Download PDF
Am J Perinatol 2019; 36(08): 790-797
DOI: 10.1055/s-0038-1675206
Original Article
Thieme Medical Publishers 333 Seventh Avenue, New York, NY 10001, USA.

Single versus Double-Balloon Transcervical Catheter for Labor Induction: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Samantha X. de los Reyes
1   Division of Maternal Fetal Medicine, Department of Gynecology and Obstetrics, Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Baltimore, Maryland
,
Jeanne S. Sheffield
1   Division of Maternal Fetal Medicine, Department of Gynecology and Obstetrics, Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Baltimore, Maryland
,
Ahizechukwu C. Eke
1   Division of Maternal Fetal Medicine, Department of Gynecology and Obstetrics, Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Baltimore, Maryland
› Author Affiliations Funding None.
Further Information

Publication History

22 November 2017

29 August 2018

Publication Date:
31 October 2018 (online)

Also available at
    Permissions and Reprints

Abstract

Objective To evaluate for difference in outcomes between single- and double-balloon catheters for labor induction.

Study Design We searched CINAHL, Embase, Cochrane Register, MEDLINE, ISI Web of Sciences, LILACs, and Google Scholar and retrieved studies through May 2017. Selection criteria included randomized controlled trials comparing single- versus double-balloon catheters. The primary outcome was time from catheter insertion to delivery. Heterogeneity of the results among studies was tested with the quantity I2 . For I2 values ≥50%, a random effects model was used to pool data across studies. Summary measures were reported as adjusted odds ratios (aORs) or as a mean difference (MD) with 95% confidence interval (CI).

Results Four trials including a total of 682 patients were included: 340 patients were randomized to induction with a single-balloon catheter and 342 to induction with a double-balloon catheter. There was no significant difference between groups with respect to time to delivery (18.8 vs. 19.6 hours; MD: 0.40; 95% CI: –1.56 to 0.76), vaginal delivery rate (65.3 vs. 62.3%; aOR: 1.04; 95% CI: 0.56–1.92), cesarean delivery rate (25.6 vs. 27.5%; aOR: 0.98; 95% CI: 0.55–1.73), or epidural use (58.4 vs. 62%; aOR: 0.81; 95% CI: 0.56–1.18).

Conclusion Double-balloon catheters have no apparent advantage over single-balloon catheters for labor induction.

Keywords

Cook catheter - double-balloon catheter - Foley catheter - induction of labor - meta-analysis - single-balloon catheter
 

  • References

  • 1 ACOG Committee on Practice Bulletins -- Obstetrics. ACOG practice bulletin no. 107: induction of labor. Obstet Gynecol 2009; 114 (2 Pt 1): 386-397
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 2 Boulvain M, Kelly A, Lohse C, Stan C, Irion O. Mechanical methods for induction of labour. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2001; (04) CD001233
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 3 Tenore JL. Methods for cervical ripening and induction of labor. Am Fam Physician 2003; 67 (10) 2123-2128
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 4 Gelber S, Sciscione A. Mechanical methods of cervical ripening and labor induction. Clin Obstet Gynecol 2006; 49 (03) 642-657
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 5 Salim R, Zafran N, Nachum Z, Garmi G, Kraiem N, Shalev E. Single-balloon compared with double-balloon catheters for induction of labor: a randomized controlled trial. Obstet Gynecol 2011; 118 (01) 79-86
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 6 Hoppe KK, Schiff MA, Peterson SE, Gravett MG. 30 mL Single- versus 80 mL double-balloon catheter for pre-induction cervical ripening: a randomized controlled trial. J Matern Fetal Neonatal Med 2016; 29 (12) 1919-1925
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 7 Sayed Ahmed WA, Ibrahim ZM, Ashor OE, Mohamed ML, Ahmed MR, Elshahat AM. Use of the Foley catheter versus a double balloon cervical ripening catheter in pre-induction cervical ripening in postdate primigravidae. J Obstet Gynaecol Res 2016; 42 (11) 1489-1494
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 8 Pennell CE, Henderson JJ, O'Neill MJ, McChlery S, Doherty DA, Dickinson JE. Induction of labour in nulliparous women with an unfavourable cervix: a randomised controlled trial comparing double and single balloon catheters and PGE2 gel. BJOG 2009; 116 (11) 1443-1452
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 9 Sherman DJ, Frenkel E, Tovbin J, Arieli S, Caspi E, Bukovsky I. Ripening of the unfavorable cervix with extraamniotic catheter balloon: clinical experience and review. Obstet Gynecol Surv 1996; 51 (10) 621-627
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 10 Atad J, Hallak M, Ben-David Y, Auslender R, Abramovici H. Ripening and dilatation of the unfavourable cervix for induction of labour by a double balloon device: experience with 250 cases. Br J Obstet Gynaecol 1997; 104 (01) 29-32
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 11 Stroup DF, Berlin JA, Morton SC. , et al. Meta-analysis of observational studies in epidemiology: a proposal for reporting. Meta-analysis Of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (MOOSE) group. JAMA 2000; 283 (15) 2008-2012
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 12 Higgins JP, Green S. Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions. Vol. 4. Chichester: John Wiley & Sons; 2011
    Google Scholar
  • 13 Higgins JP, Thompson SG, Deeks JJ, Altman DG. Measuring inconsistency in meta-analyses. BMJ 2003; 327 (7414): 557-560
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar