Kruit Heidi, Place Katariina, Väyrynen Kirsi, Orden Maija-Riitta, Tekay Aydin, Vääräsmäki Marja, Uotila Jukka, Tihtonen Kati, Rinne Kirsi, Mäkikallio Kaarin, Heinonen Seppo, Rahkonen Leena
Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Helsinki University Hospital and University of Helsinki, Helsinki, Finland.
Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Central Finland Central Hospital, Jyväskylä, Finland.
Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand. 2025 Feb;104(2):389-399. doi: 10.1111/aogs.15034. Epub 2024 Dec 13.
Nulliparous women beyond term have high rates of induction failure. The aim of this study was to compare delivery outcomes for balloon catheter, misoprostol, and combination of both in nulliparous late- and post-term women with unfavorable cervices. We intended to explore whether the combination strategy has lower cesarean section rate and is as safe as either method alone.
The randomized multicenter pilot trial was carried out in the five university hospitals and the largest secondary care hospital of Finland March 1, 2018-March 31, 2022. A total of 273 nulliparous women with viable singleton fetus in cephalic presentation, intact amniotic membranes, and an unfavorable cervix at 41 + 0 gestational weeks were included. The study protocol was registered in the ISCTN registry (ISRCTN83219789). The women were randomized into cervical ripening by balloon catheter, oral misoprostol 50 μg every 4 h, or the combination use of both. The primary outcomes of the study were the rates of cesarean section and composite of adverse neonatal outcomes (5-min Apgar score <7, umbilical artery pH ≤7.05, or NICU admission).
Ninety-seven women (35.5%) were allocated in the balloon catheter arm, 94 (34.4%) in the oral misoprostol arm, and 82 (30.0%) in the combination treatment arm. The rates of cesarean section (balloon catheter 23.7%, n = 23/97, vs. oral misoprostol 24.5%, n = 23/94, vs. combination 17.1%, n = 14/82) or composite adverse neonatal outcome (7.2% vs. 7.4% vs. 7.3%, respectively) were not statistically significantly different between the groups. The median (interquartile range) induction to delivery interval was the shortest in the combination treatment, 21.7 (15.1-33.2) h compared to balloon catheter 31.7 (21.9-44.5) h; p < 0.01 or oral misoprostol 37.0 (26.7-60.3) h; p < 0.01. The proportion of women with induction to delivery interval ≤24 h was significantly higher in the combination arm compared to balloon catheter (54.4% vs. 31.1%; p < 0.01) or oral misoprostol (54.4% vs. 21.1%; p < 0.001).
Our findings confirm the effectiveness of combining balloon catheter and oral misoprostol for cervical ripening, showing shorter induction to delivery interval and comparable rates of cesarean section and neonatal outcomes compared to either method alone. These results advocate for a shift toward adopting combination strategy in the induction of nulliparous late- and post-term women.
未生育过的过期妊娠女性引产失败率较高。本研究的目的是比较球囊导管、米索前列醇以及两者联合应用于宫颈条件不佳的未生育过的晚期和过期妊娠女性的分娩结局。我们旨在探讨联合策略是否具有更低的剖宫产率,并且与单独使用任何一种方法一样安全。
这项随机多中心试点试验于2018年3月1日至2022年3月31日在芬兰的五所大学医院和最大的二级护理医院进行。总共纳入了273例未生育过的单胎活胎孕妇,胎儿为头先露,羊膜完整,孕41⁺⁰周时宫颈条件不佳。该研究方案已在国际标准随机对照试验编号注册系统(ISCTN)注册(ISRCTN83219789)。这些女性被随机分为通过球囊导管促宫颈成熟组、每4小时口服50μg米索前列醇组或两者联合使用组。该研究的主要结局是剖宫产率和新生儿不良结局的综合指标(5分钟阿氏评分<7分、脐动脉pH值≤7.05或入住新生儿重症监护病房)。
97名女性(35.5%)被分配到球囊导管组,94名(34.4%)被分配到口服米索前列醇组,82名(30.0%)被分配到联合治疗组。各组之间的剖宫产率(球囊导管组23.7%,n = 23/97;口服米索前列醇组24.5%,n = 23/94;联合组17.1%,n = 14/82)或新生儿不良结局综合指标(分别为7.2%、7.4%和7.3%)在统计学上无显著差异。联合治疗组引产至分娩间隔的中位数(四分位间距)最短,为21.7(15.1 - 33.2)小时,而球囊导管组为31.7(21.9 - 44.5)小时,p < 0.01;口服米索前列醇组为37.0(26.7 - 60.3)小时,p < 0.01。联合组引产至分娩间隔≤24小时的女性比例显著高于球囊导管组(54.4%对31.1%;p < 0.01)或口服米索前列醇组(54.4%对21.1%;p < 0.001)。
我们的研究结果证实了球囊导管与口服米索前列醇联合用于促宫颈成熟的有效性,与单独使用任何一种方法相比,引产至分娩间隔更短,剖宫产率和新生儿结局相当。这些结果主张在未生育过的晚期和过期妊娠女性引产中转向采用联合策略。