Women's Experiences with and Preference for Induction of Labor with Oral Misoprostol or Foley Catheter at Term.

Objective We assessed experience and preferences among term women undergoing induction of labor with oral misoprostol or Foley catheter. Study Design In 18 of the 29 participating hospitals in the PROBAAT-II trial, women were asked to complete a questionnaire within 24 hours after delivery. We adapted a validated questionnaire about expectancy and experience of labor and asked women whether they would prefer the same method again in a future pregnancy. Results The questionnaire was completed by 502 (72%) of 695 eligible women; 273 (54%) had been randomly allocated to oral misoprostol and 229 (46%) to Foley catheter. Experience of the duration of labor, pain during labor, general satisfaction with labor, and feelings of control and fear related to their expectation were comparable between both the groups. In the oral misoprostol group, 6% of the women would prefer the other method if induction is necessary in future pregnancy, versus 12% in the Foley catheter group (risk ratio: 0.70; 95% confidence interval: 0.55-0.90; p = 0.02). Conclusion Women's experiences of labor after induction with oral misoprostol or Foley catheter are comparable. However, women in the Foley catheter group prefer more often to choose a different method for future inductions.

Induction of labour at term with oral misoprostol versus a Foley catheter (PROBAAT-II): a multicentre randomised controlled non-inferiority trial.

BACKGROUND: Labour is induced in 20-30% of all pregnancies. In women with an unfavourable cervix, both oral misoprostol and Foley catheter are equally effective compared with dinoprostone in establishing vaginal birth, but each has a better safety profile. We did a trial to directly compare oral misoprostol with Foley catheter alone. METHODS: We did an open-label randomised non-inferiority trial in 29 hospitals in the Netherlands. Women with a term singleton pregnancy in cephalic presentation, an unfavourable cervix, intact membranes, and without a previous caesarean section who were scheduled for induction of labour were randomly allocated to cervical ripening with 50 µg oral misoprostol once every 4 h or to a 30 mL transcervical Foley catheter. The primary outcome was a composite of asphyxia (pH ≤7·05 or 5-min Apgar score <7) or post-partum haemorrhage (≥1000 mL). The non-inferiority margin was 5%. The trial is registered with the Netherlands Trial Register, NTR3466. FINDINGS: Between July, 2012, and October, 2013, we randomly assigned 932 women to oral misoprostol and 927 women to Foley catheter. The composite primary outcome occurred in 113 (12·2%) of 924 participants in the misoprostol group versus 106 (11·5%) of 921 in the Foley catheter group (adjusted relative risk 1·06, 90% CI 0·86-1·31). Caesarean section occurred in 155 (16·8%) women versus 185 (20·1%; relative risk 0·84, 95% CI 0·69-1·02, p=0·067). 27 adverse events were reported in the misoprostol group versus 25 in the Foley catheter group. None were directly related to the study procedure. INTERPRETATION: In women with an unfavourable cervix at term, induction of labour with oral misoprostol and Foley catheter has similar safety and effectiveness. FUNDING: FondsNutsOhra.

Economic analysis comparing induction of labor and expectant management in women with preterm prelabor rupture of membranes between 34 and 37 weeks (PPROMEXIL trial).

OBJECTIVE: To compare the costs of induction of labor and expectant management in women with preterm prelabor rupture of membranes (PPROM). DESIGN: Economic analysis based on a randomized clinical trial. SETTING: Obstetric departments of eight academic and 52 non-academic hospitals in the Netherlands. POPULATION: Women with PPROM near term who were not in labor 24 h after PPROM. METHODS: A cost-minimization analysis was done from a health care provider perspective, using a bottom-up approach to estimate resource utilization, valued with unit-costs reflecting actual costs. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Primary health outcome was the incidence of neonatal sepsis. Direct medical costs were estimated from start of randomization to hospital discharge of mother and child. RESULTS: Induction of labor did not significantly reduce the probability of neonatal sepsis [2.6% vs. 4.1%, relative risk 0.64 (95% confidence interval 0.25-1.6)]. Mean costs per woman were €8094 for induction and €7340 for expectant management (difference €754; 95% confidence interval -335 to 1802). This difference predominantly originated in the postpartum period, where the mean costs were €5669 for induction vs. €4801 for expectant management. Delivery costs were higher in women allocated to induction than in women allocated to expectant management (€1777 vs. €1153 per woman). Antepartum costs in the expectant management group were higher because of longer antepartum maternal stays in hospital. CONCLUSIONS: In women with pregnancies complicated by PPROM near term, induction of labor does not reduce neonatal sepsis, whereas costs associated with this strategy are probably higher.

Induction of labor versus expectant management in women with preterm prelabor rupture of membranes between 34 and 37 weeks: a randomized controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: At present, there is insufficient evidence to guide appropriate management of women with preterm prelabor rupture of membranes (PPROM) near term. METHODS AND FINDINGS: We conducted an open-label randomized controlled trial in 60 hospitals in The Netherlands, which included non-laboring women with >24 h of PPROM between 34(+0) and 37(+0) wk of gestation. Participants were randomly allocated in a 1:1 ratio to induction of labor (IoL) or expectant management (EM) using block randomization. The main outcome was neonatal sepsis. Secondary outcomes included mode of delivery, respiratory distress syndrome (RDS), and chorioamnionitis. Patients and caregivers were not blinded to randomization status. We updated a prior meta-analysis on the effect of both interventions on neonatal sepsis, RDS, and cesarean section rate. From 1 January 2007 to 9 September 2009, 776 patients in 60 hospitals were eligible for the study, of which 536 patients were randomized. Four patients were excluded after randomization. We allocated 266 women (268 neonates) to IoL and 266 women (270 neonates) to EM. Neonatal sepsis occurred in seven (2.6%) newborns of women in the IoL group and in 11 (4.1%) neonates in the EM group (relative risk [RR] 0.64; 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.25 to 1.6). RDS was seen in 21 (7.8%, IoL) versus 17 neonates (6.3%, EM) (RR 1.3; 95% CI 0.67 to 2.3), and a cesarean section was performed in 36 (13%, IoL) versus 37 (14%, EM) women (RR 0.98; 95% CI 0.64 to 1.50). The risk for chorioamnionitis was reduced in the IoL group. No serious adverse events were reported. Updating an existing meta-analysis with our trial results (the only eligible trial for the update) indicated RRs of 1.06 (95% CI 0.64 to 1.76) for neonatal sepsis (eight trials, 1,230 neonates) and 1.27 (95% CI 0.98 to 1.65) for cesarean section (eight trials, 1,222 women) for IoL compared with EM. CONCLUSIONS: In women whose pregnancy is complicated by late PPROM, neither our trial nor the updated meta-analysis indicates that IoL substantially improves pregnancy outcomes compared with EM. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN29313500

Induction of labour versus expectant management in women with preterm prelabour rupture of membranes between 34 and 37 weeks (the PPROMEXIL-trial).

BACKGROUND: Preterm prelabour rupture of the membranes (PPROM) is an important clinical problem and a dilemma for the gynaecologist. On the one hand, awaiting spontaneous labour increases the probability of infectious disease for both mother and child, whereas on the other hand induction of labour leads to preterm birth with an increase in neonatal morbidity (e.g., respiratory distress syndrome (RDS)) and a possible rise in the number of instrumental deliveries. METHODS/DESIGN: We aim to determine the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of immediate delivery after PPROM in near term gestation compared to expectant management. Pregnant women with preterm prelabour rupture of the membranes at a gestational age from 34+0 weeks until 37+0 weeks will be included in a multicentre prospective randomised controlled trial. We will compare early delivery with expectant monitoring. The primary outcome of this study is neonatal sepsis. Secondary outcome measures are maternal morbidity (chorioamnionitis, puerperal sepsis) and neonatal disease, instrumental delivery rate, maternal quality of life, maternal preferences and costs. We anticipate that a reduction of neonatal infection from 7.5% to 2.5% after induction will outweigh an increase in RDS and additional costs due to admission of the child due to prematurity. Under these assumptions, we aim to randomly allocate 520 women to two groups of 260 women each. Analysis will be by intention to treat. Additionally a cost-effectiveness analysis will be performed to evaluate if the cost related to early delivery will outweigh those of expectant management. Long term outcomes will be evaluated using modelling. DISCUSSION: This trial will provide evidence as to whether induction of labour after preterm prelabour rupture of membranes is an effective and cost-effective strategy to reduce the risk of neonatal sepsis. CONTROLLED CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTER: ISRCTN29313500.