Combined Use of Vaginal Misoprostol with Intracervical Foley Catheter Versus Vaginal Misoprostol alone in Induction of Labor at Term Pregnancy
Abstract Background Induction of labor should be used in the most efficient way possible that will result in a favorable obstetric outcome with minimum fetal morbidity. Objectives The aim of this study is to compare the efficacy and safety of intravaginal misoprostol alone versus intra cervical Fole...
Gespeichert in:
| Veröffentlicht in: | QJM : An International Journal of Medicine 2021-10, Vol.114 (Supplement_1) |
|---|---|
| Hauptverfasser: | , , , , |
| Format: | Artikel |
| Sprache: | eng |
| Online-Zugang: | Volltext |
| Tags: |
Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
|
| container_end_page | |
|---|---|
| container_issue | Supplement_1 |
| container_start_page | |
| container_title | QJM : An International Journal of Medicine |
| container_volume | 114 |
| creator | Swidan, Khaled Hassan El-Shahawy, Ahmed Abdel Shafy Abbass, Ahmed Mohamed Mohamed, Huda Mohamed Elsayed |
| description | Abstract
Background
Induction of labor should be used in the most efficient way possible that will result in a favorable obstetric outcome with minimum fetal morbidity.
Objectives
The aim of this study is to compare the efficacy and safety of intravaginal misoprostol alone versus intra cervical Foley catheter combined with vaginal misoprostol in induction of labor at term pregnancy.
Methods
This study was conducted at Obstetrics & Gynecology Department; Ain Shams University, Maternity Hospital in the period between May 2017 to October 2017. The total number of patients studied was 120 patients, divided into two groups; the first group (A) included 60 patients who received vaginal misoprostol, the second group (B) included 60 patients who received vaginal misoprostol combined with trans cervical Foley catheter.
Results
The current study found that the combined group has a better chance for NVD 88.3% versus 78.3% in misoprostol alone group, a lesser probability to CS 11.7% in combined group versus 21.7% in misoprostol alone group and a shorter induction delivery interval within 12 hours after induction (81.6% in combined group versus 59.5% in misoprostol group). Regarding the effect of both methods on fetal safety, we found that non reassuring FHR was more common in combined group 8.3% than misoprostol alone group 1.7% but it’s statistically non-significant. There was statistically significant increase in tachysystole in combined group 28.3% versus 13.3% in misoprostol alone group. However, dystocia was more common in misoprostol group 15% than combined group 3.3% that is also statistically significant.
Conclusion
Both methods can be used in induction of labor at term pregnancy without forgetting the precautions and close observation to the mother and the fetus. Combined method results in a shorter induction-to delivery time, but misoprostol alone was safer for the mother and the fetus. |
| doi_str_mv | 10.1093/qjmed/hcab115.018 |
| format | Article |
| fullrecord | <record><control><sourceid>oup_cross</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_crossref_primary_10_1093_qjmed_hcab115_018</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><oup_id>10.1093/qjmed/hcab115.018</oup_id><sourcerecordid>10.1093/qjmed/hcab115.018</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c1228-dbace1377c4aeca9753be35eee41b5351fc6d6343887ef977eaf89feff019a933</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNqNkEFOwzAQRS0EEqVwAHY-AKF2nNTJEkUUKhXBou02mjjj1lViFzsF9RKcmZSWHQtWM9L8_-frEXLL2T1nuRi9b1qsR2sFFefpPePZGRnwZMyiWOTi_HeXcXpJrkLYMMYSmWQD8lW4tjIWa7oISJ2mS1gZCw19McFtvQuda-in6dZ0ajsPCv2HUf154hrc0wK6NXbo6RJ92IU_zdA4i9TYPqDeqc44e3gzg8p5Ch2do2_pm8eVBav21-RCQxPw5jSHZDF5nBfP0ez1aVo8zCLF4ziL6qpvwoWUKgFUkMtUVChSREx4lYqUazWuxyIRWSZR51Ii6CzXqDXjOeRCDAk_5qq-ZfCoy603Lfh9yVl5AFr-AC1PQMseaO-5O3rcbvsP-TfFln4R</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Aggregation Database</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype></control><display><type>article</type><title>Combined Use of Vaginal Misoprostol with Intracervical Foley Catheter Versus Vaginal Misoprostol alone in Induction of Labor at Term Pregnancy</title><source>Oxford University Press Journals</source><source>Alma/SFX Local Collection</source><source>EZB Electronic Journals Library</source><creator>Swidan, Khaled Hassan ; El-Shahawy, Ahmed Abdel Shafy ; Abbass, ; Ahmed Mohamed ; Mohamed, Huda Mohamed Elsayed</creator><creatorcontrib>Swidan, Khaled Hassan ; El-Shahawy, Ahmed Abdel Shafy ; Abbass, ; Ahmed Mohamed ; Mohamed, Huda Mohamed Elsayed</creatorcontrib><description>Abstract
Background
Induction of labor should be used in the most efficient way possible that will result in a favorable obstetric outcome with minimum fetal morbidity.
Objectives
The aim of this study is to compare the efficacy and safety of intravaginal misoprostol alone versus intra cervical Foley catheter combined with vaginal misoprostol in induction of labor at term pregnancy.
Methods
This study was conducted at Obstetrics & Gynecology Department; Ain Shams University, Maternity Hospital in the period between May 2017 to October 2017. The total number of patients studied was 120 patients, divided into two groups; the first group (A) included 60 patients who received vaginal misoprostol, the second group (B) included 60 patients who received vaginal misoprostol combined with trans cervical Foley catheter.
Results
The current study found that the combined group has a better chance for NVD 88.3% versus 78.3% in misoprostol alone group, a lesser probability to CS 11.7% in combined group versus 21.7% in misoprostol alone group and a shorter induction delivery interval within 12 hours after induction (81.6% in combined group versus 59.5% in misoprostol group). Regarding the effect of both methods on fetal safety, we found that non reassuring FHR was more common in combined group 8.3% than misoprostol alone group 1.7% but it’s statistically non-significant. There was statistically significant increase in tachysystole in combined group 28.3% versus 13.3% in misoprostol alone group. However, dystocia was more common in misoprostol group 15% than combined group 3.3% that is also statistically significant.
Conclusion
Both methods can be used in induction of labor at term pregnancy without forgetting the precautions and close observation to the mother and the fetus. Combined method results in a shorter induction-to delivery time, but misoprostol alone was safer for the mother and the fetus.</description><identifier>ISSN: 1460-2725</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1460-2393</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1093/qjmed/hcab115.018</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>Oxford University Press</publisher><ispartof>QJM : An International Journal of Medicine, 2021-10, Vol.114 (Supplement_1)</ispartof><rights>The Author(s) 2021. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the Association of Physicians. All rights reserved. For permissions, please email: journals.permissions@oup.com 2021</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><oa>free_for_read</oa><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><link.rule.ids>314,780,784,27924,27925</link.rule.ids></links><search><creatorcontrib>Swidan, Khaled Hassan</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>El-Shahawy, Ahmed Abdel Shafy</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Abbass, ; Ahmed Mohamed</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Mohamed, Huda Mohamed Elsayed</creatorcontrib><title>Combined Use of Vaginal Misoprostol with Intracervical Foley Catheter Versus Vaginal Misoprostol alone in Induction of Labor at Term Pregnancy</title><title>QJM : An International Journal of Medicine</title><description>Abstract
Background
Induction of labor should be used in the most efficient way possible that will result in a favorable obstetric outcome with minimum fetal morbidity.
Objectives
The aim of this study is to compare the efficacy and safety of intravaginal misoprostol alone versus intra cervical Foley catheter combined with vaginal misoprostol in induction of labor at term pregnancy.
Methods
This study was conducted at Obstetrics & Gynecology Department; Ain Shams University, Maternity Hospital in the period between May 2017 to October 2017. The total number of patients studied was 120 patients, divided into two groups; the first group (A) included 60 patients who received vaginal misoprostol, the second group (B) included 60 patients who received vaginal misoprostol combined with trans cervical Foley catheter.
Results
The current study found that the combined group has a better chance for NVD 88.3% versus 78.3% in misoprostol alone group, a lesser probability to CS 11.7% in combined group versus 21.7% in misoprostol alone group and a shorter induction delivery interval within 12 hours after induction (81.6% in combined group versus 59.5% in misoprostol group). Regarding the effect of both methods on fetal safety, we found that non reassuring FHR was more common in combined group 8.3% than misoprostol alone group 1.7% but it’s statistically non-significant. There was statistically significant increase in tachysystole in combined group 28.3% versus 13.3% in misoprostol alone group. However, dystocia was more common in misoprostol group 15% than combined group 3.3% that is also statistically significant.
Conclusion
Both methods can be used in induction of labor at term pregnancy without forgetting the precautions and close observation to the mother and the fetus. Combined method results in a shorter induction-to delivery time, but misoprostol alone was safer for the mother and the fetus.</description><issn>1460-2725</issn><issn>1460-2393</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2021</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><recordid>eNqNkEFOwzAQRS0EEqVwAHY-AKF2nNTJEkUUKhXBou02mjjj1lViFzsF9RKcmZSWHQtWM9L8_-frEXLL2T1nuRi9b1qsR2sFFefpPePZGRnwZMyiWOTi_HeXcXpJrkLYMMYSmWQD8lW4tjIWa7oISJ2mS1gZCw19McFtvQuda-in6dZ0ajsPCv2HUf154hrc0wK6NXbo6RJ92IU_zdA4i9TYPqDeqc44e3gzg8p5Ch2do2_pm8eVBav21-RCQxPw5jSHZDF5nBfP0ez1aVo8zCLF4ziL6qpvwoWUKgFUkMtUVChSREx4lYqUazWuxyIRWSZR51Ii6CzXqDXjOeRCDAk_5qq-ZfCoy603Lfh9yVl5AFr-AC1PQMseaO-5O3rcbvsP-TfFln4R</recordid><startdate>20211001</startdate><enddate>20211001</enddate><creator>Swidan, Khaled Hassan</creator><creator>El-Shahawy, Ahmed Abdel Shafy</creator><creator>Abbass, ; Ahmed Mohamed</creator><creator>Mohamed, Huda Mohamed Elsayed</creator><general>Oxford University Press</general><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope></search><sort><creationdate>20211001</creationdate><title>Combined Use of Vaginal Misoprostol with Intracervical Foley Catheter Versus Vaginal Misoprostol alone in Induction of Labor at Term Pregnancy</title><author>Swidan, Khaled Hassan ; El-Shahawy, Ahmed Abdel Shafy ; Abbass, ; Ahmed Mohamed ; Mohamed, Huda Mohamed Elsayed</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c1228-dbace1377c4aeca9753be35eee41b5351fc6d6343887ef977eaf89feff019a933</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2021</creationdate><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Swidan, Khaled Hassan</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>El-Shahawy, Ahmed Abdel Shafy</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Abbass, ; Ahmed Mohamed</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Mohamed, Huda Mohamed Elsayed</creatorcontrib><collection>CrossRef</collection><jtitle>QJM : An International Journal of Medicine</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Swidan, Khaled Hassan</au><au>El-Shahawy, Ahmed Abdel Shafy</au><au>Abbass, ; Ahmed Mohamed</au><au>Mohamed, Huda Mohamed Elsayed</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>Combined Use of Vaginal Misoprostol with Intracervical Foley Catheter Versus Vaginal Misoprostol alone in Induction of Labor at Term Pregnancy</atitle><jtitle>QJM : An International Journal of Medicine</jtitle><date>2021-10-01</date><risdate>2021</risdate><volume>114</volume><issue>Supplement_1</issue><issn>1460-2725</issn><eissn>1460-2393</eissn><abstract>Abstract
Background
Induction of labor should be used in the most efficient way possible that will result in a favorable obstetric outcome with minimum fetal morbidity.
Objectives
The aim of this study is to compare the efficacy and safety of intravaginal misoprostol alone versus intra cervical Foley catheter combined with vaginal misoprostol in induction of labor at term pregnancy.
Methods
This study was conducted at Obstetrics & Gynecology Department; Ain Shams University, Maternity Hospital in the period between May 2017 to October 2017. The total number of patients studied was 120 patients, divided into two groups; the first group (A) included 60 patients who received vaginal misoprostol, the second group (B) included 60 patients who received vaginal misoprostol combined with trans cervical Foley catheter.
Results
The current study found that the combined group has a better chance for NVD 88.3% versus 78.3% in misoprostol alone group, a lesser probability to CS 11.7% in combined group versus 21.7% in misoprostol alone group and a shorter induction delivery interval within 12 hours after induction (81.6% in combined group versus 59.5% in misoprostol group). Regarding the effect of both methods on fetal safety, we found that non reassuring FHR was more common in combined group 8.3% than misoprostol alone group 1.7% but it’s statistically non-significant. There was statistically significant increase in tachysystole in combined group 28.3% versus 13.3% in misoprostol alone group. However, dystocia was more common in misoprostol group 15% than combined group 3.3% that is also statistically significant.
Conclusion
Both methods can be used in induction of labor at term pregnancy without forgetting the precautions and close observation to the mother and the fetus. Combined method results in a shorter induction-to delivery time, but misoprostol alone was safer for the mother and the fetus.</abstract><pub>Oxford University Press</pub><doi>10.1093/qjmed/hcab115.018</doi><oa>free_for_read</oa></addata></record> |
| fulltext | fulltext |
| identifier | ISSN: 1460-2725 |
| ispartof | QJM : An International Journal of Medicine, 2021-10, Vol.114 (Supplement_1) |
| issn | 1460-2725 1460-2393 |
| language | eng |
| recordid | cdi_crossref_primary_10_1093_qjmed_hcab115_018 |
| source | Oxford University Press Journals; Alma/SFX Local Collection; EZB Electronic Journals Library |
| title | Combined Use of Vaginal Misoprostol with Intracervical Foley Catheter Versus Vaginal Misoprostol alone in Induction of Labor at Term Pregnancy |
| url | https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2025-01-03T17%3A26%3A46IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-oup_cross&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Combined%20Use%20of%20Vaginal%20Misoprostol%20with%20Intracervical%20Foley%20Catheter%20Versus%20Vaginal%20Misoprostol%20alone%20in%20Induction%20of%20Labor%20at%20Term%20Pregnancy&rft.jtitle=QJM%20:%20An%20International%20Journal%20of%20Medicine&rft.au=Swidan,%20Khaled%20Hassan&rft.date=2021-10-01&rft.volume=114&rft.issue=Supplement_1&rft.issn=1460-2725&rft.eissn=1460-2393&rft_id=info:doi/10.1093/qjmed/hcab115.018&rft_dat=%3Coup_cross%3E10.1093/qjmed/hcab115.018%3C/oup_cross%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_id=info:pmid/&rft_oup_id=10.1093/qjmed/hcab115.018&rfr_iscdi=true |