To Örebro University

oru.seÖrebro University Publications
Change search
CiteExportLink to record
Permanent link

Direct link
Cite
Citation style
  • apa
  • ieee
  • modern-language-association-8th-edition
  • vancouver
  • Other style
More styles
Language
  • de-DE
  • en-GB
  • en-US
  • fi-FI
  • nn-NO
  • nn-NB
  • sv-SE
  • Other locale
More languages
Output format
  • html
  • text
  • asciidoc
  • rtf
Efficacy and safety of oral misoprostol vs transvaginal balloon catheter for labor induction: An observational study within the SWEdish Postterm Induction Study (SWEPIS)
Centre of Perinatal Medicine and Health, Institute of Clinical Sciences, University of Gothenburg, Gothenburg, Sweden; Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Region Västra Götaland, Sahlgrenska University Hospital, Gothenburg, Sweden.
Centre of Perinatal Medicine and Health, Institute of Clinical Sciences, University of Gothenburg, Gothenburg, Sweden; Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Region Västra Götaland, Sahlgrenska University Hospital, Gothenburg, Sweden.
Department of Clinical Sciences, Karolinska Institutet, Danderyd Hospital, Stockholm, Sweden.
Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Region Västra Götaland, Sahlgrenska University Hospital, Gothenburg, Sweden; Department of Clinical Sciences, Karolinska Institutet, Danderyd Hospital, Stockholm, Sweden; Institute of Health and Caring Sciences, Sahlgrenska Academy, Gothenburg University, Gothenburg, Sweden.
Show others and affiliations
2021 (English)In: Acta Obstetricia et Gynecologica Scandinavica, ISSN 0001-6349, E-ISSN 1600-0412, Vol. 100, no 8, p. 1463-1477Article in journal (Refereed) Published
Abstract [en]

INTRODUCTION: Induction of labor is increasing in the world. A common indication for Induction of labor is late term and postterm pregnancy at 41 gestational week and thereafter. 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+0 to 42+0-1 gestational weeks.

MATERIAL AND METHODS: In this observational study, based on data from Swedish Postterm Induction Study (SWEPIS), a multicenter randomized controlled trial, a total of 1 213 women with a low-risk singleton pregnancy at 41 to 42 gestational weeks 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 hours 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 analogue scale. We present crude and adjusted mean differences and relative risks (RR) with 95% confidence interval (CI). Adjustment was performed for a propensity score based on delivery hospital and baseline characteristics including Bishop score.

RESULTS: Vaginal delivery within 24 hours was significantly lower in the misoprostol compared with the balloon catheter group (46.5% [346/744] vs 62.7% [294/469]; adjusted RR 0.76 [95% CI 0.64; 0.89]). 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 hours (95% CI 1.3; 6.2) 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.

CONCLUSION: Induction of labor with oral misoprostol compared with a transvaginal balloon catheter was associated with a lower probability of vaginal delivery within 24 hours 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.

Place, publisher, year, edition, pages
John Wiley & Sons, 2021. Vol. 100, no 8, p. 1463-1477
Keywords [en]
Labor induced, humans, misoprostol, mothers/psychology, pregnancy outcome, pregnancy prolonged
National Category
Obstetrics, Gynecology and Reproductive Medicine
Identifiers
URN: urn:nbn:se:oru:diva-90775DOI: 10.1111/aogs.14155ISI: 000645992200001PubMedID: 33768520Scopus ID: 2-s2.0-85104140744OAI: oai:DiVA.org:oru-90775DiVA, id: diva2:1540558
Note

Funding Agencies:

Swedish government  

ALF-agreement ALFGBG-718721 718591

Foundation of the Health and Medical care committee of the Region of Vastra Gotaland, Sweden VGFOUREG-854081

Hjalmar Svensson Foundation HJSV2019066

HJSV2020025

ALF-agreement in Stockholm ALF-561222 ALF-562222 ALF-563222

Available from: 2021-03-29 Created: 2021-03-29 Last updated: 2021-08-16Bibliographically approved

Open Access in DiVA

No full text in DiVA

Other links

Publisher's full textPubMedScopus

Authority records

Fadl, Helena

Search in DiVA

By author/editor
Fadl, Helena
By organisation
School of Medical SciencesÖrebro University Hospital
In the same journal
Acta Obstetricia et Gynecologica Scandinavica
Obstetrics, Gynecology and Reproductive Medicine

Search outside of DiVA

GoogleGoogle Scholar

doi
pubmed
urn-nbn

Altmetric score

doi
pubmed
urn-nbn
Total: 160 hits
CiteExportLink to record
Permanent link

Direct link
Cite
Citation style
  • apa
  • ieee
  • modern-language-association-8th-edition
  • vancouver
  • Other style
More styles
Language
  • de-DE
  • en-GB
  • en-US
  • fi-FI
  • nn-NO
  • nn-NB
  • sv-SE
  • Other locale
More languages
Output format
  • html
  • text
  • asciidoc
  • rtf