Foley catheter versus vaginal prostaglandin E2 gel for induction of labour at term (PROBAAT trial): An open-label, randomised controlled trial

Marta Jozwiak, Katrien Oude Rengerink, Marjan Benthem, Erik Van Beek, Marja G.K. Dijksterhuis, Irene M. De Graaf, Marloes E. Van Huizen, Martijn A. Oudijk, Dimitri N.M. Papatsonis, Denise A.M. Perquin, Martina Porath, Joris A.M. Van Der Post, Robbert J.P. Rijnders, Hubertina C.J. Scheepers, Marc E.A. Spaanderman, Maria G. Van Pampus, Jan Willem De Leeuw, Ben W.J. Mol, Kitty W.M. Bloemenkamp*

*Corresponding author for this work

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

129 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

Induction of labour is a common obstetric procedure. Both mechanical (eg, Foley catheters) and pharmacological methods (eg, prostaglandins) are used for induction of labour in women with an unfavourable cervix. We aimed to compare the effectiveness and safety of induction of labour with a Foley catheter with induction with vaginal prostaglandin E2 gel. We did an open-label, randomised controlled trial in 12 hospitals in the Netherlands between Feb 10, 2009, and May 17, 2010. We enrolled women with a term singleton pregnancy in cephalic presentation, intact membranes, an unfavourable cervix, an indication for induction of labour, and no prior caesarean section. Participants were randomly allocated by an online randomisation system to induction of labour with a 30 mL Foley catheter or vaginal prostaglandin E2 gel (1:1 ratio). Because of the nature of the intervention this study was not blinded. The primary outcome was caesarean section rate. Secondary outcomes were maternal and neonatal morbidity and time from intervention to birth. All analyses were done on an intention-to-treat basis. We also did a meta-analysis that included our trial. The trial was registered with the Dutch trial registry, number NTR 1646. 824 women were allocated to induction of labour with a Foley catheter (n=412) or vaginal prostaglandin E2 gel (n=412). Caesarean section rates were much the same between the two groups (23 vs 20, risk ratio [RR] 1·13, 95 CI 0·87-1·47). A meta-analysis including our trial data confirmed that a Foley catheter did not reduce caesarean section rates. We recorded two serious maternal adverse events, both in the prostaglandin group: one uterine perforation and one uterine rupture. In women with an unfavourable cervix at term, induction of labour with a Foley catheter is similar to induction of labour with prostaglandin E2 gel, with fewer maternal and neonatal side-effects. None.

Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)2095-2103
Number of pages9
JournalThe Lancet
Volume378
Issue number9809
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - 17 Dec 2011

Fingerprint Dive into the research topics of 'Foley catheter versus vaginal prostaglandin E2 gel for induction of labour at term (PROBAAT trial): An open-label, randomised controlled trial'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

  • Cite this

    Jozwiak, M., Rengerink, K. O., Benthem, M., Van Beek, E., Dijksterhuis, M. G. K., De Graaf, I. M., Van Huizen, M. E., Oudijk, M. A., Papatsonis, D. N. M., Perquin, D. A. M., Porath, M., Van Der Post, J. A. M., Rijnders, R. J. P., Scheepers, H. C. J., Spaanderman, M. E. A., Van Pampus, M. G., De Leeuw, J. W., Mol, B. W. J., & Bloemenkamp, K. W. M. (2011). Foley catheter versus vaginal prostaglandin E2 gel for induction of labour at term (PROBAAT trial): An open-label, randomised controlled trial. The Lancet, 378(9809), 2095-2103. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(11)61484-0