Center of Perinatal Medicine and Health, Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Institute of Clinical Sciences, University of Gothenburg, Gothenburg, Sweden.
Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Region Västra Götaland, Sahlgrenska University Hospital, Gothenburg, Sweden.
Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand. 2021 Aug;100(8):1463-1477. doi: 10.1111/aogs.14155. Epub 2021 May 2.
Induction of labor is increasing. A common indication for induction of labor is late term and postterm pregnancy at 41 weeks or more. We aimed to evaluate if there are any differences regarding efficacy, safety, and women's childbirth experience between oral misoprostol and transvaginal balloon catheter for cervical ripening in women with a low-risk singleton pregnancy and induction of labor at 41 to 42 weeks of gestation.
In this observational study, based on data from the Swedish Postterm Induction Study (SWEPIS), a multicenter randomized controlled trial, a total of 1213 women with a low-risk singleton pregnancy at 41 to 42 weeks of gestation were induced with oral misoprostol (n = 744) or transvaginal balloon catheter (n = 469) at 15 Swedish delivery hospitals. The primary efficacy outcome was vaginal delivery within 24 h and primary safety outcomes were neonatal and maternal composite adverse outcomes. Secondary outcomes included time to vaginal delivery and mode of delivery. Women's childbirth experience was assessed with the Childbirth Experience Questionnaire (CEQ 2.0) and visual analog scale. We present crude and adjusted mean differences and relative risks (RR) with 95% CI. Adjustment was performed for a propensity score based on delivery hospital and baseline characteristics including Bishop score.
Vaginal delivery within 24 h was significantly lower in the misoprostol group compared with the balloon catheter group (46.5% [346/744] vs 62.7% [294/469]; adjusted RR 0.76 95% CI 0.640.89]). Primary neonatal and maternal safety outcomes did not differ between groups (neonatal composite 3.5% [36/744] vs 3.2% [15/469]; adjusted RR 0.77 [95% CI 0.31-1.89]; maternal composite 2.3% [17/744] vs 1.9% [9/469]; adjusted RR 1.70 [95% CI 0.58-4.97]). Adjusted mean time to vaginal delivery was increased by 3.8 h (95% CI 1.3-6.2 h) in the misoprostol group. Non-operative vaginal delivery and cesarean delivery rates did not differ. Women's childbirth experience was positive overall and similar in both groups.
Induction of labor with oral misoprostol compared with a transvaginal balloon catheter was associated with a lower probability of vaginal delivery within 24 h and a longer time to vaginal delivery. However, primary safety outcomes, non-operative vaginal delivery, and women's childbirth experience were similar in both groups. Therefore, both methods can be recommended in women with low-risk postdate pregnancies.
引产的需求正在增加。引产的常见指征是孕 41 周及以上的晚期和过期妊娠。我们旨在评估对于孕 41 至 42 周的低危单胎妊娠且有引产需求的孕妇,口服米索前列醇与经阴道球囊导管促宫颈成熟在疗效、安全性和产妇分娩体验方面是否存在差异。
在这项基于瑞典过期妊娠引产研究(SWEPIS)数据的观察性研究中,一项多中心随机对照试验中,共有 1213 名孕 41 至 42 周的低危单胎妊娠孕妇在 15 家瑞典分娩医院接受了口服米索前列醇(n=744)或经阴道球囊导管(n=469)引产。主要疗效结局为 24 小时内阴道分娩,主要安全性结局为新生儿和产妇复合不良结局。次要结局包括分娩时间和分娩方式。产妇分娩体验采用分娩体验问卷(CEQ 2.0)和视觉模拟评分进行评估。我们呈现了未经调整和调整后的均数差异和相对风险(RR)及其 95%置信区间。调整基于基于分娩医院和基线特征(包括 Bishop 评分)的倾向评分。
与球囊导管组相比,米索前列醇组 24 小时内阴道分娩的比例显著降低(46.5%[346/744] vs 62.7%[294/469];调整 RR 0.76,95%CI 0.64-0.89])。两组新生儿和产妇安全性结局无差异(新生儿复合不良结局 3.5%[36/744] vs 3.2%[15/469];调整 RR 0.77,95%CI 0.31-1.89];产妇复合不良结局 2.3%[17/744] vs 1.9%[9/469];调整 RR 1.70,95%CI 0.58-4.97])。米索前列醇组的平均分娩时间延长 3.8 小时(95%CI 1.3-6.2 小时)。非手术阴道分娩率和剖宫产率无差异。产妇分娩体验总体良好,两组相似。
与经阴道球囊导管相比,口服米索前列醇引产与 24 小时内阴道分娩的可能性降低和分娩时间延长有关。然而,两组的主要安全性结局、非手术阴道分娩和产妇分娩体验相似。因此,对于低危过期妊娠的孕妇,这两种方法均可推荐。