S'abonner

Early vs delayed amniotomy following transcervical Foley balloon in the induction of labor: a randomized clinical trial - 04/05/24

Doi : 10.1016/j.ajog.2024.01.028 
Marissa Berry, MD a, Kelly Lamiman, MD a, Megan N. Slan, MD a, Xue Zhang, MD a, Daphne D. Arena Goncharov, MD a, Yihharn P. Hwang, MD a, Jennifer A. Rogers, MD a, Luis D. Pacheco, MD a, George R. Saade, MD b, Antonio F. Saad, MD a,
a Division of Maternal Fetal Medicine, The University of Texas Medical Branch, Galveston, TX 
b Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Inova Health Fairfax, Falls Church, VA 

Corresponding author: Antonio F. Saad, MD.

Abstract

Background

The optimal timing of amniotomy during labor induction is a topic of ongoing debate due to the potential risks associated with both amniotomy and prolonged labor. As such, individuals in the field of obstetrics and gynecology must carefully evaluate the associated benefits and drawbacks of this procedure. While amniotomy can expedite the labor process, it may also lead to complications such as umbilical cord prolapse, fetal distress, and infection. Therefore, a careful and thorough examination of the risks and benefits of amniotomy during labor induction is essential in making an informed decision regarding the optimal timing of this procedure.

Objective

This study aimed to determine if an amniotomy within 2 hours after Foley balloon removal reduced the duration of active labor and time taken to achieve vaginal delivery when compared with an amniotomy ≥4 hours after balloon removal among term pregnant women who underwent labor induction.

Study Design

This was an open-label, randomized controlled trial that was conducted at a single academic center from October 2020 to March 2023. Term participants who were eligible for preinduction cervical ripening with a Foley balloon were randomized into 2 groups, namely the early amniotomy (rupture of membranes within 2 hours after Foley balloon removal) and delayed amniotomy (rupture of membranes performed more than 4 hours after Foley balloon removal) groups. Randomization was stratified by parity. The primary outcome was time from Foley balloon insertion to active phase of labor. Secondary outcomes, including time to delivery, cesarean delivery rates, and maternal and neonatal complications, were analyzed using intention-to-treat and per-protocol analyses.

Results

Of the 150 participants who consented and were enrolled, 149 were included in the analysis. In the intention-to-treat population, an early amniotomy did not significantly shorten the time between Foley balloon insertion and active labor when compared with a delayed amniotomy (885 vs 975 minutes; P =.08). An early amniotomy was associated with a significantly shorter time from Foley balloon placement to active labor in nulliparous individuals (1211; 584–2340 vs 1585; 683–2760; P =.02). When evaluating the secondary outcomes, an early amniotomy was associated with a significantly shorter time to active labor onset (312.5 vs 442.5 minutes; P =.02) and delivery (484 vs 587 minutes; P =.03) from Foley balloon removal with a higher rate of delivery within 36 hours (96% vs 85%; P =.03). Individuals in the early amniotomy group reached active labor 1.5 times faster after Foley balloon insertion than those in the delayed group (hazard ratio, 1.5; 95% confidence interval, 1.1–2.2; P =.02). Those with an early amniotomy also reached vaginal delivery 1.5 times faster after Foley balloon removal than those in the delayed group (hazard ratio, 1.5; 95% confidence interval, 1–2.2; P =.03). A delayed amniotomy was associated with a higher rate of postpartum hemorrhage (0% vs 9.5%; P =.01). No significant differences were observed in the cesarean delivery rates, length of hospital stay, maternal infection, or neonatal outcomes.

Conclusion

Although an early amniotomy does not shorten the time from Foley balloon insertion to active labor, it shortens time from Foley balloon removal to active labor and delivery without increasing complications. The increased postpartum hemorrhage rate in the delayed amniotomy group suggests increased risks with delayed amniotomy.

Le texte complet de cet article est disponible en PDF.

Key words : active labor, amniotomy, cervical ripening, Foley balloon, labor induction, postpartum hemorrhage


Plan


 Present affiliations: Division of Maternal Fetal Medicine, The Ohio State University Wexner Medical Center, Columbus, OH (Dr Berry); Division of Gynecologic Oncology, State University of New York Downstate Health Sciences University, Brooklyn, NY (Dr Lamiman); Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, McGovern Medical School at the University of Texas Health Science Center at Houston, Houston, TX (Dr Slan); Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Houston Methodist Sugar Land Hospital, Sugar Land, TX (Dr Hwang); and Inova Fairfax, Falls Church, VA (Dr Saad).
 The authors report no conflict of interest.
 This study did not receive any funding.
  This study was registered with ClinicalTrials.gov on October 5, 2020, under identifier NCT04573517. The first participant was enrolled on October 15, 2020.
 Cite this article as: Berry M, Lamiman K, Slan MN, et al. Early vs delayed amniotomy following transcervical Foley balloon in the induction of labor: a randomized clinical trial. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2024;230:567.e1-11.


© 2024  Elsevier Inc. Tous droits réservés.
Ajouter à ma bibliothèque Retirer de ma bibliothèque Imprimer
Export

    Export citations

  • Fichier

  • Contenu

Vol 230 - N° 5

P. 567.e1-567.e11 - mai 2024 Retour au numéro
Article précédent Article précédent
  • Optimal misoprostol dosing among patients with a body mass index greater than 30: a randomized controlled trial
  • Alexander M. Saucedo, Miriam Alvarez, George A. Macones, Alison G. Cahill, Lorie M. Harper
| Article suivant Article suivant
  • Tocolysis after preterm prelabor rupture of membranes and 5-year outcomes: a population-based cohort study
  • Elsa Lorthe, Laetitia Marchand-Martin, Mathilde Letouzey, Adrien M. Aubert, Véronique Pierrat, Valérie Benhammou, Pierre Delorme, Stéphane Marret, Pierre-Yves Ancel, François Goffinet, Laurence Foix L’Hélias, Gilles Kayem, EPIPAGE-2 Obstetric Writing Group, Pierre-Yves Ancel, Catherine Arnaud, Chloé Arthuis, Julie Blanc, Pascal Boileau, Thierry Debillon, Pierre Delorme, Claude D’Ercole, Thomas Desplanches, PhD. RM, Caroline Diguisto, Laurence Foix-L’Hélias, Géraldine Gascoin, Catherine Gire, François Goffinet, Isabelle Guellec, Gilles Kayem, Bruno Langer, Mathilde Letouzey, Elsa Lorthe, Emeline Maisonneuve, Stéphane Marret, Isabelle Monier, PhD. RM, Andrei Morgan, Jean-Christophe Rozé, Thomas Schmitz, Loïc Sentilhes, Damien Subtil, Héloïse Torchin, Barthélémy Tosello, Christophe Vayssière, Norbert Winer, Jennifer Zeitlin

Bienvenue sur EM-consulte, la référence des professionnels de santé.
L’accès au texte intégral de cet article nécessite un abonnement.

Déjà abonné à cette revue ?

Elsevier s'engage à rendre ses eBooks accessibles et à se conformer aux lois applicables. Compte tenu de notre vaste bibliothèque de titres, il existe des cas où rendre un livre électronique entièrement accessible présente des défis uniques et l'inclusion de fonctionnalités complètes pourrait transformer sa nature au point de ne plus servir son objectif principal ou d'entraîner un fardeau disproportionné pour l'éditeur. Par conséquent, l'accessibilité de cet eBook peut être limitée. Voir plus

Mon compte


Plateformes Elsevier Masson

Déclaration CNIL

EM-CONSULTE.COM est déclaré à la CNIL, déclaration n° 1286925.

En application de la loi nº78-17 du 6 janvier 1978 relative à l'informatique, aux fichiers et aux libertés, vous disposez des droits d'opposition (art.26 de la loi), d'accès (art.34 à 38 de la loi), et de rectification (art.36 de la loi) des données vous concernant. Ainsi, vous pouvez exiger que soient rectifiées, complétées, clarifiées, mises à jour ou effacées les informations vous concernant qui sont inexactes, incomplètes, équivoques, périmées ou dont la collecte ou l'utilisation ou la conservation est interdite.
Les informations personnelles concernant les visiteurs de notre site, y compris leur identité, sont confidentielles.
Le responsable du site s'engage sur l'honneur à respecter les conditions légales de confidentialité applicables en France et à ne pas divulguer ces informations à des tiers.


Tout le contenu de ce site: Copyright © 2026 Elsevier, ses concédants de licence et ses contributeurs. Tout les droits sont réservés, y compris ceux relatifs à l'exploration de textes et de données, a la formation en IA et aux technologies similaires. Pour tout contenu en libre accès, les conditions de licence Creative Commons s'appliquent.