<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><!DOCTYPE article  PUBLIC "-//NLM//DTD Journal Publishing DTD v3.0 20080202//EN" "http://dtd.nlm.nih.gov/publishing/3.0/journalpublishing3.dtd"><article xmlns:mml="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML" xmlns:xlink="http://www.w3.org/1999/xlink" dtd-version="3.0" xml:lang="en" article-type="research article"><front><journal-meta><journal-id journal-id-type="publisher-id">OJOG</journal-id><journal-title-group><journal-title>Open Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology</journal-title></journal-title-group><issn pub-type="epub">2160-8792</issn><publisher><publisher-name>Scientific Research Publishing</publisher-name></publisher></journal-meta><article-meta><article-id pub-id-type="doi">10.4236/ojog.2015.514116</article-id><article-id pub-id-type="publisher-id">OJOG-61721</article-id><article-categories><subj-group subj-group-type="heading"><subject>Articles</subject></subj-group><subj-group subj-group-type="Discipline-v2"><subject>Medicine&amp;Healthcare</subject></subj-group></article-categories><title-group><article-title>
 
 
  Labor Induction with Transcervical Catheter versus Oral Misoprostol in Primiparous Women and Women with an Unripe Cervix
 
</article-title></title-group><contrib-group><contrib contrib-type="author" xlink:type="simple"><name name-style="western"><surname>nna</surname><given-names>Thorbiornson</given-names></name><xref ref-type="aff" rid="aff1"><sup>1</sup></xref></contrib><contrib contrib-type="author" xlink:type="simple"><name name-style="western"><surname>Tomislav</surname><given-names>Vladic</given-names></name><xref ref-type="aff" rid="aff2"><sup>2</sup></xref></contrib><contrib contrib-type="author" xlink:type="simple"><name name-style="western"><surname>Ylva</surname><given-names>Vladic Stjernholm</given-names></name><xref ref-type="aff" rid="aff2"><sup>2</sup></xref><xref ref-type="corresp" rid="cor1"><sup>*</sup></xref></contrib></contrib-group><aff id="aff2"><addr-line>Department of Women’s and Children’s Health, Karolinska University Hospital, Stockholm, Sweden</addr-line></aff><aff id="aff1"><addr-line>Medical Educational Programme in Gynecology and Obstetrics, Karolinska University Hospital and Karolinska Institute, Stockholm, Sweden</addr-line></aff><author-notes><corresp id="cor1">* E-mail:<email>ylva.vladic-stjernholm@karolinska.se(YVS)</email>;</corresp></author-notes><pub-date pub-type="epub"><day>30</day><month>11</month><year>2015</year></pub-date><volume>05</volume><issue>14</issue><fpage>819</fpage><lpage>826</lpage><history><date date-type="received"><day>28</day>	<month>September</month>	<year>2015</year></date><date date-type="rev-recd"><day>accepted</day>	<month>28</month>	<year>November</year>	</date><date date-type="accepted"><day>4</day>	<month>December</month>	<year>2015</year></date></history><permissions><copyright-statement>&#169; Copyright  2014 by authors and Scientific Research Publishing Inc. </copyright-statement><copyright-year>2014</copyright-year><license><license-p>This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution International License (CC BY). http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/</license-p></license></permissions><abstract><p>
 
 
  Objective
  : To compare labor induction with transcervical catheter to oral misoprostol treatment in primiparous women and women with an unripe cervix, who are at high risk for unsuccessful labor induction. Study Design: A retrospective study was carried out in a university hospital in Sweden. Primary outcomes were vaginal birth within 24 hours and the cesarean section rate. Secondary outcomes were the induction to vaginal delivery interval, chorioamnionitis and neonatal asphyxia. Results: Vaginal birth within 24 hours was obtained more frequently after catheter compared with misoprostol in primiparous women (p &lt; 0.001) and women with Bishop scores 3 - 4 (p &lt; 0.001), but not in women with Bishop scores 0 - 2 (p = 0.07). The cesarean section rates were comparable in all groups (p &gt; 0.05). The induction to vaginal delivery interval was 8 - 12 hours shorter after catheter (p &lt; 0.001). The rates of chorioamnionitis and newborns with an Apgar score &lt; 7 at 5 min were comparable (p &gt; 0.05). Conclusion: Labor induction with transcervical catheter resulted in a higher rate of vaginal birth within 24 hours and an 8 - 12 hour shorter induction to vaginal delivery interval
   
  compared to treatment with oral misoprostol. This was obtained without increasing the rates of cesarean section, chorioamnionitis or neonatal asphyxia.
 
</p></abstract><kwd-group><kwd>Cervical Ripening</kwd><kwd> Transcervical Catheter</kwd><kwd> Oral Misoprostol</kwd><kwd> Vaginal Birth</kwd><kwd> Cesarean Section</kwd></kwd-group></article-meta></front><body><sec id="s1"><title>1. Introduction</title><p>Induction of labor is performed in up to 25% of term pregnancies in developed countries. It has increased in Sweden from 7% in the early 1990s to 16% in 2012 [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.61721-ref1">1</xref>] [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.61721-ref2">2</xref>] . Labor induction involves increased risks for prolonged labor and operative delivery. These disadvantages are particularly prominent in primiparous women and women with an unripe cervix [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.61721-ref3">3</xref>] . Among these subgroups, preinduction cervical ripening is necessary for a successful vaginal birth (VB). To our knowledge, there are no reports on labor induction with transcervical catheter compared with oral misoprostol in women with different parity and different Bishop scores (BS). The Cochrane reviewers do not report such subgroup analyses [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.61721-ref4">4</xref>] [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.61721-ref5">5</xref>] .</p><p>Mechanical treatment with catheter for labor induction was first described in the 1860s [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.61721-ref6">6</xref>] . The insertion of a transcervical catheter into the extraamniotic space separates the fetal membranes from the uterine wall, which stimulates the release of prostaglandins and oxytocin from the fetal membranes and uterine decidua [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.61721-ref7">7</xref>] . These agents dissolve the glycosaminoglycan cross-links between the collagen fibrils in the cervical connective tissue, allowing for cervical effacement and dilatation [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.61721-ref8">8</xref>] . The transcervical catheter may also stimulate neuroendocrine pathways interrelated with oxytocin synthesis and release, i.e. the Ferguson reflex [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.61721-ref9">9</xref>] .</p><p>Prostaglandin (PG) treatment for labor induction has been used since the 1980s [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.61721-ref10">10</xref>] . Oral administration was not used because of presumed less efficacy and fear for gastrointestinal side effects. However, oral treatment with the PGE1 analogue misoprostol is well tolerated and is followed by a lower risk for uterine hyperstimulation and neonatal asphyxia compared to vaginal misoprostol [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.61721-ref1">1</xref>] [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.61721-ref5">5</xref>] .</p><p>The choice of method is usually based on the caregiver’s preference, the indication for labor induction, parity, BS and whether there is a medical history of a previous cesarean section (CS) or not.</p><p>The objective in this study was to investigate labor induction with transcervical catheter compared to treatment with oral misoprostol. The primary outcomes were VB within 24 hours and the CS rate. Secondary outcomes were the induction to vaginal delivery interval, as well as the rates of chorioamnionitis and neonatal asphyxia.</p></sec><sec id="s2"><title>2. Material and Methods</title><p>The study was approved by the Ethics Board for Medical Sciences in Stockholm 2014/255-31. It was initiated as a quality contro project within the frames of the Medical Educational Programme at the Karolinska Institute. All clinical maternal and neonatal data were collected from original medical records in a tertiary hospital at the Department of Women’s and Children’s Health, Karolinska University Hospital, Solna, Sweden. Between January 1<sup>st</sup> and December 31<sup>st</sup> 2012, 3952 women gave birth at the obstetric unit. Of these, 839 women i.e. 21.2% had labor induced with amniotomy, oxytocin infusion, vaginal PGE2 or transcervical catheter (<xref ref-type="fig" rid="fig1">Figure 1</xref>). According to the ICD-10 system and medical records 317 women, i.e. 37.8% of all inductions, underwent labor induction with transcervical catheter. Three women with intrauterine fetal death (IUFD) were excluded from the calculations. Accordingly, clinical data from 314 medical records were analyzed. A 22 Charri&#232;re Foley catheter (Meteko Instruments AB, Stockholm, Sweden) was inserted into the extraamniotic space at speculum investigation or digital examination according to the preference of the physician. After insertion, the catheter balloon was filled with water or NaCl 0.9% 50 mL and fastened to the thigh without traction. The position of the catheter was controlled by precoucious traction every 30 min. Immediately after expulsed, amniotomy was performed. If not expulsed after 8 hours, the catheter was removed and amniotomy was performed according to the clinical guidelines. Oxytocin (Syntocinon<sup>&#174;</sup>, CD Pharma, Sweden) infusion 5 U/500mL saline was started if no uterine contractions were observed within 1 hour after amniotomy, and immediately after catheter expulsion in the subgroup with prelabor rupture of the fetal membranes. The fetal heart activity was monitored with cardiotocography (CTG) 20 min before and after application and at labor onset. Between January 1<sup>st</sup> and December 31<sup>st</sup> 2013, 3916 women gave birth at the obstetric unit. Of these, 819 women i.e. 20.9% had labor induced with amniotomy, oxytocin infusion, oral misoprostol, vaginal PGE2 or transcervical catheter (<xref ref-type="fig" rid="fig2">Figure 2</xref>). Oral misoprostol was introduced for labor induction in 2013, and 275 women had labor induced with this method. One participant was excluded because another method was used. Thus, 274 women i.e. 33.4% of all inductions were treated with oral misoprostol. Nine women with IUFD were excluded from the calculations. Accordingly, clinical data from 265 medical records were analyzed. Labor induction with oral misoprostol was carried out with the smallest available misoprostol (Cytotec<sup>&#174;</sup>, Pfizer, Sweden) tablet 200 μg dissolved in 20 mL of water resulting in a concentration of 10 μg/mL. A therapeutically adequate concentration of PGE1 was obtained [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.61721-ref11">11</xref>] . A solution of 2.5 mL containing 25 μg misoprostol was aspirated in a 3 mL syringe, whereupon the woman sprayed the solution</p><fig id="fig1"  position="float"><label><xref ref-type="fig" rid="fig1">Figure 1</xref></label><caption><title> Assessment for eligibility 2012</title></caption><graphic mimetype="image"   position="float"  xlink:type="simple"  xlink:href="http://html.scirp.org/file/9-1431029x7.png"/></fig><fig id="fig2"  position="float"><label><xref ref-type="fig" rid="fig2">Figure 2</xref></label><caption><title> Assessment for eligibility 2013</title></caption><graphic mimetype="image"   position="float"  xlink:type="simple"  xlink:href="http://html.scirp.org/file/9-1431029x8.png"/></fig><p>in her mouth. Thereafter, water was aspirated in the syringe and was swallowed. The treatment was continued every 2 hour until labor onset up to a maximum of 8 doses. Fetal heart activity was monitored with CTG 20 min before each dose and at labor onset. If uterine contractions were observed, the following dose was postponed for 2 hours, given that active labor had not started. When a BS &gt; 5 was achieved, amniotomy was performed. Oxytocin (Syntocinon<sup>&#174;</sup>, CD Pharma, Sweden) infusion 5 U/500mL saline was started for augmentation of labor according to the clinical guidelines, if there was no progress within 3 - 4 hours following amniotomy or spontaneous prelabor rupture of the fetal membranes.</p><p>Postterm pregnancy was defined as gestational age 42 + 0 weeks [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.61721-ref12">12</xref>] . Prelabor rupture of the fetal membranes was diagnosed visually and induction was initiated after 36 - 48 hours. The hypertensive disease group included women with essential hypertension, gestational hypertension or preeclampsia. The group imminent fetal distress included women with reduced fetal movements in combination with oligohydramniosis, antepartal pathological CTG or pathological umbilical arterial blood flow, decidual bleeding or Rhesus immunization. Psychosocial indications were fear of childbirth or normal pregnancy with pregnancy ailments. Maternal illness included women suffering from thrombophilia, malignancy, heart disease, or other chronic systemic diseases. The group fetal disease/indication included presumed macrosomia, anomalies or fetal cardiac arrhythmia. Women with gestational diabetes or diabetes mellitus were planned for induction at 38 - 40 weeks. Primiparous women ≥ 40 years who had undergone in vitro fertilization (IVF) were planned for induction at 41 weeks. A long latency phase was defined as cervical dilatation ≤ 3 cm in spite of contractions lasting for 18 hours or more. In the duplex group, dichoriotic twin pregnancies with symmetric fetal growth were induced at 38 weeks and monochoriotic twin pregnancies with the same criteria at 37 weeks. Cervical ripening was categorized according to the Bishop scoring system monitoring 0 - 2 points for consistency, effacement, dilatation, position and station in the pelvic canal. A BS &gt; 5 was the criterion for a ripe cervix [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.61721-ref13">13</xref>] . Hyperstimulation was defined as &gt; 5 contractions every 10 min during 20 min monitored by CTG. An Apgar score &lt; 7 at 5 min was the criterion for neonatal asphyxia [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.61721-ref14">14</xref>] .</p><p>All data were entered into the computer program Statistica, version AX, StatSoft, Inc, Tulsa, Oklahoma, US (2014). The continous data were analyzed with one-way analysis of variance (ANOVA). Assumptions for parametric statistics were tested by Levene’s and Bartlett’s tests. Statistical significance was set at p &lt; 0.05. A power analysis was performed based on previous data [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.61721-ref4">4</xref>] [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.61721-ref5">5</xref>] [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.61721-ref15">15</xref>] . We estimated the rate of VB &lt; 24 hours to 40% in the misoprostol group and assumed that VB &lt; 24 hours would be achieved in 60% in the catheter group. Aiming at significance level 5% and 90% power, it would be necessary to include 125 women in each group.</p></sec><sec id="s3"><title>3. Results</title><p>The indications for labor induction were similar between the groups (<xref ref-type="table" rid="table1">Table 1</xref>). Women suffering from IUFD were included in <xref ref-type="table" rid="table1">Table 1</xref> and excluded from Tables 2-5. The demographic maternal data, i.e. age, parity, gestational age and rate of preterm gestational age &lt; 37 + 0 weeks (259 days), were comparable (p &gt; 0.05). The mean BS was lower in the misoprostol group (p &lt; 0.001, <xref ref-type="table" rid="table2">Table 2</xref>). Maternal outcomes are shown in <xref ref-type="table" rid="table3">Table 3</xref>. Transcervical catheter was followed by a higher rate of VB &lt; 24 hours in primiparous women and in women with BS 3 - 4 (p &lt; 0.001), but not in women with BS 0 - 2 (p = 0.07). The CS rates were comparable in all groups (p &gt; 0.05). The instrumental delivery rates did not differ (p &gt; 0.05) and the main indication for an instrumental delivery with both methods was a prolonged second stage of labor (p &gt; 0.05, data not shown).</p><p>The induction to vaginal delivery interval was 8 - 12 hours shorter with catheter (p &lt; 0.001, <xref ref-type="table" rid="table4">Table 4</xref>). In the misoprostol group, 24 women (9.0%) had a transcervical catheter inserted and 6 women (2.0%) were treated with vaginal PGE2 because of an unripe cervix with a BS &lt; 5 after the maximum 8 doses of misoprostol. No insertion in the catheter group was followed by any other method for labor induction.</p><p>The rates of chorioamnionitis were comparable with the two methods (p &gt; 0.05). The neonatal birth weight and rates of newborns with an Apgar score &lt; 7 at 5 min were similar (p &gt; 0.05, <xref ref-type="table" rid="table5">Table 5</xref>).</p><p>Among women with ruptured fetal membranes only (data not shown), VB &lt; 24 hours was achieved in 75.5% with catheter and 53.2% with oral misoprostol (p &gt; 0.05). The CS rate with catheter was 22.6% compared to 19% with oral misoprostol (p &gt; 0.05).</p></sec><sec id="s4"><title>4. Discussion</title><p>In this study, labor induction with transcervical catheter was compared to oral misoprostol treatment in primiparous</p><table-wrap id="table1" ><label><xref ref-type="table" rid="table1">Table 1</xref></label><caption><title> Indications for labor induction</title></caption><table><tbody><thead><tr><th align="center" valign="middle" >Indication</th><th align="center" valign="middle" >Catheter n = 317 (%)</th><th align="center" valign="middle" >Misoprostol n = 274 (%)</th><th align="center" valign="middle" >p value</th></tr></thead><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Postterm</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >67 (21.1)</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >64 (23.3)</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >p &gt; 0.05</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Prelabor rupture of fetal membranes</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >73 (23.0)</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >41 (15.0)</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >p &gt; 0.05</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Hypertensive disease</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >36 (11.4)</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >36 (13.1)</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >p &gt; 0.05</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Imminent fetal distress</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >41 (12.9)</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >36 (13.1)</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >p &gt; 0.05</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Psychosocial</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >27 (8.5)</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >24 (8.8)</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >p &gt; 0.05</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Maternal illness</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >20 (6.3)</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >22 (8.0)</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >p &gt; 0.05</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Diabetes</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >13 (4.1)</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >10 (3.6)</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >p &gt; 0.05</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Primiparous women ≥ 40 years after IVF</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >13 (4.1)</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >7 (2.6)</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >p &gt; 0.05</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Fetal disease/indication</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >10 (3.1)</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >17 (6.2)</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >p &gt; 0.05</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Latency phase prolonged</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >9 (2.8)</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >6 (2.2)</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >p &gt; 0.05</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Duplex</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >5 (1.6)</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >2 (0.7)</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >p &gt; 0.05</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Intrauterine fetal death</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >3 (0.9)</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >9 (3.3)</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >p &gt; 0.05</td></tr></tbody></table></table-wrap><table-wrap id="table2" ><label><xref ref-type="table" rid="table2">Table 2</xref></label><caption><title> Demographic maternal data. Women suffering from intrauterine fetal death are excluded</title></caption><table><tbody><thead><tr><th align="center" valign="middle" >Variable</th><th align="center" valign="middle" >Catheter n = 314</th><th align="center" valign="middle" >Misoprostol n = 265</th><th align="center" valign="middle" >p value</th></tr></thead><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Age (median and range)</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >32 (17 - 50)</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >32 (18 - 46)</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >p &gt; 0.05</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Primiparous (%)</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >173 (55.1)</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >164 (61.9)</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >p &gt; 0.05</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Previous CS (%)</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >40 (12.6)</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >8 (3.0)</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >p &gt; 0.05</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Gestational age (median and range)</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >39 (34 - 42)</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >39 (34 - 42)</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >p &gt; 0.05</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Gestational age &lt; 37 + 0 weeks (%)</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >4 (1.3)</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >13 (4.9)</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >p &gt; 0.05</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Bishop score all women (mean)</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >2.6</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >2.1</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >p &lt; 0.001</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Bishop score 0 - 2 (%)</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >27 (8.6)</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >110 (41.5)</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >p &gt; 0.05</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Bishop score 3 - 4 (%)</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >190 (60.5)</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >128 (48.3)</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >p &gt; 0.05</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Bishop score ≥ 5 (%)</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >97 (30.9)</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >27 (10.2)</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >p &gt; 0.05</td></tr></tbody></table></table-wrap><table-wrap id="table3" ><label><xref ref-type="table" rid="table3">Table 3</xref></label><caption><title> Maternal outcomes. Women suffering from intrauterine fetal death are excluded</title></caption><table><tbody><thead><tr><th align="center" valign="middle" >Variable</th><th align="center" valign="middle" >Catheter</th><th align="center" valign="middle" >Misoprostol</th><th align="center" valign="middle" >p value</th></tr></thead><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >All women</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >n = 314 (%)</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >n = 265 (%)</td><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Vaginal birth within 24 hours (%)</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >237 (75.5)</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >141 (53.2)</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >p &lt; 0.001</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Cesarean section (%)</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >71 (22.6)</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >51 (19.2)</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >p &gt; 0.05</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Instrumental delivery (%)</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >41 (13.0)</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >48 (18.1)</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >p &gt; 0.05</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Hyperstimulation</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >p &gt; 0.05</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Chorioamnionitis (%)</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >7 (2.2)</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >8 (3.0)</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >p &gt; 0.05</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Uterine rupture</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >0</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >p &gt; 0.05</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Primiparous women</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >n = 173</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >n = 162</td><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Vaginal birth within 24 hours (%)</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >136 (78.6)</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >66 (40.2)</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >p &lt; 0.001</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Cesarean section</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >51 (29.4)</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >41 (25.0)</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >p &gt; 0.05</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Bishop score 0 - 2</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >n = 27</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >n = 110</td><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Vaginal birth within 24 hours (%)</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >16 (59.2)</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >47 (42.7)</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >p = 0.07</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Cesarean section (%)</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >8 (29.6)</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >30 (27.3)</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >p &gt; 0.05</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Bishop score 3 - 4</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >n = 190</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >n = 128</td><td align="center" valign="middle" ></td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Vaginal birth within 24 hours (%)</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >141 (74.2)</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >78 (60.9)</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >p &lt; 0.001</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Cesarean section (%)</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >46 (24.2)</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >19 (14.8)</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >p &gt; 0.05</td></tr></tbody></table></table-wrap><table-wrap id="table4" ><label><xref ref-type="table" rid="table4">Table 4</xref></label><caption><title> Induction to vaginal delivery intervals in hours (mean &#177; standard error). Women suffering from intrauterine fetal death and women delivered by cesarean section are excluded</title></caption><table><tbody><thead><tr><th align="center" valign="middle" >Variable</th><th align="center" valign="middle" >Catheter n = 243</th><th align="center" valign="middle" >Misoprostol n = 214</th><th align="center" valign="middle" >p value</th></tr></thead><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >All women</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >11.8 &#177; 0.3</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >21.6 &#177; 0.6</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >p &lt; 0.001</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Primiparous women</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >13.0 &#177; 0.4</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >24.9 &#177; 0.8</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >p &lt; 0.001</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Bishop Score 0 - 2</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >13.1 &#177; 1.3</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >24.1 &#177; 0.8</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >p &lt; 0.001</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Bishop Score 3 - 4</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >11.9 &#177; 0.4</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >20.1 &#177; 0.8</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >p &lt; 0.001</td></tr></tbody></table></table-wrap><table-wrap id="table5" ><label><xref ref-type="table" rid="table5">Table 5</xref></label><caption><title> Neonatal outcomes</title></caption><table><tbody><thead><tr><th align="center" valign="middle" >Variable</th><th align="center" valign="middle" >Catheter n = 314</th><th align="center" valign="middle" >Misoprostol n = 265</th><th align="center" valign="middle" >p value</th></tr></thead><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Birth weight (g) (mean &#177; SD)</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >3495 &#177; 568</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >3472 &#177; 579</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >p &gt; 0.05</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="middle" >Apgar score &lt; 7 at 5 min (%)</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >7 (2.2)</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >4 (1.5)</td><td align="center" valign="middle" >p &gt; 0.05</td></tr></tbody></table></table-wrap><p>women and women with an unripe cervix, who were at high risk for unsuccessful labor induction, resulting in prolonged labor and CS. An uncomplicated first childbirth is the primary positive prognostic factor for a later successful delivery [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.61721-ref16">16</xref>] . The most common indications for labor induction were postterm pregnancy, prelabor rupture of the fetal membranes, hypertensive disease and imminent fetal distress. The demographic maternal data were comparable, except for the mean BS, which was lower in the misoprostol group. This was not a bias since subgroup analyses for different BS were performed.</p><p>Transcervical catheter was followed by VB &lt; 24 hours more frequently in primiparous women and women with BS 3 - 4 compared to oral misoprostol. The lack of significance in women with BS 0 - 2 could be explained by the limited sample size. The CS rates were comparable with the two methods in all groups, and the instrumental delivery rates were comparable. The major indication for a CS and an instrumental delivery with both methods was prolonged labor. The second indication was fetal distress, defined as a pathologic CTG pattern or a pathological fetal scalp lactate.</p><p>It was emphasized in clinical practice that cervical ripening with prostaglandins was hazardous among women with a previous CS because of an increased risk for uterine scar rupture [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.61721-ref1">1</xref>] [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.61721-ref5">5</xref>] . Forty women (12.6%) with a previous CS were treated with a transcervical catheter and 8 women (3.0%) with a previous CS were treated with oral misoprostol due to the individual physician’s choice. However, no uterine ruptures were observed in our material. Labor induction with transcervical catheter has been related to an increased incidence of chorioamnionitis [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.61721-ref17">17</xref>] . However, the incidence of chorioamnionitis in the present study was lower than the previously reported 15.2% after catheter and 14.3% after oral misoprostol [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.61721-ref18">18</xref>] . The rates of chorioamnionitis in the catheter and oral misoprostol groups were comparable, and did not differ from the general incidence in the obstetric unit, being 1.3% in 2012 and 2013.</p><p>Strengths with this study were that data were collected from original medical records and the large sample size. The retrospective character was in itself a limitation.</p><p>The costs were low with both methods. In average, 5 doses of misoprostol were required to achieve a BS allowing for amniotomy. The cost for 5 fresh doses of misoprostol was €9.2 and the cost for 1 Foley catheter was €2.2.</p><p>There are, to our knowledge, very few reports on labor induction with transcervical catheter compared to treatment with oral misoprostol. Abramovici et al. investigated labor induction with oral misoprostol 50 μg every 4 hours up to a maximum of 6 doses in 98 women compared with transcervical catheter up to 12 hours in 99 women. VB &lt; 24 hours was obtained in 84.8% after catheter versus 68.4% after misoprostol in all women, and 82.5% after catheter versus 53.4% after misoprostol in primiparous women. The authors concluded that misoprostol was as effective as catheter in multiparous women, but less efficacious in primiparous women [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.61721-ref18">18</xref>] . Goonewardene et al. reported on labor induction in postterm pregnancy with oral misoprostol 25 μg every 4 hours for 24 hours in 74 women compared with catheter for 24 hours in 78 women. VB &lt; 24 hours was not measured. The authors concluded that catheter was more effective than oral misoprostol [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.61721-ref19">19</xref>] . The CS rates in the present study were comparable with those reported by Abramovici et al. [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.61721-ref18">18</xref>] , but lower after misoprostol than reported by Goonewardene et al. [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.61721-ref19">19</xref>] . In the ongoing multicenter PROBAAT-II study, initiated 2013 in the Netherlands, labor induction with a catheter for 4 days is compared to treatment with oral misoprostol 50 μg every 4 hours up to 3 doses a day during 4 days [<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="scirp.61721-ref20">20</xref>] .</p><p>In conclusion, labor induction with transcervical catheter resulted in a higher rate of VB &lt; 24 hours and an 8 - 12 hours shorter induction to vaginal delivery interval in primiparous women and women with an unripe cervix. This was obtained without increasing the rates of CS, chorioamnionitis or neonatal asphyxia.</p></sec><sec id="s5"><title>Conflicts of Interests</title><p>None.</p></sec><sec id="s6"><title>Cite this paper</title><p>AnnaThorbiornson,TomislavVladic,Ylva VladicStjernholm, (2015) Labor Induction with Transcervical Catheter versus Oral Misoprostol in Primiparous Women and Women with an Unripe Cervix. Open Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology,05,819-826. doi: 10.4236/ojog.2015.514116</p></sec><sec id="s7"><title>NOTES</title></sec></body><back><ref-list><title>References</title><ref id="scirp.61721-ref1"><label>1</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">World health Organization (2011) WHO Recommendations for Induction of Labour. World Health Organization, Geneva.</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.61721-ref2"><label>2</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">The Swedish National Board of Health and Welfare (2013) Pregnancies, Deliveries and Newborn Babies. The Swedish Medical Birth Register 1973-2012. www.socialstyrelsen.se</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.61721-ref3"><label>3</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Caughey, A.B., Sundaram, V., Kaimal, A.J., Cheng, Y.W., Gienger, A., Little, S.E., et al. (2009) Maternal and Neonatal Outcomes of Elective Induction of Labor (Review). Evidence Report/Technology Assessment, 176, 1-257.</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.61721-ref4"><label>4</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Jozwiak, M., Bloemenkamp, K.W.M., Kelly, A.J., Mol, B.W.J., Irion, O. and Boulvain, M. (2012) Mechanical Methods for Induction of Labour (Review). Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, 2012, Article ID: CD001233.http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/14651858.cd001233.pub2</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.61721-ref5"><label>5</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Alfirevic, Z., Aflaifel, N. and Weeks, A. (2014) Oral Misoprostol for Induction of Labour. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, 2014, Article ID: CD001338. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/14651858.cd001338.pub3</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.61721-ref6"><label>6</label><mixed-citation publication-type="journal" xlink:type="simple"><name name-style="western"><surname>Woodman</surname><given-names> W.B. </given-names></name>,<etal>et al</etal>. (<year>1863</year>)<article-title>Induction of Labor at Eight Months and Delivery of a Living Child in Less than Four Hours by Dr Barnes’ Method</article-title><source> Lancet</source><volume> 81</volume>,<fpage> 10</fpage>-<lpage>11</lpage>.<pub-id pub-id-type="doi"></pub-id></mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.61721-ref7"><label>7</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Challis, J.R. and Smith, S.K. (2001) Fetal Endocrine Signals and Preterm Labor. Biology of the Neonate, 79, 163-167.</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.61721-ref8"><label>8</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Hertelendy, F. and Zakar, T. (2004) Prostaglandins, the Myometrium and the Cervix. Prostaglandins, Leukotrienes &amp; Essential Fatty Acids, 70, 207-222. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.plefa.2003.04.009</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.61721-ref9"><label>9</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Ferguson, J.K. (1941) A Study of the Motility of the Intact Uterus at Term. Surgery, Gynecology, and Obstetrics, 73, 359-366.</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.61721-ref10"><label>10</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Ulmsten, U., Wingerup, L. and Ekman, G. (1983) Local Application of Prostaglandin E2 for Cervical Ripening or Induction of Term Labor. Clinical Obstetrics &amp; Gynecology, 26, 95-105. http://dx.doi.org/10.1097/00003081-198303000-00013</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.61721-ref11"><label>11</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">The Swedish Medical Products Agency (2012) Laboratory Study on Preparation of Cytotec for Labour Induction. Laboratory Report No. 297: 2012/507712.</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.61721-ref12"><label>12</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">World Health Organization (1977) WHO: Recommended Definitions, Terminology and Format for Statistical Tables Related to the Perinatal Period and Use of a New Certificate for Cause of Perinatal Deaths. Acta Obstetricia et Gynecologica Scandinavica, 56, 247-253.</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.61721-ref13"><label>13</label><mixed-citation publication-type="journal" xlink:type="simple"><name name-style="western"><surname>Bishop</surname><given-names> E.H. </given-names></name>,<etal>et al</etal>. (<year>1964</year>)<article-title>Pelvic Scoring for Elective Induction</article-title><source> Obstetrics &amp; Gynecology</source><volume> 24</volume>,<fpage> 266</fpage>-<lpage>268</lpage>.<pub-id pub-id-type="doi"></pub-id></mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.61721-ref14"><label>14</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Apgar, V. (1953) A Proposal for a New Method of Evaluation of the Newborn Infant. Current Researches in Anesthesia &amp; Analgesia, 32, 260-267. http://dx.doi.org/10.1213/00000539-195301000-00041</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.61721-ref15"><label>15</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Thorbiornson, A., Vladic, T., Vladic Stjernholm, Y. (In Manuscript) Advantage for Labor Induction with Oral Prostaglandin-E1 Compared with Vaginal Prostaglandin-E2 in Primiparous Women and Women with an Unripe Cervix.</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.61721-ref16"><label>16</label><mixed-citation publication-type="journal" xlink:type="simple"><name name-style="western"><surname>Spong</surname><given-names> C.Y.</given-names></name>,<name name-style="western"><surname> Berghella</surname><given-names> V.</given-names></name>,<name name-style="western"><surname> Wenstrom</surname><given-names> K.D.</given-names></name>,<name name-style="western"><surname> Mercer</surname><given-names> B.M.</given-names></name>,<name name-style="western"><surname> Saade</surname><given-names> G.R. </given-names></name>,<etal>et al</etal>. (<year>2012</year>)<article-title>Preventing the First Cesarean Delivery: Summary of a Joint Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development, Society for Maternal-Fetal Medicine and American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists Workshop</article-title><source> Obstetrics &amp; Gynecology</source><volume> 120</volume>,<fpage> 1181</fpage>-<lpage>1193</lpage>.<pub-id pub-id-type="doi"></pub-id></mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.61721-ref17"><label>17</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Heinemann, J., Gillen, G., Sanchez-Ramos, L. and Kaunitz, A.M. (2008) Do Mechanical Methods of Cervical Ripening Increase Infectious Morbidity? A Systematic Review. American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology, 189, 177-188. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ajog.2008.05.005</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.61721-ref18"><label>18</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Abramovici, D., Goldwasser, S., Mabie, B.C., Mercer, B.M., Goldwasser, R. and Sibai, B.M. (1999) A Randomized Comparison of oral Misoprostol versus Foley Catheter and Oxytocin for Induction of Labor at Term. American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology, 181, 1108-1112. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/s0002-9378(99)70090-6</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.61721-ref19"><label>19</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Goonewardene, M., Kumara, D.M.A., Ziard, M.H. and Bhabu, B. (2014) Intracervical Foley Catheter vs Oral Misoprostol for Preinduction Cervical Ripening of Postdated Pregnancies. Sri Lanka Journal of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, 3, 66-70. www.slcog.lk</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="scirp.61721-ref20"><label>20</label><mixed-citation publication-type="other" xlink:type="simple">Ten Eikelder, M.L., Neervoort, F., Rengerink, K.O., Jozwiak, M., de Leeuw, J.W., de Graaf, I., et al. (2013) Induction of Labour with a Foley Catheter or Oral Misoprostol at Term: The PROBAAT-II Study, a Multicenter Randomized Controlled Trial. BMC Pregnancy and Childbirth, 13, 183. http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/1471-2393-13-183</mixed-citation></ref></ref-list></back></article>