We have located links that may give you full text access.
JOURNAL ARTICLE
RANDOMIZED CONTROLLED TRIAL
RESEARCH SUPPORT, NON-U.S. GOV'T
Foley Catheter for Induction of Labor at Term: An Open-Label, Randomized Controlled Trial.
PloS One 2015
OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to determine the optimal Foley catheter balloon volume (30-mL vs. 80-mL) and the maximum time for cervical ripening (12 hours vs. 24 hours) to improve vaginal delivery rate within 24 hours of induction.
METHODS: We conducted an open-label, randomized controlled trial in a teaching hospital in China. Women with a term singleton pregnancy, cephalic presentation, intact membrane and an unfavorable cervix (Bishop score <6) were randomly allocated, in 1:1:1:1 ratio, to receive either one of the four treatments: (1) 30-mL balloon for a maximum of 12 hours, (2) 30-mL balloon for a maximum of 24 hours, (3) 80-mL balloon for a maximum of 12 hours, and (4) 80-mL balloon for a maximum of 24 hours. The primary outcome was vaginal delivery within 24 hours. Secondary outcomes included cesarean section rate and maternal/neonatal morbidity. Data were analyzed on a per-protocol basis.
RESULTS: Five hundred and four women were recruited and randomized (126 women in each group); nine women did not receive the assigned intervention. More women achieved vaginal delivery within 24 hours in 12-hour Foley catheter groups than in the 24-hour Foley catheter groups (30-mL/12 hours: 54.5%, 30-mL/24 hours: 33.1%, 80-mL/12 hours: 46.4%, 80-mL/24 hours: 24.0%, p < 0.001). Cesarean section rates and the incidence of chorioaminonitis were comparable among four groups. After adjustment for confounding factors, both ripening time and balloon size did not affect the proportion of women delivered vaginally within 24 hours of induction.
CONCLUSION: For women with an unfavorable cervix at term, induction of labor with a Foley catheter is safe and effective. Higher balloon volume (80-mL vs. 30-mL) and longer ripening time (24 hours vs. 12 hours) would not shorten induction to delivery interval or reduce cesarean section rate.
TRIAL REGISTRATION: Chinese Clinical trial registry (ChiCTR-TRC-13003044).
METHODS: We conducted an open-label, randomized controlled trial in a teaching hospital in China. Women with a term singleton pregnancy, cephalic presentation, intact membrane and an unfavorable cervix (Bishop score <6) were randomly allocated, in 1:1:1:1 ratio, to receive either one of the four treatments: (1) 30-mL balloon for a maximum of 12 hours, (2) 30-mL balloon for a maximum of 24 hours, (3) 80-mL balloon for a maximum of 12 hours, and (4) 80-mL balloon for a maximum of 24 hours. The primary outcome was vaginal delivery within 24 hours. Secondary outcomes included cesarean section rate and maternal/neonatal morbidity. Data were analyzed on a per-protocol basis.
RESULTS: Five hundred and four women were recruited and randomized (126 women in each group); nine women did not receive the assigned intervention. More women achieved vaginal delivery within 24 hours in 12-hour Foley catheter groups than in the 24-hour Foley catheter groups (30-mL/12 hours: 54.5%, 30-mL/24 hours: 33.1%, 80-mL/12 hours: 46.4%, 80-mL/24 hours: 24.0%, p < 0.001). Cesarean section rates and the incidence of chorioaminonitis were comparable among four groups. After adjustment for confounding factors, both ripening time and balloon size did not affect the proportion of women delivered vaginally within 24 hours of induction.
CONCLUSION: For women with an unfavorable cervix at term, induction of labor with a Foley catheter is safe and effective. Higher balloon volume (80-mL vs. 30-mL) and longer ripening time (24 hours vs. 12 hours) would not shorten induction to delivery interval or reduce cesarean section rate.
TRIAL REGISTRATION: Chinese Clinical trial registry (ChiCTR-TRC-13003044).
Full text links
Get seemless 1-tap access through your institution/university
For the best experience, use the Read mobile app
All material on this website is protected by copyright, Copyright © 1994-2024 by WebMD LLC.
This website also contains material copyrighted by 3rd parties.
By using this service, you agree to our terms of use and privacy policy.
Your Privacy Choices
You can now claim free CME credits for this literature searchClaim now
Get seemless 1-tap access through your institution/university
For the best experience, use the Read mobile app