Double‐balloon catheter versus prostaglandin E2 for cervical ripening and labour induction: a systematic review and meta‐analysis of randomised controlled trials

摘要

Background Induction of labour has become an increasingly common procedure. Ripening methods, including mechanical devices and pharmacological agents, improve the success rate of labour induction. Objective To compare the efficacy and safety of the double‐balloon catheter with prostaglandin E2 agents used for labour induction. Search strategy We searched electronic sources from MEDLINE , Embase and Web of Science, the Cochrane Library Database of Systematic Reviews, and ClinicalTrials.gov website. Selection criteria Only randomised controlled trials comparing the PGE 2 agents with the double‐balloon catheter for cervical ripening and labour induction in women with unfavourable cervices were included in the analysis. Data collection and analysis The main outcomes included the vaginal delivery rate within 24?hours and risk of caesarean section. We calculated relative risks and mean differences using fixed‐ and random‐effects models. Main results Nine studies (1866 patients) were included in this systematic review. Both the double‐balloon catheter and PGE 2 agents were comparable with regard to rate of caesarean section ( RR 0.92; 95% CI 0.79, 1.07), vaginal delivery within 24?hours ( RR 0.95; 95% CI 0.78, 1.16) and maternal adverse events, but the risk of excessive uterine activity ( RR 10.02; 95% CI 3.99, 25.17) and need for neonatal intensive care unit admissions ( RR 1.31; 95% CI 1.01, 1.69) were significantly increased in women who received PGE 2 agents. Conclusions The double‐balloon catheter demonstrated greater safety and cost‐effectiveness than PGE 2 agents for cervical ripening and labour induction. The efficacy profiles of both methods were similar. Tweetable abstract Double‐balloon catheter versus prostaglandin E2 for cervical ripening and labour induction