.28, 95% CI 1.02-1.60

The balloon catheter may be slightly less effective than low-dose oral misoprostol:

Vaginal delivery not achieved in 24 hours – RR 1.28, 95% CI 1.13-1.46

Cesarean delivery – RR 1.17, 95% CI 1.04-1.32

The balloon catheter resulted in a lower risk of uterine tachysystole with FHR changes compared with PGE2, vaginal misoprostol, and oral misoprostol (RR 0.35, 95% CI 0.18-0.67; RR 0.39, 95% CI 0.18-0.85; and RR 0.81, 95% CI 0.48-1.38, respectively).

The balloon catheter resulted in less serious neonatal morbidity or perinatal death compared with PGE2 (RR 0.48, 95% CI 0.25-0.93).

It should be noted, however, that much of the evidence in this meta-analysis was classified as "low quality."

Balloon catheter combined with a prostaglandin or oxytocin — The combination of mechanical and pharmacologic ripening methods does not appear to increase adverse obstetric or perinatal outcomes and may have modest benefits over the use of a single method alone. If a provider chooses to give oxytocin concurrently, either a fixed low dose or standard incremental dose regimen is acceptable (table 2) [63].

In a network meta-analysis (30 randomized trials, 6465 pregnancies), the combination of a balloon catheter plus a prostaglandin (cBC/P) or a balloon catheter plus oxytocin (cBC/O) compared with a balloon catheter alone [64]:

Hastened the time to vaginal delivery (cBC/P: -2.9 hours, 95% CI -5.7 to 0; cBC/O: -4.2 hours, 95% CI -6.5 to -1.9).

Increased the chance of delivery within 24 hours (cBC/P: odds ratio [OR] 1.80, 95% CI 1.02-3.20; cBC/O: OR 2.04, 95% CI 1.29-3.24).

Did not significantly affect the chance of cesarean delivery (cBC/P: OR 0.89, 95% CI 0.65-1.20; cBC/O: OR 0.99, 95% CI 0.74-1.33) or adverse events (chorioamnionitis, endometritis, tachysystole, meconium, neonatal intensive care unit admission, postpartum hemorrhage).

In a previous meta-analysis of randomized trials, compared with using a prostaglandin alone, cBC/P reduced the chances of not achieving a vaginal delivery within 24 hours (RR 0.45, 95% CI 0.28-0.71, three trials, 698 women) but did not significantly impact the chance of cesarean delivery (RR 0.92, 95% CI 0.79-1.08, eight trials, 1295 women) [62]. Surprisingly, cBC/P reduced the risk of uterine tachysystole with adverse FHR changes (RR 0.53, 95% CI 0.35-0.78).

Two randomized trials addressing this issue were subsequently published. In one (491 participants), women who received cBC/vaginal misoprostol delivered more quickly than those who received either vaginal misoprostol alone (hazard ratio [HR] 1.92, 95% CI 1.42-2.59) or a balloon catheter alone (HR 1.87, 95% CI 1.39-2.52); there were no significant differences between groups in the frequency of cesarean delivery or adverse maternal or neonatal health outcomes [65].

In the other trial, 1117 women at term were assigned to receive cBC/oral misoprostol and 1110 were assigned to oral misoprostol alone [66]. As in previous trials, the two groups had similar rates of vaginal delivery. In contrast to other trials, however, the groups had similar time to delivery, and those in the cBC/oral misoprostol arm had a higher risk of clinical chorioamnionitis compared with oral misoprostol alone (18 versus 14 percent). The trial design was cluster randomization: randomization was not performed at the individual level. Instead, all individuals induced during a given week were assigned to an unblinded method randomly determined at the start of the week. Also, the investigators used a misoprostol dose higher than that in many other studies (100 mcg), had a notable proportion (15 percent) of individuals in whom the balloon catheter was not placed after randomization to the combined arm, and utilized 12 to 24 hours of rest for some individuals after the induction had started based on judgment regarding progress of the induction. Given these aspects, the applicability of these results to other settings is uncertain.

Hygroscopic dilators — There are two types of hygroscopic dilators: One is made from natural seaweed (laminaria tents), and the other is a synthetic product (eg, Dilapan-S). Hygroscopic dilators are designed to absorb moisture and thus gradually expand within the cervical canal. In addition, disruption of the interface between the fetal membranes and decidua can lead to prostaglandin release, with consequent changes in cervical tissue beyond the passive mechanical stretching provided by the tent itself.

Hygroscopic dilators are as safe and effective as other cervical ripening agents [67,68], although they are more commonly used during pregnancy termination than for preinduction cervical ripening of term pregnancies. (See "Overview of pregnancy termination", section on 'Cervical dilation and preparation'.)

Some clinicians prefer to use hygroscopic dilators rather than balloon catheters in patients with a prior cesarean delivery who are scheduled for induction of labor. However, there is no strong evidence on which to base a recommendation favoring one approach over the other.

Procedure — After prepping the cervix and vagina with an antiseptic, the cervix is held with a nontraumatic clamp, if necessary, and the maximum number of dilators that the endocervical canal can accommodate are inserted without using excessive force; some cramping is common. Dipping the laminaria in a sterile lubricant before insertion may facilitate placement. The dilators can be packed in place with two 4 by 4 inch gauze sponges tucked into the fornices; the number of dilators and gauze sponges that were inserted should be recorded in the patient's chart at insertion and at removal.

Laminaria typically are removed 12 to 24 hours after placement, whereas synthetic dilators can be removed sooner, after 6 to 8 hours.

Efficacy — In a meta-analysis of randomized trials, the risk of tachysystole with adverse FHR changes was lower in women who received laminaria compared with those who received prostaglandins (RR 0.13, 95% CI 0.04-0.48, five studies, 538 women). The cesarean delivery rate was similar for women receiving laminaria and those receiving any prostaglandin (vaginal PGE2, intracervical PGE2, or misoprostol) or balloon catheters [62]. Addition of either prostaglandins or oxytocin to laminaria during cervical ripening did not appear to improve outcomes.

OTHER APPROACHES

Other cervical ripening drugs and techniques — Relaxin [69-71], nitric oxide donors [72], hyaluronidase [73], corticosteroids [74], castor oil [75], sexual intercourse [76,77], breast stimulation [78], and herbal preparations [79] have been used for cervical ripening, although we recommend not using these approaches because of limited data regarding safety and/or efficacy and the availability of proven alternatives.

Extraamniotic saline infusion is a procedure in which sterile saline is infused continuously via a balloon catheter placed in the extraamniotic space [80-83]. However, it has not been shown to have clear advantage over other methods (balloon catheter alone, prostaglandins) [62,84-86].

SPECIAL POPULATIONS

Fetal demise — (See "Stillbirth: Maternal care", section on 'Birth'.)

Previous cesarean delivery — (See "Cervical ripening and induction of labor in women with a prior cesarean birth".)

SOCIETY GUIDELINE LINKS — Links to society and government-sponsored guidelines from selected countries and regions around the world are provided separately. (See "Society guideline links: Cervical ripening and labor induction".)

SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATIONS

Choice of cervical ripening agent — The ideal methods for cervical ripening and labor induction have yet to be identified. Clinical studies of human parturition are hindered by a lack of understanding of the physiologic events that initiate and sustain labor. There is wide biologic variation among pregnant women in the progress of normal labor and iatrogenic variation in the management of labor and labor induction; this makes the investigation of new uterotonic agents difficult. Although data from randomized trials comparing different cervical ripening approaches are available, there are insufficient comparative data to determine which of several methods (type, dose, inpatient/outpatient) is the most effective and offers the best safety profile. Variation in indications for induction, parity, and gestational age at induction, as well as other demographic features, undoubtedly affects clinical results.

For women who are scheduled for labor induction and have an unfavorable cervix (eg, Bishop score <6), clinical outcomes are similar whether prostaglandins (E2 or E1) or transcervical balloon catheter placement is used for cervical ripening. (See 'Choice of ripening agent' above.)

Prostaglandins

Prostaglandins are contraindicated for cervical ripening or labor induction in term pregnancies with a prior cesarean birth or other prior major uterine surgery. Preexisting regular uterine activity is a relative contraindication. (See 'Contraindications' above.)

After administration of a prostaglandin, if labor does not ensue and the cervix remains unfavorable, then repeated doses of prostaglandin can be given (timing depends on the specific agent) or oxytocin can be initiated (timing after the last prostaglandin dose depends upon the specific agent), respectively. (See 'Administration and use of oxytocin and amniotomy' above.)

Side effects of prostaglandins include tachysystole, fever, chills, vomiting, and diarrhea. The frequency of these complications depends upon the type of prostaglandin, dose, and route of administration. Uterine contractile abnormalities are encountered in up to 30 percent of cases, depending upon the vehicle and route of administration; other systemic effects occur in up to 5 percent of cases. (See 'Side effects' above.)

Treatment of maternal discomfort is supportive (eg, acetaminophen, blanket, antiemetic).

If tachysystole with fetal heart rate (FHR) changes occurs after placement of a prostaglandin vaginal insert, removal of the insert usually reduces uterine contractility and normalizes FHR abnormalities. It may be possible to remove the remaining portion of a misoprostol pill, but prostaglandin gel cannot be removed. A tocolytic drug (eg, terbutaline 250 mcg subcutaneously) can be administered if in utero resuscitation is indicated.

Balloon catheter

There are no absolute contraindications to mechanical methods of cervical ripening in women who are candidates for labor and vaginal delivery. A low-lying placenta is a relative contraindication since the edge of the placenta may be disrupted by manipulation during placement of the device. (See 'Contraindications' above.)

Some practitioners do not place mechanical devices for cervical ripening in women with ruptured membranes, some remove the device if membranes rupture at any time after placement, and others limit the duration of cervical ripening to 12 hours if membranes rupture after placement. While there is not total consensus on optimal management in this setting, the package insert for the Cook Cervical Ripening Balloon lists ruptured membranes as a contraindication to placement and an indication for deflation and removal. (See 'Contraindications' above.)

Mechanical methods of cervical ripening do not cause systemic side effects and are associated with a lower rate of tachysystole than prostaglandins. (See 'Side effects' above.)

Oxytocin can be started concurrently or after the catheter has been extruded or removed. (See 'Use of oxytocin and amniotomy' above.)

Combined use of a balloon catheter and a prostaglandin or oxytocin

The combination of mechanical and pharmacologic ripening methods does not appear to increase adverse obstetric or perinatal outcomes and may have modest benefits over the use of a single method alone. Combination therapy appears to hasten the time to vaginal delivery and increases the chance of delivery within 24 hours, but does not appear to affect cesarean delivery rates or risk of adverse events, such as chorioamnionitis, endometritis, tachysystole, meconium, neonatal intensive care unit admission, or postpartum hemorrhage. (See 'Balloon catheter combined with a prostaglandin or oxytocin' above.)

ACKNOWLEDGMENT — The editorial staff at UpToDate would like to acknowledge Deborah A Wing, MD, MBA, who contributed to an earlier version of this topic review.

REFERENCES

  1. Bernardes TP, Broekhuijsen K, Koopmans CM, et al. Caesarean section rates and adverse neonatal outcomes after induction of labour versus expectant management in women with an unripe cervix: a secondary analysis of the HYPITAT and DIGITAT trials. BJOG 2016; 123:1501.
  2. Tajik P, van der Tuuk K, Koopmans CM, et al. Should cervical favourability play a role in the decision for labour induction in gestational hypertension or mild pre-eclampsia at term? An exploratory analysis of the HYPITAT trial. BJOG 2012; 119:1123.
  3. ACOG Committee on Practice Bulletins -- Obstetrics. ACOG Practice Bulletin No. 107: Induction of labor. Obstet Gynecol 2009; 114:386. Reaffirmed 2019.
  4. Alfirevic Z, Gyte GM, Nogueira Pileggi V, et al. Home versus inpatient induction of labour for improving birth outcomes. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2020; 8:CD007372.
  5. Dong S, Khan M, Hashimi F, et al. Inpatient versus outpatient induction of labour: a systematic review and meta-analysis. BMC Pregnancy Childbirth 2020; 20:382.
  6. McDonagh M, Skelly AC, Tilden E, et al. Outpatient Cervical Ripening: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis. Obstet Gynecol 2021; 137:1091.
  7. Sharp AN, Stock SJ, Alfirevic Z. Outpatient induction of labour in the UK: a survey of practice. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol 2016; 204:21.
  8. Sciscione AC, Muench M, Pollock M, et al. Transcervical Foley catheter for preinduction cervical ripening in an outpatient versus inpatient setting. Obstet Gynecol 2001; 98:751.
  9. Sciscione AC, Bedder CL, Hoffman MK, et al. The timing of adverse events with Foley catheter preinduction cervical ripening; implications for outpatient use. Am J Perinatol 2014; 31:781.
  10. Kuper SG, Jauk VC, George DM, et al. Outpatient Foley Catheter for Induction of Labor in Parous Women: A Randomized Controlled Trial. Obstet Gynecol 2018; 132:94.
  11. Ausbeck EB, Jauk VC, Xue Y, et al. Outpatient Foley Catheter for Induction of Labor in Nulliparous Women: A Randomized Controlled Trial. Obstet Gynecol 2020; 136:597.
  12. Austin K, Chambers GM, de Abreu Lourenco R, et al. Cost-effectiveness of term induction of labour using inpatient prostaglandin gel versus outpatient Foley catheter. Aust N Z J Obstet Gynaecol 2015; 55:440.
  13. Vaknin Z, Kurzweil Y, Sherman D. Foley catheter balloon vs locally applied prostaglandins for cervical ripening and labor induction: a systematic review and metaanalysis. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2010; 203:418.
  14. Chen W, Xue J, Peprah MK, et al. A systematic review and network meta-analysis comparing the use of Foley catheters, misoprostol, and dinoprostone for cervical ripening in the induction of labour. BJOG 2016; 123:346.
  15. de Vaan MD, Ten Eikelder ML, Jozwiak M, et al. Mechanical methods for induction of labour. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2019; 10:CD001233.
  16. Fox NS, Saltzman DH, Roman AS, et al. Intravaginal misoprostol versus Foley catheter for labour induction: a meta-analysis. BJOG 2011; 118:647.
  17. Yount SM, Lassiter N. The pharmacology of prostaglandins for induction of labor. J Midwifery Womens Health 2013; 58:133.
  18. Pierce S, Bakker R, Myers DA, Edwards RK. Clinical Insights for Cervical Ripening and Labor Induction Using Prostaglandins. AJP Rep 2018; 8:e307.
  19. Lydon-Rochelle M, Holt VL, Easterling TR, Martin DP. Risk of uterine rupture during labor among women with a prior cesarean delivery. N Engl J Med 2001; 345:3.
  20. Beckmann M, Kumar S, Flenady V, Harker E. Prostaglandin vaginal gel induction of labor comparing amniotomy with repeat prostaglandin gel. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2015; 213:859.e1.
  21. Makarem MH, Zahran KM, Abdellah MS, Karen MA. Early amniotomy after vaginal misoprostol for induction of labor: a randomized clinical trial. Arch Gynecol Obstet 2013; 288:261.
  22. Bostancı E, Eser A, Yayla Abide C, et al. Early amniotomy after dinoprostone insert used for the induction of labor: a randomized clinical trial. J Matern Fetal Neonatal Med 2018; 31:352.
  23. Rugarn O, Tipping D, Powers B, Wing DA. Induction of labour with retrievable prostaglandin vaginal inserts: outcomes following retrieval due to an intrapartum adverse event. BJOG 2017; 124:796.
  24. Thomas J, Fairclough A, Kavanagh J, Kelly AJ. Vaginal prostaglandin (PGE2 and PGF2a) for induction of labour at term. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2014; :CD003101.
  25. Keirse MJ. Prostaglandins in preinduction cervical ripening. Meta-analysis of worldwide clinical experience. J Reprod Med 1993; 38:89.
  26. Boulvain M, Kelly A, Irion O. Intracervical prostaglandins for induction of labour. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2008; :CD006971.
  27. Alfirevic Z, Keeney E, Dowswell T, et al. Labour induction with prostaglandins: a systematic review and network meta-analysis. BMJ 2015; 350:h217.
  28. Hofmeyr GJ, Gülmezoglu AM, Pileggi C. Vaginal misoprostol for cervical ripening and induction of labour. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2010; :CD000941.
  29. Austin SC, Sanchez-Ramos L, Adair CD. Labor induction with intravaginal misoprostol compared with the dinoprostone vaginal insert: a systematic review and metaanalysis. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2010; 202:624.e1.
  30. Kerr RS, Kumar N, Williams MJ, et al. Low-dose oral misoprostol for induction of labour. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2021; 6:CD014484.
  31. Khan RU, El-Refaey H, Sharma S, et al. Oral, rectal, and vaginal pharmacokinetics of misoprostol. Obstet Gynecol 2004; 103:866.
  32. Muzonzini G, Hofmeyr GJ. Buccal or sublingual misoprostol for cervical ripening and induction of labour. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2004; :CD004221.
  33. Calder AA, Loughney AD, Weir CJ, Barber JW. Induction of labour in nulliparous and multiparous women: a UK, multicentre, open-label study of intravaginal misoprostol in comparison with dinoprostone. BJOG 2008; 115:1279.
  34. Tan TC, Yan SY, Chua TM, et al. A randomised controlled trial of low-dose misoprostol and dinoprostone vaginal pessaries for cervical priming. BJOG 2010; 117:1270.
  35. Tang J, Kapp N, Dragoman M, de Souza JP. WHO recommendations for misoprostol use for obstetric and gynecologic indications. Int J Gynaecol Obstet 2013; 121:186.
  36. Wing DA, Ortiz-Omphroy G, Paul RH. A comparison of intermittent vaginal administration of misoprostol with continuous dinoprostone for cervical ripening and labor induction. Am J Obstet Gynecol 1997; 177:612.
  37. Farah LA, Sanchez-Ramos L, Rosa C, et al. Randomized trial of two doses of the prostaglandin E1 analog misoprostol for labor induction. Am J Obstet Gynecol 1997; 177:364.
  38. Wing DA. Labor induction with misoprostol. Am J Obstet Gynecol 1999; 181:339.
  39. Sanchez-Ramos L, Kaunitz AM, Wears RL, et al. Misoprostol for cervical ripening and labor induction: a meta-analysis. Obstet Gynecol 1997; 89:633.
  40. McMaster K, Sanchez-Ramos L, Kaunitz AM. Balancing the efficacy and safety of misoprostol: a meta-analysis comparing 25 versus 50 micrograms of intravaginal misoprostol for the induction of labour. BJOG 2015; 122:468.
  41. Wing DA, Brown R, Plante LA, et al. Misoprostol vaginal insert and time to vaginal delivery: a randomized controlled trial. Obstet Gynecol 2013; 122:201.
  42. Tang OS, Schweer H, Seyberth HW, et al. Pharmacokinetics of different routes of administration of misoprostol. Hum Reprod 2002; 17:332.
  43. Wolf SB, Sanchez-Ramos L, Kaunitz AM. Sublingual misoprostol for labor induction: a randomized clinical trial. Obstet Gynecol 2005; 105:365.
  44. Shetty A, Mackie L, Danielian P, et al. Sublingual compared with oral misoprostol in term labour induction: a randomised controlled trial. BJOG 2002; 109:645.
  45. Shetty A, Danielian P, Templeton A. Sublingual misoprostol for the induction of labor at term. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2002; 186:72.
  46. Souza AS, Amorim MM, Feitosa FE. Comparison of sublingual versus vaginal misoprostol for the induction of labour: a systematic review. BJOG 2008; 115:1340.
  47. Haas DM, Daggy J, Flannery KM, et al. A comparison of vaginal versus buccal misoprostol for cervical ripening in women for labor induction at term (the IMPROVE trial): a triple-masked randomized controlled trial. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2019; 221:259.e1.
  48. Smith CV, Rayburn WF, Miller AM. Intravaginal prostaglandin E2 for cervical ripening and initiation of labor. Comparison of a multidose gel and single, controlled-release pessary. J Reprod Med 1994; 39:381.
  49. Witter FR, Rocco LE, Johnson TR. A randomized trial of prostaglandin E2 in a controlled-release vaginal pessary for cervical ripening at term. Am J Obstet Gynecol 1992; 166:830.
  50. McMaster K, Sanchez-Ramos L, Kaunitz AM. Evaluation of a Transcervical Foley Catheter as a Source of Infection: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis. Obstet Gynecol 2015; 126:539.
  51. Yang F, Huang S, Long Y, Huang L. Double-balloon versus single-balloon catheter for cervical ripening and labor induction: A systematic review and meta-analysis. J Obstet Gynaecol Res 2018; 44:27.
  52. Salim R, Schwartz N, Zafran N, et al. Comparison of single- and double-balloon catheters for labor induction: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. J Perinatol 2018; 38:217.
  53. Levy R, Kanengiser B, Furman B, et al. 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.
  54. Delaney S, Shaffer BL, Cheng YW, 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.
  55. Schoen CN, Saccone G, Backley S, et al. Increased single-balloon Foley catheter volume for induction of labor and time to delivery: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand 2018; 97:1051.
  56. Fruhman G, Gavard JA, Amon E, et al. Tension compared to no tension on a Foley transcervical catheter for cervical ripening: a randomized controlled trial. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2017; 216:67.e1.
  57. Gibson KS, Mercer BM, Louis JM. Inner thigh taping vs traction for cervical ripening with a Foley catheter: a randomized controlled trial. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2013; 209:272.e1.
  58. 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.
  59. Battarbee AN, Palatnik A, Peress DA, Grobman WA. Association of Early Amniotomy After Foley Balloon Catheter Ripening and Duration of Nulliparous Labor Induction. Obstet Gynecol 2016; 128:592.
  60. Levy R, Ferber A, Ben-Arie A, et al. A randomised comparison of early versus late amniotomy following cervical ripening with a Foley catheter. BJOG 2002; 109:168.
  61. Gelber S, Sciscione A. Mechanical methods of cervical ripening and labor induction. Clin Obstet Gynecol 2006; 49:642.
  62. Jozwiak M, Bloemenkamp KW, Kelly AJ, et al. Mechanical methods for induction of labour. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2012; :CD001233.
  63. Fitzpatrick CB, Grotegut CA, Bishop TS, et al. Cervical ripening with foley balloon plus fixed versus incremental low-dose oxytocin: a randomized controlled trial. J Matern Fetal Neonatal Med 2012; 25:1006.
  64. Orr L, Reisinger-Kindle K, Roy A, et al. Combination of Foley and prostaglandins versus Foley and oxytocin for cervical ripening: a network meta-analysis. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2020; 223:743.e1.
  65. Levine LD, Downes KL, Elovitz MA, et al. Mechanical and Pharmacologic Methods of Labor Induction: A Randomized Controlled Trial. Obstet Gynecol 2016; 128:1357.
  66. Adhikari EH, Nelson DB, McIntire DD, Leveno KJ. Foley Bulb Added to an Oral Misoprostol Induction Protocol: A Cluster Randomized Trial. Obstet Gynecol 2020; 136:953.
  67. Gilson GJ, Russell DJ, Izquierdo LA, et al. A prospective randomized evaluation of a hygroscopic cervical dilator, Dilapan, in the preinduction ripening of patients undergoing induction of labor. Am J Obstet Gynecol 1996; 175:145.
  68. Saad AF, Villarreal J, Eid J, et al. A randomized controlled trial of Dilapan-S vs Foley balloon for preinduction cervical ripening (DILAFOL trial). Am J Obstet Gynecol 2019; 220:275.e1.
  69. Weiss G, Teichman S, Stewart D, et al. A randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial of relaxin for cervical ripening in post-delivery date pregnancies. Ann N Y Acad Sci 2009; 1160:385.
  70. Bell RJ, Permezel M, MacLennan A, et al. A randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial of the safety of vaginal recombinant human relaxin for cervical ripening. Obstet Gynecol 1993; 82:328.
  71. Brennand JE, Calder AA, Leitch CR, et al. Recombinant human relaxin as a cervical ripening agent. Br J Obstet Gynaecol 1997; 104:775.
  72. Ghosh A, Lattey KR, Kelly AJ. Nitric oxide donors for cervical ripening and induction of labour. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2016; 12:CD006901.
  73. Kavanagh J, Kelly AJ, Thomas J. Hyaluronidase for cervical ripening and induction of labour. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2006; :CD003097.
  74. Kavanagh J, Kelly AJ, Thomas J. Corticosteroids for cervical ripening and induction of labour. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2006; :CD003100.
  75. Kelly AJ, Kavanagh J, Thomas J. Castor oil, bath and/or enema for cervical priming and induction of labour. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2013; :CD003099.
  76. Kavanagh J, Kelly AJ, Thomas J. Sexual intercourse for cervical ripening and induction of labour. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2001; :CD003093.
  77. Omar NS, Tan PC, Sabir N, et al. Coitus to expedite the onset of labour: a randomised trial. BJOG 2013; 120:338.
  78. Kavanagh J, Kelly AJ, Thomas J. Breast stimulation for cervical ripening and induction of labour. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2005; :CD003392.
  79. McFarlin BL, Gibson MH, O'Rear J, Harman P. A national survey of herbal preparation use by nurse-midwives for labor stimulation. Review of the literature and recommendations for practice. J Nurse Midwifery 1999; 44:205.
  80. Lyndrup J, Nickelsen C, Weber T, et al. Induction of labour by balloon catheter with extra-amniotic saline infusion (BCEAS): a randomised comparison with PGE2 vaginal pessaries. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol 1994; 53:189.
  81. Vengalil SR, Guinn DA, Olabi NF, et al. A randomized trial of misoprostol and extra-amniotic saline infusion for cervical ripening and labor induction. Obstet Gynecol 1998; 91:774.
  82. Yuen PM, Pang HY, Chung T, Chang A. Cervical ripening before induction of labour in patients with an unfavourable cervix: a comparative randomized study of the Atad Ripener Device, prostaglandin E2 vaginal pessary, and prostaglandin E2 intracervical gel. Aust N Z J Obstet Gynaecol 1996; 36:291.
  83. Atad J, Hallak M, Ben-David Y, et al. Ripening and dilatation of the unfavourable cervix for induction of labour by a double balloon device: experience with 250 cases. Br J Obstet Gynaecol 1997; 104:29.
  84. Guinn DA, Davies JK, Jones RO, et al. Labor induction in women with an unfavorable Bishop score: randomized controlled trial of intrauterine Foley catheter with concurrent oxytocin infusion versus Foley catheter with extra-amniotic saline infusion with concurrent oxytocin infusion. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2004; 191:225.
  85. Karjane NW, Brock EL, Walsh SW. Induction of labor using a foley balloon, with and without extra-amniotic saline infusion. Obstet Gynecol 2006; 107:234.
  86. Lin MG, Reid KJ, Treaster MR, et al. Transcervical Foley catheter with and without extraamniotic saline infusion for labor induction: a randomized controlled trial. Obstet Gynecol 2007; 110:558.
Topic 5398 Version 109.0

References

1 : Caesarean section rates and adverse neonatal outcomes after induction of labour versus expectant management in women with an unripe cervix: a secondary analysis of the HYPITAT and DIGITAT trials.

2 : Should cervical favourability play a role in the decision for labour induction in gestational hypertension or mild pre-eclampsia at term? An exploratory analysis of the HYPITAT trial.

3 : ACOG Practice Bulletin No. 107: Induction of labor.

4 : Home versus inpatient induction of labour for improving birth outcomes.

5 : Inpatient versus outpatient induction of labour: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

6 : Outpatient Cervical Ripening: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis.

7 : Outpatient induction of labour in the UK: a survey of practice.

8 : Transcervical Foley catheter for preinduction cervical ripening in an outpatient versus inpatient setting.

9 : The timing of adverse events with Foley catheter preinduction cervical ripening; implications for outpatient use.

10 : Outpatient Foley Catheter for Induction of Labor in Parous Women: A Randomized Controlled Trial.

11 : Outpatient Foley Catheter for Induction of Labor in Nulliparous Women: A Randomized Controlled Trial.

12 : Cost-effectiveness of term induction of labour using inpatient prostaglandin gel versus outpatient Foley catheter.

13 : Foley catheter balloon vs locally applied prostaglandins for cervical ripening and labor induction: a systematic review and metaanalysis.

14 : A systematic review and network meta-analysis comparing the use of Foley catheters, misoprostol, and dinoprostone for cervical ripening in the induction of labour.

15 : Mechanical methods for induction of labour.

16 : Intravaginal misoprostol versus Foley catheter for labour induction: a meta-analysis.

17 : The pharmacology of prostaglandins for induction of labor.

18 : Clinical Insights for Cervical Ripening and Labor Induction Using Prostaglandins.

19 : Risk of uterine rupture during labor among women with a prior cesarean delivery.

20 : Prostaglandin vaginal gel induction of labor comparing amniotomy with repeat prostaglandin gel.

21 : Early amniotomy after vaginal misoprostol for induction of labor: a randomized clinical trial.

22 : Early amniotomy after dinoprostone insert used for the induction of labor: a randomized clinical trial.

23 : Induction of labour with retrievable prostaglandin vaginal inserts: outcomes following retrieval due to an intrapartum adverse event.

24 : Vaginal prostaglandin (PGE2 and PGF2a) for induction of labour at term.

25 : Prostaglandins in preinduction cervical ripening. Meta-analysis of worldwide clinical experience.

26 : Intracervical prostaglandins for induction of labour.

27 : Labour induction with prostaglandins: a systematic review and network meta-analysis.

28 : Vaginal misoprostol for cervical ripening and induction of labour.

29 : Labor induction with intravaginal misoprostol compared with the dinoprostone vaginal insert: a systematic review and metaanalysis.

30 : Low-dose oral misoprostol for induction of labour.

31 : Oral, rectal, and vaginal pharmacokinetics of misoprostol.

32 : Buccal or sublingual misoprostol for cervical ripening and induction of labour.

33 : Induction of labour in nulliparous and multiparous women: a UK, multicentre, open-label study of intravaginal misoprostol in comparison with dinoprostone.

34 : A randomised controlled trial of low-dose misoprostol and dinoprostone vaginal pessaries for cervical priming.

35 : WHO recommendations for misoprostol use for obstetric and gynecologic indications.

36 : A comparison of intermittent vaginal administration of misoprostol with continuous dinoprostone for cervical ripening and labor induction.

37 : Randomized trial of two doses of the prostaglandin E1 analog misoprostol for labor induction.

38 : Labor induction with misoprostol.

39 : Misoprostol for cervical ripening and labor induction: a meta-analysis.

40 : Balancing the efficacy and safety of misoprostol: a meta-analysis comparing 25 versus 50 micrograms of intravaginal misoprostol for the induction of labour.

41 : Misoprostol vaginal insert and time to vaginal delivery: a randomized controlled trial.

42 : Pharmacokinetics of different routes of administration of misoprostol.

43 : Sublingual misoprostol for labor induction: a randomized clinical trial.

44 : Sublingual compared with oral misoprostol in term labour induction: a randomised controlled trial.

45 : Sublingual misoprostol for the induction of labor at term.

46 : Comparison of sublingual versus vaginal misoprostol for the induction of labour: a systematic review.

47 : A comparison of vaginal versus buccal misoprostol for cervical ripening in women for labor induction at term (the IMPROVE trial): a triple-masked randomized controlled trial.

48 : Intravaginal prostaglandin E2 for cervical ripening and initiation of labor. Comparison of a multidose gel and single, controlled-release pessary.

49 : A randomized trial of prostaglandin E2 in a controlled-release vaginal pessary for cervical ripening at term.

50 : Evaluation of a Transcervical Foley Catheter as a Source of Infection: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis.

51 : Double-balloon versus single-balloon catheter for cervical ripening and labor induction: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

52 : Comparison of single- and double-balloon catheters for labor induction: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.

53 : A randomized trial comparing a 30-mL and an 80-mL Foley catheter balloon for preinduction cervical ripening.

54 : Labor induction with a Foley balloon inflated to 30 mL compared with 60 mL: a randomized controlled trial.

55 : Increased single-balloon Foley catheter volume for induction of labor and time to delivery: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

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

57 : Inner thigh taping vs traction for cervical ripening with a Foley catheter: a randomized controlled trial.

58 : Is transcervical Foley catheter actually slower than prostaglandins in ripening the cervix? A randomized study.

59 : Association of Early Amniotomy After Foley Balloon Catheter Ripening and Duration of Nulliparous Labor Induction.

60 : A randomised comparison of early versus late amniotomy following cervical ripening with a Foley catheter.

61 : Mechanical methods of cervical ripening and labor induction.

62 : Mechanical methods for induction of labour.

63 : Cervical ripening with foley balloon plus fixed versus incremental low-dose oxytocin: a randomized controlled trial.

64 : Combination of Foley and prostaglandins versus Foley and oxytocin for cervical ripening: a network meta-analysis.

65 : Mechanical and Pharmacologic Methods of Labor Induction: A Randomized Controlled Trial.

66 : Foley Bulb Added to an Oral Misoprostol Induction Protocol: A Cluster Randomized Trial.

67 : A prospective randomized evaluation of a hygroscopic cervical dilator, Dilapan, in the preinduction ripening of patients undergoing induction of labor.

68 : A randomized controlled trial of Dilapan-S vs Foley balloon for preinduction cervical ripening (DILAFOL trial).

69 : A randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial of relaxin for cervical ripening in post-delivery date pregnancies.

70 : A randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial of the safety of vaginal recombinant human relaxin for cervical ripening.

71 : Recombinant human relaxin as a cervical ripening agent.

72 : Nitric oxide donors for cervical ripening and induction of labour.

73 : Hyaluronidase for cervical ripening and induction of labour.

74 : Corticosteroids for cervical ripening and induction of labour.

75 : Castor oil, bath and/or enema for cervical priming and induction of labour.

76 : Sexual intercourse for cervical ripening and induction of labour.

77 : Coitus to expedite the onset of labour: a randomised trial.

78 : Breast stimulation for cervical ripening and induction of labour.

79 : A national survey of herbal preparation use by nurse-midwives for labor stimulation. Review of the literature and recommendations for practice.

80 : Induction of labour by balloon catheter with extra-amniotic saline infusion (BCEAS): a randomised comparison with PGE2 vaginal pessaries.

81 : A randomized trial of misoprostol and extra-amniotic saline infusion for cervical ripening and labor induction.

82 : Cervical ripening before induction of labour in patients with an unfavourable cervix: a comparative randomized study of the Atad Ripener Device, prostaglandin E2 vaginal pessary, and prostaglandin E2 intracervical gel.

83 : Ripening and dilatation of the unfavourable cervix for induction of labour by a double balloon device: experience with 250 cases.

84 : Labor induction in women with an unfavorable Bishop score: randomized controlled trial of intrauterine Foley catheter with concurrent oxytocin infusion versus Foley catheter with extra-amniotic saline infusion with concurrent oxytocin infusion.

85 : Induction of labor using a foley balloon, with and without extra-amniotic saline infusion.

86 : Transcervical Foley catheter with and without extraamniotic saline infusion for labor induction: a randomized controlled trial.