Labor induction in nulliparous women with an unfavorable cervix: Double balloon catheter versus dinoprostone

Katarzyna Suffecool, Barak M. Rosenn, Stefanie Kam, Juliet Mushi, Janelle Foroutan, Kimberly Herrera

Research output: Contribution to journalArticlepeer-review

26 Scopus citations

Abstract

Objective: We sought to compare the efficacy of the double-balloon catheter and dinoprostone for induction of labor among nulliparous women with an unfavorable cervix. Study design: Nulliparous women with a Bishop score < 6 were randomized to receive a 10-mg intravaginal dinoprostone insert or a double-balloon catheter. Primary outcome was time to delivery. Statistical analyses were performed by intention to treat using the chi-square, Fisher's exact, and Student's t-test, as appropriate. Results: The mean induction-to-delivery time was shorter in the double-balloon group as compared to the dinoprostone group (17.9 ± 5.8 vs. 26.3 ± 9.7 h) as was the time from induction to vaginal delivery (19.13 ± 5 vs. 24.45 ± 8.7 h, respectively). More women in the catheter group were delivered within 24 h compared to the dinoprostone group (87.1% vs. 47.4%). Approximately 50% of women in both groups delivered by cesarean section. Conclusion: Induction of labor with the double-balloon catheter in nulliparous women with an unfavorable cervix is associated with a shorter time to delivery compared to dinoprostone.

Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)213-218
Number of pages6
JournalJournal of Perinatal Medicine
Volume42
Issue number2
DOIs
StatePublished - Mar 2014
Externally publishedYes

Keywords

  • Double-balloon catheter
  • Labor induction
  • Prostaglandins

Fingerprint

Dive into the research topics of 'Labor induction in nulliparous women with an unfavorable cervix: Double balloon catheter versus dinoprostone'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

Cite this