Ripening Interventions: Prostaglandins vs EASI Catheter

NCT ID: NCT00383942

Last Updated: 2017-03-13

Study Results

Results available

Outcome measurements, participant flow, baseline characteristics, and adverse events have been published for this study.

View full results

Basic Information

Get a concise snapshot of the trial, including recruitment status, study phase, enrollment targets, and key timeline milestones.

Recruitment Status

TERMINATED

Clinical Phase

PHASE4

Total Enrollment

80 participants

Study Classification

INTERVENTIONAL

Study Start Date

2006-08-31

Study Completion Date

2008-06-18

Brief Summary

Review the sponsor-provided synopsis that highlights what the study is about and why it is being conducted.

The primary aim of this randomized clinical trial is to compare the effect of misoprostol vs extra amniotic saline infusion via a catheter (EASI) for cervical ripening on the proportion of patients delivered by cesarean section for fetal intolerance of labor versus vaginal delivery. The primary hypothesis is that patients undergoing cervical ripening with EASI catheter are less likely to undergo cesarean section for fetal intolerance of labor when compared to women who receive misoprostol.

Detailed Description

Dive into the extended narrative that explains the scientific background, objectives, and procedures in greater depth.

Induction of labor is a common obstetrical practice. In fact, the rate of induction has risen to 184/1000 live births. It is well known that a favorable Bishop score, defined as Bishop score 5-8, improves the safety and success rate for induction of labor and vaginal delivery. Several methods for cervical ripening, both mechanical and pharmacological, have been developed to improve Bishop score in women eligible for induction of labor with an unfavorable cervix. These methods include: misoprostol, dinoprostone, intracervical catheter with and without extra-amniotic saline infusion, and laminaria.

Several studies have investigated the optimum cervical ripening agent, and review of current literature supports that misoprostol given in a dose of 25 micrograms every 4 hours intravaginally as the most efficacious and inexpensive regimen while maintaining safe maternal and fetal outcomes. Several studies have shown that misoprostol has a significantly shorter time to delivery compared with other methods of ripening. In fact, in a 2003 Cochrane Database Systematic Review, misoprostol was shown to have increased cervical ripening effectiveness and reduced failure to achieve vaginal delivery in 12-24 hours. Further, while uterine hyper-stimulation and tachysystole were more common in the misoprostol groups, no adverse neonatal outcomes were described. However, misoprostol has been shown to have a higher incidence of cesarean section for fetal intolerance to labor compared to other cervical ripening methods including EASI. Several studies support the ideal route of administration and dosage of misoprostol to be 25 micrograms every 4 hours intravaginally. This regimen leads to effective cervical ripening while reducing the dose-dependent effect of misoprostol on uterine tachysystole and hyperstimulation. Another aspect to consider in cervical ripening method is cost. Misoprostol is much less expensive than other methods including dinoprostone. In fact, one article reports that the average cost per patient for misoprostol treatment was $85 compared to $606 for dinoprostone insert.

Extra-amniotic saline infusion (EASI) has been introduced as a mechanical, non-pharmacological cervical ripening method. It involves placement of a Foley catheter through the cervix and is supplemented with continuous extra-amniotic infusion of saline. This is thought to improve prostaglandin release, resulting in shortened duration of labor. Several studies have been performed to determine the safety and efficacy of the EASI method.

Since misoprostol is efficacious, safe, and inexpensive, it is a superior method for cervical ripening and will act as a control for an experimental group undergoing cervical ripening with the EASI catheter. Our hypothesis is that cervical ripening with the EASI method will result in fewer cesarean sections for fetal intolerance to labor as compared to misoprostol. Furthermore, patients undergoing cervical ripening with EASI will experience a shorter time to delivery, have less expense, have fewer adverse effects, and will be more satisfied with EASI catheter than with misoprostol.

Conditions

See the medical conditions and disease areas that this research is targeting or investigating.

Cesarean Section

Study Design

Understand how the trial is structured, including allocation methods, masking strategies, primary purpose, and other design elements.

Allocation Method

RANDOMIZED

Intervention Model

PARALLEL

Primary Study Purpose

TREATMENT

Blinding Strategy

NONE

Study Groups

Review each arm or cohort in the study, along with the interventions and objectives associated with them.

Misoprostol

Patients randomized to this arm will receive 25 micrograms of misoprostol every four hours.

Group Type ACTIVE_COMPARATOR

Misoprostol

Intervention Type DRUG

Misoprostol,25 micrograms every 4 hours.

EASI Catheter

Patients randomized to this arm will receive extra amniotic saline infusion (EASI) administered via catheter

Group Type EXPERIMENTAL

Catheter

Intervention Type DEVICE

A catheter with extra amniotic saline infusion (EASI) is placed in the uterus and applies pressure to the cervix to cause it to ripen

Interventions

Learn about the drugs, procedures, or behavioral strategies being tested and how they are applied within this trial.

Misoprostol

Misoprostol,25 micrograms every 4 hours.

Intervention Type DRUG

Catheter

A catheter with extra amniotic saline infusion (EASI) is placed in the uterus and applies pressure to the cervix to cause it to ripen

Intervention Type DEVICE

Other Intervention Names

Discover alternative or legacy names that may be used to describe the listed interventions across different sources.

Cytotec EASI

Eligibility Criteria

Check the participation requirements, including inclusion and exclusion rules, age limits, and whether healthy volunteers are accepted.

Inclusion Criteria

* Singleton pregnancy
* Cephalic presentation
* 36 completed weeks of gestation
* Intact membranes
* Unfavorable cervix (defined as Bishop score \< 5)
* Indication for induction of labor
* Fetal Station less than or equal to -3

Exclusion Criteria

* Clinically significant vaginal bleeding
* Evidence of spontaneous labor (3 contractions in 10 minutes)
* Contraindication to induction of labor or to use of prostaglandins
* Fetal station higher than -3
Minimum Eligible Age

18 Years

Eligible Sex

FEMALE

Accepts Healthy Volunteers

No

Sponsors

Meet the organizations funding or collaborating on the study and learn about their roles.

Loyola University

OTHER

Sponsor Role lead

Responsible Party

Identify the individual or organization who holds primary responsibility for the study information submitted to regulators.

Scott Graziano

Associate Professor

Responsibility Role PRINCIPAL_INVESTIGATOR

Principal Investigators

Learn about the lead researchers overseeing the trial and their institutional affiliations.

Scott Graziano, MD

Role: PRINCIPAL_INVESTIGATOR

Loyola University

Locations

Explore where the study is taking place and check the recruitment status at each participating site.

Loyola University Medical Center

Maywood, Illinois, United States

Site Status

Countries

Review the countries where the study has at least one active or historical site.

United States

References

Explore related publications, articles, or registry entries linked to this study.

Johnson DP, Davis NR, Brown AJ. Risk of cesarean delivery after induction at term in nulliparous women with an unfavorable cervix. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2003 Jun;188(6):1565-9; discussion 1569-72. doi: 10.1067/mob.2003.458.

Reference Type BACKGROUND
PMID: 12824994 (View on PubMed)

Afolabi BB, Oyeneyin OL, Ogedengbe OK. Intravaginal misoprostol versus Foley catheter for cervical ripening and induction of labor. Int J Gynaecol Obstet. 2005 Jun;89(3):263-7. doi: 10.1016/j.ijgo.2005.02.010. Epub 2005 Apr 2.

Reference Type BACKGROUND
PMID: 15919393 (View on PubMed)

Karjane NW, Brock EL, Walsh SW. Induction of labor using a foley balloon, with and without extra-amniotic saline infusion. Obstet Gynecol. 2006 Feb;107(2 Pt 1):234-9. doi: 10.1097/01.AOG.0000198629.44186.c8.

Reference Type BACKGROUND
PMID: 16449106 (View on PubMed)

Sanchez-Ramos L, Peterson DE, Delke I, Gaudier FL, Kaunitz AM. Labor induction with prostaglandin E1 misoprostol compared with dinoprostone vaginal insert: a randomized trial. Obstet Gynecol. 1998 Mar;91(3):401-5. doi: 10.1016/s0029-7844(97)00673-x.

Reference Type BACKGROUND
PMID: 9491868 (View on PubMed)

Garry D, Figueroa R, Kalish RB, Catalano CJ, Maulik D. Randomized controlled trial of vaginal misoprostol versus dinoprostone vaginal insert for labor induction. J Matern Fetal Neonatal Med. 2003 Apr;13(4):254-9. doi: 10.1080/jmf.13.4.254.259.

Reference Type BACKGROUND
PMID: 12854927 (View on PubMed)

Adeniji OA, Oladokun A, Olayemi O, Adeniji OI, Odukogbe AA, Ogunbode O, Aimakhu CO, Omigbodun AO, Ilesanmi AO. Pre-induction cervical ripening: transcervical foley catheter versus intravaginal misoprostol. J Obstet Gynaecol. 2005 Feb;25(2):134-9. doi: 10.1080/01443610500040737.

Reference Type BACKGROUND
PMID: 15814391 (View on PubMed)

Abramovici D, Goldwasser S, Mabie BC, Mercer BM, Goldwasser R, Sibai BM. A randomized comparison of oral misoprostol versus Foley catheter and oxytocin for induction of labor at term. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 1999 Nov;181(5 Pt 1):1108-12. doi: 10.1016/s0002-9378(99)70090-6.

Reference Type BACKGROUND
PMID: 10561627 (View on PubMed)

Hofmeyr GJ, Gulmezoglu AM, Pileggi C. Vaginal misoprostol for cervical ripening and induction of labour. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2010 Oct 6;2010(10):CD000941. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD000941.pub2.

Reference Type BACKGROUND
PMID: 20927722 (View on PubMed)

le Roux PA, Olarogun JO, Penny J, Anthony J. Oral and vaginal misoprostol compared with dinoprostone for induction of labor: a randomized controlled trial. Obstet Gynecol. 2002 Feb;99(2):201-5. doi: 10.1016/s0029-7844(01)01681-7.

Reference Type BACKGROUND
PMID: 11814497 (View on PubMed)

Guinn DA, Goepfert AR, Christine M, Owen J, Hauth JC. Extra-amniotic saline, laminaria, or prostaglandin E(2) gel for labor induction with unfavorable cervix: a randomized controlled trial. Obstet Gynecol. 2000 Jul;96(1):106-12. doi: 10.1016/s0029-7844(00)00856-5.

Reference Type BACKGROUND
PMID: 10862852 (View on PubMed)

Sanchez-Ramos L, Kaunitz AM, Wears RL, Delke I, Gaudier FL. Misoprostol for cervical ripening and labor induction: a meta-analysis. Obstet Gynecol. 1997 Apr;89(4):633-42. doi: 10.1016/S0029-7844(96)00374-2.

Reference Type BACKGROUND
PMID: 9083326 (View on PubMed)

Meydanli MM, Caliskan E, Burak F, Narin MA, Atmaca R. Labor induction post-term with 25 micrograms vs. 50 micrograms of intravaginal misoprostol. Int J Gynaecol Obstet. 2003 Jun;81(3):249-55. doi: 10.1016/s0020-7292(03)00042-0.

Reference Type BACKGROUND
PMID: 12767565 (View on PubMed)

Has R, Batukan C, Ermis H, Cevher E, Araman A, Kilic G, Ibrahimoglu L. Comparison of 25 and 50 microg vaginally administered misoprostol for preinduction of cervical ripening and labor induction. Gynecol Obstet Invest. 2002;53(1):16-21. doi: 10.1159/000049405.

Reference Type BACKGROUND
PMID: 11803223 (View on PubMed)

Diro M, Adra A, Gilles JM, Nassar A, Rodriguez A, Salamat SM, Beydoun SN, O'Sullivan MJ, Yasin SY, Burkett G. A double-blind randomized trial of two dose regimens of misoprostol for cervical ripening and labor induction. J Matern Fetal Med. 1999 May-Jun;8(3):114-8. doi: 10.1002/(SICI)1520-6661(199905/06)8:33.0.CO;2-5.

Reference Type BACKGROUND
PMID: 10338065 (View on PubMed)

Sharami SH, Milani F, Zahiri Z, Mansour-Ghanaei F. A randomized trial of prostaglandin E2 gel and extra-amniotic saline infusion with high dose oxytocin for cervical ripening. Med Sci Monit. 2005 Aug;11(8):CR381-6. Epub 2005 Jul 25.

Reference Type BACKGROUND
PMID: 16049380 (View on PubMed)

Other Identifiers

Review additional registry numbers or institutional identifiers associated with this trial.

109040

Identifier Type: -

Identifier Source: org_study_id

More Related Trials

Additional clinical trials that may be relevant based on similarity analysis.

Outpatient Cervical Ripening
NCT04041687 COMPLETED
The Vaginal Progesterone and Cerclage
NCT02846909 COMPLETED PHASE2