A prospective randomized controlled trial that compared misoprostol, Foley catheter, and combination misoprostol-Foley catheter for labor induction

A prospective randomized controlled trial that compared misoprostol, Foley catheter, and combination misoprostol-Foley catheter for labor induction
复制标题

DOI:
10.1067/s0002-9378(03)00842-1
复制
发表时间:
2003-10-01
影响因子:
9.8
通讯作者:
Nageotte, MP
Nageotte, MP
中科院分区:
医学1区
文献类型:
--
作者:
Chung, JH;Huang, WH;Nageotte, MP

文献摘要

被引文献

相似文献

目的:本研究的目的是确定联合阴道内米索前列醇和颅内Foley导管用于分娩前宫颈催熟的疗效。研究设计:进行前瞻性随机对照试验。接受引产的妇女,单胎妊娠大于或等于28周,宫颈不良(Bishop评分小于或等于6),被分配到三组之一:(1)阴道内米索前列醇25 μ g每3小时,(2)颅内16 F Foley导管,或(3)米索前列醇-Foley导管组合。在146名患者中,49名患者被分配到米索前列醇,54名患者被分配到Foley导管,43名患者被分配到联合治疗。阴道分娩率无差异(米索前列醇,63.3%; Foley,57.4%;联合用药,58.1%; P = 0.81)。也有没有统计学上的显着差异,诱导活跃期之间的间隔,活跃期交付,或诱导交付之间的三groups.CONCLUSION:阴道内米索前列醇和颅内Foley导管是preinduction宫颈成熟。这两种方法的组合没有提供额外的功效。
OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to determine the efficacy of combination intravaginal misoprostol and intracervical Foley catheter for prelabor cervical ripening.STUDY DESIGN: A prospective, randomized controlled trial was conducted. Women who were undergoing labor induction, with a singleton gestation greater than or equal to28 weeks and an unfavorable cervix (Bishop score less than or equal to 6), were assigned to one of three groups: (1) intravaginal misoprostol 25 mug every 3 hours, (2) intracervical 16F Foley catheter, or (3) combination misoprostol-Foley catheter.RESULTS: Among 146 patients, 49 patients were assigned to misoprostol, 54 patients were assigned to Foley catheter, and 43 patients were assigned to combination therapy. There was no difference in vaginal delivery rates (misoprOstol, 63.3%; Foley, 57.4%; combination, 58.1%; P = .81). There were also no statistically significant differences in the interval between induction to active phase, active phase to delivery, or induction to delivery among the three groups.CONCLUSION: Intravaginal misoprostol and intracervical Foley catheter are comparable for preinduction cervical ripening. The combination of the two methods did not provide additional efficacy.