Outpatient Cervical Ripening with Balloon Catheters A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

被引:21
作者
Pierce-Williams, Rebecca
Lesser, Henry
Saccone, Gabriele
Harper, Lorie
Chen, Vicky
Sciscione, Anthony
Kuper, Spencer
Subramaniam, Akila
Ehsanipoor, Robert
Berghella, Vincenzo [1 ]
机构
[1] Thomas Jefferson Univ, Dept Obstet & Gynecol, Sidney Kimmel Med Coll, Div Maternal Fetal Med, Philadelphia, PA 19107 USA
关键词
FOLEY CATHETER; LABOR INDUCTION;
D O I
10.1097/AOG.0000000000004644
中图分类号
R71 [妇产科学];
学科分类号
100211 ;
摘要
OBJECTIVE: To evaluate whether outpatient cervical ripening with a balloon catheter results in a shorter amount of time in the labor and delivery unit when compared with use in the inpatient setting. DATA SOURCES: PubMed, Scopus, Cochrane Library, and were searched from their inception until December 2020. No restrictions for language or geographic location were applied. METHODS OF STUDY SELECTION: Using a predefined protocol and search strategy, 1,152 titles were identified and screened. Randomized controlled trials that compared outpatient and inpatient cervical ripening with balloon catheters were included. TABULATION, INTEGRATION, AND RESULTS: Data extraction and risk of bias assessments were performed by two reviewers. Meta-analysis was performed to produce mean difference for continuous data and risk ratio (RR) for dichotomous data, both with a 95% CI. The primary outcome was the amount of time from admission to the labor ward until delivery. Additional secondary maternal and neonatal outcomes were evaluated. Eight trials (740 patients) were included; six studies (571 patients) reported on our primary outcome. Compared with the inpatient group, outpatient balloon cervical ripening was associated with significantly less time in the labor and delivery unit (outpatient 16.3 +/- 9.7 hours vs inpatient 23.8 +/- 14.0 hours; mean difference -7.24 hours, 95% CI -11.03 to -3.34). There were no differences in total induction time or total hospital admission. The outpatient group was significantly less likely than the inpatient group to undergo cesarean delivery (21% vs 27%), RR 0.76 (95% CI 0.59-0.98). There were no differences in other maternal or neonatal outcomes. There were no deliveries outside of the hospital and no stillbirths. CONCLUSION: Outpatient balloon cervical ripening in low-risk patients is associated with a decreased amount of time from admission to labor and delivery until delivery. Outpatient balloon cervical ripening is a safe alternative for low-risk patients and has the potential for significant benefits to patients, and labor and delivery units.
引用
收藏
页码:255 / 268
页数:14
相关论文
共 26 条
[1]   Outpatient versus inpatient balloon catheter insertion for labor induction: A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials [J].
Abdelhakim, Ahmed Mohamed ;
Shareef, Mohammad Abrar ;
AlAmodi, Abdulhadi A. ;
Aboshama, Rehab Abdelhamid ;
Fathi, Mohamed ;
Abbas, Ahmed M. .
JOURNAL OF GYNECOLOGY OBSTETRICS AND HUMAN REPRODUCTION, 2020, 49 (08)
[2]   Home versus inpatient induction of labour for improving birth outcomes [J].
Alfirevic, Zarko ;
Gyte, Gillian M. L. ;
Pileggi, Vicky Nogueira ;
Plachcinski, Rachel ;
Osoti, Alfred O. ;
Finucane, Elaine M. .
COCHRANE DATABASE OF SYSTEMATIC REVIEWS, 2020, (08)
[3]  
[Anonymous], 2009, Obstet Gynecol, V114, P386, DOI 10.1097/AOG.0b013e3181b48ef5
[4]   Outpatient Foley Catheter for Induction of Labor in Nulliparous Women A Randomized Controlled Trial [J].
Ausbeck, Elizabeth B. ;
Jauk, Victoria C. ;
Xue, Yumo ;
Files, Pamela ;
Kuper, Spencer G. ;
Subramaniam, Akila ;
Casey, Brian M. ;
Szychowski, Jeff M. ;
Harper, Lorie M. ;
Tita, Alan T. .
OBSTETRICS AND GYNECOLOGY, 2020, 136 (03) :597-606
[5]   Evidence-based labor management: induction of labor (part 2) [J].
Berghella, Vincenzo ;
Bellussi, Federica ;
Schoen, Corina N. .
AMERICAN JOURNAL OF OBSTETRICS & GYNECOLOGY MFM, 2020, 2 (03)
[6]   Safety of the balloon catheter for cervical ripening in outpatient care: complications during the period from insertion to expulsion of a balloon catheter in the process of labour induction: a systematic review [J].
Diederen, M. ;
Gommers, J. S. M. ;
Wilkinson, C. ;
Turnbull, D. ;
Mol, B. W. J. .
BJOG-AN INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF OBSTETRICS AND GYNAECOLOGY, 2018, 125 (09) :1086-1095
[7]   Labor Induction versus Expectant Management in Low-Risk Nulliparous Women [J].
Grobman, William A. ;
Rice, Madeline M. ;
Reddy, Uma M. ;
Tita, Alan T. N. ;
Silver, Robert M. ;
Mallett, Gail ;
Hill, Kim ;
Thom, Elizabeth A. ;
El-Sayed, Yasser Y. ;
Perez-Delboy, Annette ;
Rouse, Dwight J. ;
Saade, George R. ;
Boggess, Kim A. ;
Chauhan, Suneet P. ;
Iams, Jay D. ;
Chien, Edward K. ;
Casey, Brian M. ;
Gibbs, Ronald S. ;
Srinivas, Sindhu K. ;
Swamy, Geeta K. ;
Simhan, Hyagriv N. ;
Macones, George A. .
NEW ENGLAND JOURNAL OF MEDICINE, 2018, 379 (06) :513-523
[8]   Experiences of induction of labor with a catheter - A prospective randomized controlled trial comparing the outpatient and inpatient setting [J].
Haavisto, Henna ;
Polo-Kantola, Paivi ;
Anttila, Ella ;
Kolari, Terhi ;
Ojala, Elina ;
Rinne, Kirsi .
ACTA OBSTETRICIA ET GYNECOLOGICA SCANDINAVICA, 2021, 100 (03) :410-417
[9]   Foley Catheter versus Vaginal Misoprostol: Randomized Controlled Trial (PROBAAT-M Study) and Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Literature [J].
Jozwiak, Marta ;
ten Eikelder, Mieke ;
Rengerink, Katrien Oude ;
de Groot, Christianne ;
Feitsma, Hanneke ;
Spaanderman, Marc ;
van Pampus, Marielle ;
de Leeuw, Jan Willem ;
Mol, Ben Willem ;
Bloemenkamp, Kitty .
AMERICAN JOURNAL OF PERINATOLOGY, 2014, 31 (02) :145-155
[10]  
Khalafallah A, 2010, MEDITERR J HEMATOL I, V2, DOI [10.4084/MJHID.2010.005, 10.1136/bmj.l4898]