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

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
• 2 Boulvain M, Kelly A, Lohse C, Stan C, Irion O. Mechanical methods for induction of labour. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2001; (04) CD001233
• 3 Tenore JL. Methods for cervical ripening and induction of labor. Am Fam Physician 2003; 67 (10) 2123-2128
• 4 Gelber S, Sciscione A. Mechanical methods of cervical ripening and labor induction. Clin Obstet Gynecol 2006; 49 (03) 642-657
• 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
• 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
• 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
• 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
• 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
• 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
• 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
• 12 Higgins JP, Green S. Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions. Vol. 4. Chichester: John Wiley & Sons; 2011
• 13 Higgins JP, Thompson SG, Deeks JJ, Altman DG. Measuring inconsistency in meta-analyses. BMJ 2003; 327 (7414): 557-560