Foley catheter compared with the controlled-release dinoprostone insert: a randomized controlled trial.

OBJECTIVE: To assess efficacy of the Foley catheter compared with the dinoprostone vaginal insert for beginning labor inductions at or near term. METHODS: We performed a multicenter randomized controlled trial. We enrolled women at 36 weeks of gestation or greater with a singleton live fetus in cephalic presentation, intact membranes, an unfavorable cervix (dilation less than 3 cm; if 2 cm, less than 80% effaced), and no contraindication to labor or either study agent. Women were allocated to either a cervical Foley catheter inflated to 30 mL or dinoprostone for up to 12 hours. Oxytocin was allowed only after study agent removal. The primary outcome was time from agent placement to delivery. Secondary outcomes included delivery by 24 hours, vaginal delivery by 24 hours, time to vaginal delivery, cesarean delivery rate, and rate of tachysystole. Analysis was by intent-to-treat. RESULTS: We enrolled 376 patients, 185 allocated to Foley catheter and 191 to dinoprostone. In the Foley catheter group, time to delivery was shorter (median 21.6 compared with 26.6 hours; P=.003), more patients delivered within 24 hours (56% compared with 40%; P=.003), more delivered vaginally within 24 hours (44% compared with 30%; P=.004), and time to vaginal delivery was shorter (median 20.1 compared with 24.3 hours; P=.005). The cesarean delivery rates were 29% compared with 39% (P=.07). Uterine tachysystole occurred in 0% compared with 3% (P=.06). CONCLUSION: Starting labor inductions with a Foley catheter, compared with the dinoprostone vaginal insert, results in a shorter time to delivery and a higher proportion of women delivered and delivered vaginally within 24 hours. Cesarean delivery rates were not statistically significantly different. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov, www.clinicaltrials.gov, NCT01402050. LEVEL OF EVIEDENCE: I.

Carboxymethylcellulose adhesion barrier placement at primary cesarean delivery and outcomes at repeat cesarean delivery.

OBJECTIVE: To assess associations of a commercially available carboxymethylcellulose adhesion barrier placed during primary cesarean delivery with clinical outcomes of repeat cesarean deliveries. METHODS: We performed a retrospective cohort study of women undergoing primary cesarean delivery on or after January 1, 2008, and first repeat cesarean delivery in one of four hospitals in the same system by June 30, 2011. Women were included if both deliveries were live singletons at 34-42 weeks of gestation delivered through transverse abdominal incisions and the first hysterotomy was low transverse. Exclusion criteria included intervening delivery; puerperal infection, bowel injury, or bladder injury at primary cesarean delivery; uterine incision or laparotomy (except primary cesarean delivery) before repeat cesarean delivery; and use of another adhesion barrier at primary cesarean delivery. As a surrogate for adhesion grading, the primary outcome was time from skin incision to neonate delivery at repeat cesarean delivery. We also assessed total operative time and rates of selected surgical complications. RESULTS: There were 517 women who met criteria; 248 received the adhesion barrier during primary cesarean delivery and 269 did not. There were no demographic differences between groups except delivery hospital. In the adhesion barrier and no adhesion barrier groups, respectively, mean±standard deviation times to delivery at repeat cesarean delivery were 6.1±3.0 compared with 5.8±2.5 minutes (P=.25), and total operative times were 31.2±10.6 compared with 31.8±11.6 minutes (P=.56). Surgical complications were not different between groups. CONCLUSION: Placing a commercially available carboxymethylcellulose adhesion barrier at primary cesarean delivery is not associated with decreased time to delivery, total operative time, or complications during repeat cesarean deliveries. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: II.

Transcervical Foley catheter with and without extraamniotic saline infusion for labor induction: a randomized controlled trial.

OBJECTIVE: To compare the efficacy of transcervical Foley catheter alone (Foley) to transcervical Foley catheter with extraamniotic saline infusion for labor induction and cervical ripening in women with an unfavorable cervix. METHODS: This was a multicenter, randomized, controlled trial of women presenting for labor induction with a singleton, cephalic fetus, intact membranes, and unfavorable cervix (Bishop score 6 or less). Eligible women were randomly assigned to receive either Foley catheter alone or Foley catheter with extraamniotic saline infusion. All women received concurrent oxytocin administration. The primary study outcome was the induction-to-delivery interval. Secondary outcomes included cesarean delivery, maternal infectious outcomes, and immediate neonatal outcomes. Analysis was by intent to treat. RESULTS: One hundred eighty-eight women met eligibility criteria and were randomly assigned (Foley plus extraamniotic saline infusion, n=97; Foley, n=91). Baseline demographic characteristics, including parity, gestational age, and Bishop score were similar between the study groups. The median induction-to-delivery interval in the extraamniotic saline infusion arm (12.6 hours, interquartile range 9.3-18.8 hours) was similar to that in the Foley arm (13.4 hours, interquartile range 9.6-17.5 hours) (P=. 70). The proportion of women delivered by 24 hours was comparable between groups (delivery 24 hours, extraamniotic saline infusion 89.7%, Foley 87.9%, P=.70), as was the rate of cesarean delivery (Foley 18.7%, extraamniotic saline infusion 27.8%, P=.14). No significant differences were noted between the study groups with respect to rate of chorioamnionitis, endometritis, or immediate birth outcomes. CONCLUSION: In women with an unfavorable cervix, the addition of extraamniotic saline infusion to a transcervical Foley catheter does not improve efficacy for labor induction. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov, www.clinicaltrials.gov, NCT00442663 LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: I.

Prophylactic subcutaneous drainage for prevention of wound complications after cesarean delivery--a metaanalysis.

A systematic literature review and meta-analysis of published data evaluating the effectiveness of prophylactic subcutaneous drainage to prevent wound complications in women undergoing cesarean delivery was performed. We identified 6 randomized trials of prophylactic subcutaneous drainage after cesarean delivery. Meta-analysis was performed and Peto odds ratios were calculated for each study outcome. The use of prophylactic subcutaneous drainage was not associated with a reduction in the rate of wound disruption (odds ratio 0.74, 95% CI: 0.39-1.42, P = .36, infection (odds ratio 1.15, 95% CI: 0.70-1.90, P = .58), hematoma (odds ratio 1.05, 95% CI: 0.33-3.30, P = .94), or seroma (odds ratio 0.44, 95% CI: 0.14-1.43, P = .17) when compared with women who were not receiving subcutaneous drainage. Prophylactic use of subcutaneous drainage does not prevent significant wound complications after cesarean delivery.

Preterm premature rupture of membranes in human immunodeficiency virus-infected women: a novel case series.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the management and outcomes of a series of human immunodeficiency virus-(HIV-) infected women whose pregnancies were complicated by preterm premature rupture of membranes (PPROM). STUDY DESIGN: We conducted a retrospective chart review of all women with confirmed HIV infection who had a pregnancy complicated by PPROM remote from term. PPROM remote from term was defined as rupture of membranes prior to 32-week gestation. Collective cases from two centers (Hennepin County Medical Center and The University of Alabama at Birmingham) were reviewed and data on management and outcomes were abstracted. RESULTS: Of the HIV-positive women, we identified 291 pregnancies having occurred in the study interval from two institutions. Of these pregnancies, 7 (2.4%) developed PPROM remote from term with subsequent delivery from 25- to 32-week gestation. Vertical HIV transmission was noted in 2 of 6 children whose long-term followup status was confirmed (33%) of these cases. However, both of these cases occurred in women with either no antepartum/intrapartum antiviral therapy or where only zidovudine monotherapy was used. Importantly, in spite of expectant management, no cases of vertical HIV transmission occurred in women who were receiving either multidrug or highly active antiviral therapy (HAART) at the time of PPROM and who had a cesarean delivery in cases where the predelivery viral load > 1000 copies/mL. CONCLUSION: Our limited observations raise the question as to whether in the current era of multidrug therapy immediate delivery should be undertaken in HIV+ pregnancies complicated by PPROM at an early gestational age. This case series further suggests that in those pregnancies that lend themselves to expectant management, such a strategy may be considered appropriate.

What is a failed labor induction?

Criteria for failed labor induction have not been standardized. The increasing prevalence of labor induction and the lack of a definition for failed induction contribute to unnecessary abdominal deliveries. Labor duration, cervical dilation, and uterine activity necessary to attain the active phase are reviewed. A practical definition of failed induction of labor is suggested.

Umbilical cord prolapse.

Prolapse of the umbilical cord is a rare obstetric emergency that in the viable fetus necessitates an expeditious delivery. A case of a periviable pregnancy complicated by preterm premature rupture of membranes and overt umbilical cord prolapse was prolonged 2 weeks with expectant management is described. An extensive review of the literature regarding the etiology, risk factors, and management options for umbilical cord prolapse in both viable and previable pregnancies accompanies this report.

Misoprostol for labor induction in women with term premature rupture of membranes: a meta-analysis.

OBJECTIVE: To systematically review published data evaluating the comparative use of misoprostol with placebo/expectant management or oxytocin for labor induction in women with term (> or = 36 weeks of gestation) premature rupture of membranes. DATA SOURCES: PubMed (1966-2005), Ovid (1966-2005), CINAHL, The Cochrane Library, ACP Journal Club, OCLC, abstracts from scientific forums, and bibliographies of published articles were searched using the following keywords: premature rupture of membranes, misoprostol, labor induction, and cervical ripening. Primary authors were contacted directly if the data sought were unavailable or only published in abstract form. METHODS OF STUDY SELECTION: Only randomized controlled trials evaluating the efficacy and safety of misoprostol in comparison with placebo or expectant management (n = 6) and oxytocin (n = 9) published in either article or abstract form were analyzed and included in the meta-analysis. TABULATION, INTEGRATION, AND RESULTS: Studies were reviewed independently by all authors. Meta-analysis was performed, and the relative risks (RRs) were calculated and pooled for each study outcome. Misoprostol, compared with placebo, significantly increased vaginal delivery less than 12 hours (RR 2.71, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.87-3.92, P < .001). Misoprostol was similar to oxytocin with respect to vaginal delivery less than 24 hours (RR 1.07, 95% CI 0.88-1.31, P = .50) and less than 12 hours (RR 0.98, 95% CI 0.71-1.35, P = .90). Misoprostol was not associated with an increased risk of tachysystole, hypertonus, or hyperstimulation syndrome when compared with oxytocin and had similar risks for adverse neonatal and maternal outcomes. CONCLUSION: Misoprostol is an effective and safe agent for induction of labor in women with term premature rupture of membranes. When compared with oxytocin, the risk of contraction abnormalities and the rate of maternal and neonatal complications were similar among the 2 groups.