The dilemma of cervical ripening --Should it be oral or vaginal; should it be misoprostol or dinoprostone? A systemic review and network meta-analysis.

Induction of labor is considered  when the benefit of the procedure is surpasses the benefit of continuation of pregnancy. The rate of induction of singleton pregnancies in US in 2012 was 23.3%, almost more than double a decade ago. 

A primed and favorable cervix is a prerequisite for successful induction of labour.

Numerous methods are in use for cervical ripening to induce labour, that includes Foley’s catheter( Mechanical Method) to pharmacological methods including  the use of prostaglandins, oxytocin, and mifepristone.  Prostaglandin E₂, also known as dinoprostone, is the only prostaglandin that has been approved by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) for cervical ripening in labour induction.

Misoprostol, a prostaglandin E₁ analogue is often used as an off-label drug for inducing labour. Its use is fraught with many complications from uterine hyper stimulation, rupture and adverse FHR.

Many studies and reviews comparing the safety and efficacy of different methods have been conducted but the best agent and route is still unanswered.

The three most common agents widely in use are dinoprostone, Foley catheter and misoprostol (oral and vaginal). There are many RCTs comparing these different modalities but no large single trial has compared them all  head to head.

The study conducted by W Chen et al. is a systemic review and network meta-analysis of all the available RCTs comparing the five most commonly used methods,  published in the February issue of  BJOG: An International Journal of Obstetrics & Gynaecology .

The study aims at providing a comprehensive summary of the existing evidence to further inform clinical practice and aid in the design of future trials.

Network meta-analysis, in the context of a systematic review, is a meta-analysis in which multiple treatments (that is, three or more) are being compared using both direct comparisons of interventions within randomized controlled trials and indirect comparisons across trials based on a common comparator.

The selection criteria was including all the (RCTs) of cervical ripening during the induction of labour, evaluating rates of failure to achieve vaginal delivery within 24 hours, incidence of uterine hyperstimulation with fetal heart rate (FHR) changes, and rates of caesarean section. Studies including women with prelabour rupture of membranes were excluded.

Trials were excluded if they included the following cases: women with pregnancies less than  28 weeks of gestational age; non-cephalic presentations; multiple pregnancies; and women with previous caesarean sections, combination interventions, non-relevant outlook and conference papers, posters  and abstracts.

A total of 96 RCTs met the selection criteria resulting it a total of 17387 study subjects.

The interventions included in this review were Foley catheter, vaginal misoprostol, oral misoprostol, vaginal dinoprostone, and intracervical dinoprostone.

The primary outcome chosen for network metaanalysis were vaginal delivery not achieved in 24 hours; uterine hyperstimulation with FHR changes; and caesarean section.

The meta-analysis compared five different modalities of cervical ripening for induction of labour. It was seen that:

The rank probabilities of reducing the number of vaginal delivery not achieved in 24 hours according to different interventions from best to worst are vaginal misoprostol (100%), vaginal dinoprostone (95%), Foley catheter (59%), oral misoprostol and intracervical dinoprostone

The rank probabilities of not causing hyper stimulation with FHR changes from best to worst are Foleys catheter (90%), intracervical dinoprostone, oral misoprostol, vaginal dinoprostone, and vaginal misoprostol (99%).

The rank probabilities of different intervention in decreasing the rate of caesarean sections, from best to worst are oral misoprostol (83%), vaginal misoprostol (80%), vaginal dinoprostone, intracervical dinoprostone and Foley’s catheter.

Thus it was seen that although vaginal misoprostol was the most effective intervention for achieving vaginal delivery within 24 hours, but it came at the cost of highest rate of uterine hyperstimulation with FHR changes. Vaginal dinoprostone was second best vaginal delivery withi 24 hours.

Foley catheter was found to be the least likely to cause hyperstimulation, but is worse than both vaginal misoprostol and vaginal dinoprostone in achieving vaginal delivery within 24 hours.

Compared to Vaginal misoprostol, oral misoprostol had lesser incidences of uterine hyperstimulation but at the expense of slightly decreased number of vaginal deliveries in 24 hours, but this difference was not statistically significant.

In most countries misoprostol is not legalized to be used for induction of labor, because of the concerns of hyperstimulation. The study shows that oral misoprostol is safe in comparison to vaginal misoprostol and it also performed better than vaginal dinoprostone.The other advantage of misoprostol is it is effective, cheap, does not requires cold storage; the dose can be measured and precise as compared to vaginal route. It is the first drug of choice in developing countries.

Foley catheter has similar effect as oral misoprostol in achieving vaginal delivery.  It is inferior to prostaglandins in decreasing the C section rates but superior to use of Oxytocin alone. It may be highly indicated in women with high risk of Fetal hypoxaemia like postdate pregnancies, sickle-cell disease, pre-eclampsia, or intrauterine growth restriction, due to it’s least effect on hyperstimulation . It also has advantages in terms of cost and storage conditions, less stringent monitoring of uterine contraction and no medical intervention until it is expelled in labor.The drawback is high rate of chorioamnionitis, but metaanalysis was not performed due to lack of reporting of this data in most trials.  

Conclusion:

 

Vaginal misoprostol followed by vaginal dinoprostone are most effective methods for induction of labor beyond 28 weeks of gestation with intact membranes, in terms of achieving vaginal delivery. However they are also associated with  uterine hyper stimulation and adverse FHR requiring close monitoring.

Mechanical stimulation by Foley catheter was least effective method for vaginal delivery, along with oral misoprostol and intracervical dinoprostone, but caused the least uterine hyper stimulation and adverse FHR.

Oral misoprostol was the best method in terms of overall safety, least likelihood of uterine hyperstimulation and adverse FHR and reducing the likelihood of cesarean section than vaginal misoprostol. 

References:

 

Chen W, Xue J, Peprah MK, Wen SW, Walker M, Gao Y, Tang Y. A systematic review and network meta-analysis comparing the use of Foley catheters, misoprostol, and dinoprostone for cervical ripening in the induction of labour. BJOG 2016;123:346–354.

Hemming, K. and Price, M. (2016), Is it oral or vaginal; and should it be misoprostol or dinoprostone for cervical ripening? How to interpret a network meta-analysis. BJOG: An International Journal of Obstetrics & Gynaecology, 123: 355. doi: 10.1111/1471-0528.13533

http://www.improvingmedicalstatistics.com/meta_network.htm