Abstract:Background: Induction of labor (IOL) with mechanical methods or pharmacological agents is used in about 20% to 30% of all pregnant women. We specialized in comparing the effectiveness and safety of dinoprostone vs transcervical Foley catheter for IOL in term pregnant women with an unfavorable cervix with adequate samples. Objective: To compare the effectiveness and safety of dinoprostone vs transcervical Foley catheter for IOL in term pregnant women with an unfavorable cervix. Study design: This is a parallel, open-label randomized controlled trial in two maternal centers in Shanghai, China between October 2019 and July 2022. Women with a singleton pregnancy in cephalic presentation at term and an unfavorable cervix (Bishop score <6) scheduled for IOL were eligible. A total of 1860 women were randomly allocated to cervical ripening with either a dinoprostone vaginal insert (10 mg) or a 60 cc Foley catheter for up to 24 hours. The primary outcomes were vaginal delivery rate and time to vaginal delivery. Secondary outcomes included time to delivery and maternal and neonatal morbidity. Analysis was done from an intention-to-treat perspective. The trial was registered with the China trial registry (CTR2000038435). Results: The vaginal birth rates were 72.8% (677/930) vs 69.9% (650/930) in vaginal dinoprostone and Foley catheter, respectively (aRR 1.04, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.98-1.10, risk difference: 0.03). Time to vaginal delivery was not significantly different between the two groups (sub-distribution hazard ratio 1.11, 95% CI 0.99-1.24). Vaginal dinoprostone was more likely complicated with hyperstimulation with fetal heart rate changes (5.8% vs 2.8%, aRR 2.09, 95% CI 1.32-3.31) and placenta abruption (0.9% vs 0.1%, aRR: 8.04, 95% CI 1.01-64.15), while Foley catheter was more likely complicated with suspected intrapartum infection (5.1% vs 8.2%, aRR: 0.62, 95% CI 0.44-0.88) and postpartum infection (1.4% vs 3.7%, aRR: 0.38, 95% CI 0.20-0.72). The composite of poor neonatal outcomes was not significantly different between the two groups (4.5% vs 3.8%, aRR 1.21, 95% CI 0.78-1.88), while more neonatal asphyxia occurred in the dinoprostone group (1.2% vs 0.2%, aRR 5.39, 95% CI 1.22-23.92). In a subgroup analysis, vaginal dinoprostone decreased vaginal birth rate slightly in multiparous women (90.6% vs 97.0%, aRR 0.93, 95% CI 0.88-0.99). Conclusions: In term pregnant women with an unfavorable cervix, IOL with vaginal dinoprostone or Foley catheter has similar effectiveness. Foley catheter leads to better safety for neonates, while it may result in a higher risk of maternal infection. Furthermore, Foley catheter should be preferred in multiparous women.

Comparison of Dinoprostone and Oxytocin for the Induction of Labor in Late-Term Pregnancy and the Rate of Cesarean Section: A Retrospective Study in Ten Centers in South China

Comparison of the Effectiveness and Pregnancy Outcomes of Labor Induction with Dinoprostone or Single-Balloon Catheter in Term Nulliparous Women with Borderline Oligohydramnios

The Intraoperative Median Effective Dose of Oxytocin for Preventing Uterine Atony in Parturients with a Prior History of Caesarean Delivery

Vaginal dinoprostone vs Foley catheter for induction of labor at term with an unfavorable cervix: an open-label randomized controlled trial

Cervical Ripening Agent Dinoprostone for Delivery Induction in Late Pregnancy Mothers: Experiences of 685 Cases.

Oxytocin and vaginal dinoprostone in labor induction: A systematic review and meta‐analysis

Effectiveness and safety of dinoprostone insert for labor induction in women with different cervical maturity

Comparative study of titrated oral misoprostol solution and vaginal dinoprostone for labor induction at term pregnancy

The ED 50 and ED 95 of oxytocin infusion rate for maintaining uterine tone during elective caesarean delivery: a dose-finding study

Dinoprostone pessary for labor induction in Chinese patients with premature rupture of membranes at term: A retrospective cohort

Effectiveness of Dinoprostone and Cook’s Balloon for Labor Induction in Primipara Women at Term

Use of vaginal dinoprostone for women with term prelabor rupture of membranes and an unfavorable cervix within 6 h versus within 6-24 h

Efficacy and Safety of Double Balloon Catheter and Dinoprostone for Labor Induction in Multipara at Term

Comparison of labor duration of induced labor with dinoprostone insert vs spontaneous labor

Double-balloon catheter vs. dinoprostone vaginal insert for induction of labor with an unfavorable cervix

[Clinical efficacy and safety of controlled-release dinoprostone insert: a multicenter retrospective study].

Vaginal dinoprostone insert compared with two different oral misoprostol regimens for labor induction in nulliparous and multiparous women

Dinoprostone for Cervical Ripening and Artificial Labor Effect in Term Pregnancy

Vaginal misoprostol versus vaginal dinoprostone for cervical ripening and induction of labour: An individual participant data meta‐analysis of randomised controlled trials

Efficiency Of Dinoprostone Insert For Cervical Ripening And Induction Of Labor In Women Of Full-Term Pregnancy Compared With Dinoprostone Gel: A Meta-Analysis

Comparison of the efficacy between controlled-release dinoprostone delivery system (PROPESS) and Cook's double balloon catheter plus oxytocin: A retrospective single-center study in Japan