Download PDF
Am J Perinatol 2024; 41(S 01): e3030-e3034
DOI: 10.1055/a-2185-4102
Original Article

Combination Foley Catheter–Oxytocin versus Oxytocin Alone following Preterm Premature Rupture of Membranes

Helen B. Gomez Slagle 
1   Division of Maternal Fetal Medicine, Columbia University Irving Medical Center, New York, New York
,
Matthew K. Hoffman 
2   Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Christiana Care Health System, Newark, Delaware
,
Anthony C. Sciscione
2   Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Christiana Care Health System, Newark, Delaware
3   Department of Maternal—Fetal Medicine, Delaware Center for Maternal Fetal Medicine, Newark, Delaware
,
Marwan Ma'ayeh
2   Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Christiana Care Health System, Newark, Delaware
3   Department of Maternal—Fetal Medicine, Delaware Center for Maternal Fetal Medicine, Newark, Delaware
› Author Affiliations Funding None.
› Further Information
   Permissions and Reprints

Abstract

Objective The benefit of mechanical ripening agents following preterm premature rupture of membranes (PPROM) has not been established. We sought to compare the time to delivery in women who received transcervical Foley catheter plus oxytocin infusion versus oxytocin infusion alone in patients with unfavorable cervices and PPROM.

Study Design This is a retrospective cohort study of patients presenting with PPROM of a live, singleton gestation between 240/7 and 366/7 weeks' gestation from January 2005 to October 2018 at a single, tertiary care institution. Patients with an unfavorable cervical examination (≤2-cm dilation), no contraindication to labor and undergoing labor induction were analyzed. Time to delivery was analyzed using multivariable linear regression adjusting for cervical dilation at induction and nulliparity. Bivariate and multivariate analyses were used where appropriate.

Results A total of 260 participants were included: 109 who received a Foley catheter and oxytocin (Foley/oxytocin) and 151 who had oxytocin alone. Demographic characteristics were similar between the two groups. Unadjusted time to delivery was significantly shorter in the oxytocin only group (Foley/oxytocin: 20.35 hours vs. oxytocin alone: 14.7 hours, p < 0.001). No differences in length of labor were detected after adjusting for cervical dilation at induction and nulliparity (p = 0.5). The unadjusted rate of cesarean delivery was higher in the combination Foley/oxytocin group (Foley/oxytocin: 16.5% vs. oxytocin alone: 7.3%, p = 0.03), but no differences were found in the adjusted analysis (p = 0.06). There were no differences in clinical chorioamnionitis rates between the two groups (Foley/oxytocin: 8.3% vs. oxytocin alone: 9.3%, p = 0.83). Furthermore, no significant differences were found in maternal and neonatal outcomes between the two groups.

Conclusion In patients with PROM, the use of a transcervical Foley catheter in addition to oxytocin is not associated with a shorter time to delivery compared with oxytocin alone.

Key Points

  • Transcervical Foley catheter did not shorten length of labor in PPROM.

  • Transcervical Foley catheter did not increase infection risk.

  • Pitocin alone can be used in PPROM population.

Keywords

labor induction - cervical Foley - cervical ripening - rupture of membranes - PPROM

Condensation

The use of a transcervical Foley catheter in addition to oxytocin is not associated with a shorter time to delivery compared with oxytocin alone in patients with preterm membrane rupture.


Note

The Poster Presentation of this study was held at the Society for Maternal-Fetal Medicine's 43rd Annual Pregnancy Meeting, February 6 to 11, 2023.




Publication History

Received: 11 August 2023

Accepted: 27 September 2023

Accepted Manuscript online:
04 October 2023

Article published online:
10 November 2023

© 2023. Thieme. All rights reserved.

Thieme Medical Publishers, Inc.
333 Seventh Avenue, 18th Floor, New York, NY 10001, USA

 

  • References

  • 1 Lorthe E, Ancel P-Y, Torchin H. et al. Impact of latency duration on the prognosis of preterm infants after preterm premature rupture of membranes at 24 to 32 weeks' gestation: a national population-based cohort study. J Pediatr 2017; 182: 47-52.e2
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 2 Kuba K, Bernstein PS. ACOG practice bulletin no. 188: prelabor rupture of membranes. Obstet Gynecol 2018; 131 (06) 1163-1164
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 3 Schmitz T, Sentilhes L, Lorthe E. et al. [Preterm premature rupture of membranes: CNGOF guidelines for clinical practice - Short version]. Gynécol Obstét Fertil Sénol 2018; 46 (12) 998-1003
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 4 Delorme P, Garabedian C. Modalities of birth in case of uncomplicated preterm premature rupture of membranes: CNGOF Preterm Premature Rupture of Membranes Guidelines [in French]. Gynécol Obstét Fertil Sénol 2018; 46 (12) 1068-1075
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 5 Levine LD, Downes KL, Elovitz MA, Parry S, Sammel MD, Srinivas SK. Mechanical and pharmacologic methods of labor induction: a randomized controlled trial. Obstet Gynecol 2016; 128 (06) 1357-1364
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 6 Alfirevic Z, Keeney E, Dowswell T. et al. Methods to induce labour: a systematic review, network meta-analysis and cost-effectiveness analysis. BJOG 2016; 123 (09) 1462-1470
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 7 Wang H, Hong S, Liu Y, Duan Y, Yin H. Controlled-release dinoprostone insert versus Foley catheter for labor induction: a meta-analysis. J Matern Fetal Neonatal Med 2016; 29 (14) 2382-2388
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 8 McMaster K, Sanchez-Ramos L, Kaunitz AM. Evaluation of a transcervical foley catheter as a source of infection: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Obstet Gynecol 2015; 126 (03) 539-551
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 9 Kruit H, Tihtonen K, Raudaskoski T. et al. Foley catheter or oral misoprostol for induction of labor in women with term premature rupture of membranes: a randomized multicenter trial. Am J Perinatol 2016; 33 (09) 866-872
    Article in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 10 Cabrera IB, Quiñones JN, Durie D, Rust J, Smulian JC, Scorza WE. Use of intracervical balloons and chorioamnionitis in term premature rupture of membranes. J Matern Fetal Neonatal Med 2016; 29 (06) 967-971
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 11 Amorosa JMH, Stone J, Factor SH, Booker W, Newland M, Bianco A. A randomized trial of foley bulb for labor induction in premature rupture of membranes in nulliparas (FLIP). Am J Obstet Gynecol 2017; 217 (03) 360.e1-360.e7
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 12 van der Ham DP, Vijgen SM, Nijhuis JG. et al; PPROMEXIL trial group. Induction of labor versus expectant management in women with preterm prelabor rupture of membranes between 34 and 37 weeks: a randomized controlled trial. PLoS Med 2012; 9 (04) e1001208
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 13 van der Ham DP, van der Heyden JL, Opmeer BC. et al. Management of late-preterm premature rupture of membranes: the PPROMEXIL-2 trial. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2012; 207 (04) 276.e1-276.e10
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 14 Morris JM, Roberts CL, Bowen JR. et al; PPROMT Collaboration. Immediate delivery compared with expectant management after preterm pre-labour rupture of the membranes close to term (PPROMT trial): a randomised controlled trial. Lancet 2016; 387 (10017): 444-452
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 15 Mackeen AD, Durie DE, Lin M. et al. Foley plus oxytocin compared with oxytocin for induction after membrane rupture: a randomized controlled trial. Obstet Gynecol 2018; 131 (01) 4-11
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar