Comparison of Outpatient Mechanical Cervical Ripening Methods to Standard Inpatient Ripening

Abstract

Objective

This study aimed to assess clinical efficiency and maternal and neonatal outcomes for patients who underwent outpatient cervical ripening using mechanical methods (osmotic dilators and Foley balloon) compared with patients who underwent inpatient ripening.

Study Design

A retrospective cohort study from March 2020 to March 2022 compared patients with low-risk, term, singleton pregnancies who underwent outpatient cervical ripening to clinically similar patients who had inpatient ripening. Inverse probability of treatment weighting for analysis of outcomes to account for differences in groups and comparisons of outcomes are reported as mean differences with 95% confidence intervals (CIs).

Results

The cohort included 391 patients (116 outpatient, 275 inpatient). Among the outpatient group, half used only mechanical devices, and all others received additional pharmacological methods after admission for labor induction. Among the inpatient group, the most common cervical ripening method was pharmacological only (66.2%), followed by both pharmacological and mechanical (25.8%), and 8% used only mechanical. After outpatient cervical ripening, patients had significantly higher cervical dilation (mean difference 1.9 cm, 95% CI: 1.6, 2.3) and simplified bishop scores (mean difference 1.6, 95% CI: 1.2, 2.1) on admission compared with the inpatient group. The average time from admission to delivery was 5.8 hours shorter (95% CI: −8.6, −2.9) for the outpatient group compared with the inpatient group, and the average total length of stay was 7.1 hours shorter (95% CI: −12.1, −2.1) for the outpatients among patients with vaginal deliveries. Both groups had similar hours of oxytocin use, and mode of delivery, and did not differ for maternal complications or neonatal outcomes.

Conclusion

Outpatient cervical ripening using multiple mechanical methods was associated with significantly higher cervical dilation, shorter average time from patient admission to delivery, and shorter total length of stay for vaginal deliveries. Outpatient cervical ripening may be an important option for easing resource utilization for induced labor.

Key Points

• Outpatient cervical ripening resulted in superior cervical dilation and Bishop scores.

• Hospital length of stay was shorter for those receiving outpatient cervical ripening.

• Maternal complications and neonatal outcomes did not differ by setting.

Keywords

cervical ripening - induction - Foley balloon - osmotic dilator - outpatient - Dilapan-S

Publikationsverlauf

Eingereicht: 22. Oktober 2024

Angenommen: 07. März 2025

Artikel online veröffentlicht:
29. März 2025

• References

• 1 Osterman MJ, Martin JA. Recent declines in induction of labor by gestational age. NCHS Data Brief 2014; (155) 1-8
• 2 Grobman WA, Rice MM, Reddy UM. et al; Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development Maternal–Fetal Medicine Units Network. Labor induction versus expectant management in low-risk nulliparous women. N Engl J Med 2018; 379 (06) 513-523
• 3 Walker KFBG, Bugg GJ, Macpherson M. et al; 35/39 Trial Group. Randomized trial of labor induction in women 35 years of age or older. N Engl J Med 2016; 374 (09) 813-822
• 4 Grobman WACA, Caughey AB. Elective induction of labor at 39 weeks compared with expectant management: a meta-analysis of cohort studies. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2019; 221 (04) 304-310
• 5 Pierce-Williams R, Lesser H, Saccone G. et al. Outpatient cervical ripening with balloon catheters: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Obstet Gynecol 2022; 139 (02) 255-268
• 6 Leopold B, Sciscione A. Is there a place for outpatient preinduction cervical ripening?. Obstet Gynecol Clin North Am 2017; 44 (04) 583-591
• 7 Wang MJJV, George DM, Kuper SG. et al. Patient satisfaction with outpatient cervical ripening in parous women. Am J Perinatol 2020; 38 (S01): e71-e76
• 8 Chen V, Sheehan P. Outpatient management of pre-induction cervical ripening. J Matern Fetal Neonatal Med 2022; 35 (15) 2954-2960
• 9 Policiano C, Pimenta M, Martins D, Clode N. Outpatient versus inpatient cervix priming with Foley catheter: A randomized trial. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol 2017; 210: 1-6
• 10 Son SLBA, Benson AE, Hart Hayes E, Subramaniam A, Clark EAS, Einerson BD. Outpatient cervical ripening: a cost-minimization and threshold analysis. Am J Perinatol 2020; 37 (03) 245-251
• 11 Amorosa JM, Stone JL. Outpatient cervical ripening. Semin Perinatol 2015; 39 (06) 488-494
• 12 Sciscione AC, Muench M, Pollock M, Jenkins TM, Tildon-Burton J, Colmorgen GH. Transcervical Foley catheter for preinduction cervical ripening in an outpatient versus inpatient setting. Obstet Gynecol 2001; 98 (5 Pt 1): 751-756
• 13 Sciscione ACBC, Bedder CL, Hoffman MK, Ruhstaller K, Shlossman PA. The timing of adverse events with Foley catheter preinduction cervical ripening; implications for outpatient use. Am J Perinatol 2014; 31 (09) 781-786
• 14 Wilkinson C, Bryce R, Adelson P, Turnbull D. A randomised controlled trial of outpatient compared with inpatient cervical ripening with prostaglandin E₂ (OPRA study). BJOG 2015; 122 (01) 94-104
• 15 Saad AFVJ, Villarreal J, Eid J. et al. A randomized controlled trial of Dilapan-S vs Foley balloon for preinduction cervical ripening (DILAFOL trial). Am J Obstet Gynecol 2019; 220 (03) 275.e1-275.e9
• 16 Crosby DA, O'Reilly C, McHale H, McAuliffe FM, Mahony R. A prospective pilot study of Dilapan-S compared with propess for induction of labour at 41+ weeks in nulliparous pregnancy. Ir J Med Sci 2018; 187 (03) 693-699
• 17 Shindo R, Aoki S, Yonemoto N. et al. Hygroscopic dilators vs balloon catheter ripening of the cervix for induction of labor in nulliparous women at term: retrospective study. PLoS One 2017; 12 (12) e0189665
• 18 Maier JT, Schalinski E, Gauger U, Hellmeyer L. Cervical ripening with an osmotic dilator (Dilapan-S) in term pregnancies - an observational study. Journal of Gynecology and Neonatal Biology. 2015; 1 (03) 1-6
• 19 Maier JT, Metz M, Watermann N. et al. Induction of labor in patients with an unfavorable cervix after a cesarean using an osmotic dilator versus vaginal prostaglandin. J Perinat Med 2018; 46 (03) 299-307
• 20 Gupta J, Chodankar R, Baev O. et al. Synthetic osmotic dilators in the induction of labour-an international multicentre observational study. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol 2018; 229: 70-75
• 21 Saad AF, Gavara R, Senguttuvan RN. et al. Outpatient compared with inpatient preinduction cervical ripening using a synthetic osmotic dilator: a randomized clinical trial. Obstet Gynecol 2022; 140 (04) 584-590
• 22 Kummer J, Koenigbauer JT, Callister Y. et al. Cervical ripening as an outpatient procedure in the pandemic - minimizing the inpatient days and lowering the socioeconomic costs. J Perinat Med 2022; 50 (09) 1180-1188
• 23 Laughon SK, Zhang J, Troendle J, Sun L, Reddy UM. Using a simplified Bishop score to predict vaginal delivery. Obstet Gynecol 2011; 117 (04) 805-811
• 24 Austin PC, Stuart EA. Moving towards best practice when using inverse probability of treatment weighting (IPTW) using the propensity score to estimate causal treatment effects in observational studies. Stat Med 2015; 34 (28) 3661-3679
• 25 Rubin DB. The design versus the analysis of observational studies for causal effects: parallels with the design of randomized trials. Stat Med 2007; 26 (01) 20-36
• 26 Ausbeck EB, Jauk VC, Xue Y. et al. Outpatient foley catheter for induction of labor in nulliparous women: a randomized controlled trial. Obstet Gynecol 2020; 136 (03) 597-606
• 27 Saunders SJ, Saunders R, Wong T, Saad AF. Out-of-hospital cervical ripening with a synthetic hygroscopic cervical dilator may reduce hospital costs and cesarean sections in the United States-a cost-consequence analysis. Front Public Health 2021; 9: 689115
• 28 Kelly AJ, Alfirevic Z, Ghosh A. Outpatient versus inpatient induction of labour for improving birth outcomes. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2013; (11) CD007372
• 29 Sangskär H, Berglin L, Sengpiel V. et al. Safety, effectiveness, women's experience, and economic costs of outpatient induction in women with uncomplicated pregnancies: A systematic review and meta-analyses. Int J Gynaecol Obstet 2023; 161 (02) 343-355
• 30 Washburn MC, Washburn M, Hong C, Roth P, Richter P. Outpatient Foley catheter induction protocol provides clinical and cost benefits. Birth 2021; 48 (04) 574-582