A randomized controlled trial of outpatient versus inpatient labour induction with vaginal controlled-release prostaglandin-E2: effectiveness and satisfaction. Elective induction of labour. A randomised prospective trial. Induction of labor with an electric breast pump. Induction of labor compared with expectant management for prelabor rupture of the membranes at term. TERMPROM Study Group. Induction of labour: a comparison of two methods with particular concern to patient acceptability. Controlled comparison of induction versus expectant care for prelabor rupture of the membranes at term. Induction of labor by intracervical prostaglandin gel and oxytocin infusion in primigravid women with unfavorable cervix. Morning compared with evening induction of labor: a nested randomized controlled trial. A nested randomized controlled trial. Induction of labour: a comparison of a single prostaglandin E2 vaginal tablet with amniotomy and intravenous oxytocin.
Outpatient management in obstetrics is expanding, but evidence to support outpatient labour induction is needed.
                To compare the effectiveness, acceptability, duration of hospitalization, and safety of outpatient and inpatient induction of labour with intravaginal controlled-release prosta-glandin-E2 (CR-PGE2).
                A prospective, randomized, controlled trial enrolled 300 women at term with parity < or = 5 and singleton pregnancies in cephalic presentation. Each had an unscarred uterus, a normal non-stress test (NST), and a Bishop score of < or = 6. After insertion of the CR-PGE2, and 1 hour of monitoring, those in the outpatient group were discharged home, to return with onset of labour or 12 hours later for an NST. If not already in labour 24 hours later, the women returned for inpatient induction. Vaginal examination was not repeated before 24 hours unless the patient was contracting and required analgesia. Inpatients remained on the antepartum ward but were otherwise treated similarly. The women in both groups reported ratings of satisfaction, pain, and anxiety over the telephone until they were in labour.
                There were 150 women randomized to outpatient and 150 women to inpatient induction of labour. The number of women who were in labour or who delivered by 24 hours in the outpatient group was 115 (0.77, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.70-0.84) and in the inpatient group was 107 (0.72, 95% CI 0.64-0.79). The median times to labour were 9.8 hours (95% CI, 8.1-11.4) and 11.4 hours (95% CI, 10.1-12.7), and to delivery were 21.4 hours (95% CI, 19.2-23.5) and 20.7 hours (95% CI, 18.4-23.0), for the outpatient and inpatient groups, respectively. In the outpatient group, 56% of women reported high satisfaction during the initial 12 hours of induction compared to 39% in the inpatient group (p < 0.008). Ratings of pain and anxiety during the first 12 hours of induction were similar. In the outpatient group, women were at home for a median of 8 hours (95% CI, 6.7-9.4) before labour and delivery. There were no significant differences in adverse outcomes.
                This study suggests that outpatient induction of labour with intravaginal CR-PGE2 may be a reasonable option for selected low-risk women; however, further study is needed to confirm the safety of this approach. In a prospective, randomised trial, 111 obstetrically normal pregnant women, who had elective induction of labour performed between 39 and 40 weeks, were compared with 117 controls who were managed expectantly until 41 weeks. Compared with the controls, the patients who had elective induction of labour had significantly less meconium staining in labour and a smaller blood-loss after delivery. The mean length of labour, the amount of pethidine used, and the Apgar scores at 1 minute were similar in the two groups. In the electively induced group, the caesarean-section rate was lower and the use of epidural analgesia more common than in the controls, but the differences were mot statistically signficant. The hour of delivery was similar in the two groups, suggesting that convenience to medical and nursing staff would not be greatly changed by elective induction of labour. There was no evidence that the hazards to mother and child were increased by elective induction, and its use might improve perinatal mortality by reducing the number of unexplained mature stillbirths. Nipple stimulation with an electric breast pump was compared with oxytocin infusion as a means of labor induction. The time from stimulation to the onset of regular uterine activity and to 200 Montevideo units of uterine activity and the time until entrance into the active phase of labor were significantly shorter in the nipple stimulation group. Once the women were in active labor, there was no difference between the groups in the length of labor or mode of delivery. As the interval between rupture of the fetal membranes at term and delivery increases, so may the risk of fetal and maternal infection. It is not known whether inducing labor will reduce this risk or whether one method of induction is better then another.
                We studied 5041 women with prelabor rupture of the membranes at term. The women were randomly assigned to induction of labor with intravenous oxytocin; induction of labor with vaginal prostaglandin E2 gel; or expectant management for up to four days, with labor induced with either intravenous oxytocin or vaginal prostaglandin E2 gel if complications developed. The primary outcome was neonatal infection. Secondary outcomes were the need for cesarean section and women's evaluations of their treatment.
                The rates of neonatal infection and cesarean section were not significantly different among the study groups. The rates of neonatal infection were 2.0 percent for the induction-with-oxytocin group, 3.0 percent for the induction-with-prostaglandin group, 2.8 percent for the expectant-management (oxytocin) group, and 2.7 percent for the expectant-management (prostaglandin) group. The rates of cesarean section ranged from 9.6 to 10.9 percent. Clinical chorioamnionitis was less likely to develop in the women in the induction-with-oxytocin group than in those in the expectant-management (oxytocin) group (4.0 percent vs. 8.6 percent, P<0.001), as was postpartum fever (1.9 percent vs. 3.6 percent, P=0.008). Women in the induction groups were less likely to say they liked "nothing" about their treatment than those in the expectant-management groups.
                In women with prelabor rupture of the membranes at term, induction of labor with oxytocin or prostaglandin E2 and expectant management result in similar rates of neonatal infection and cesarean section. Induction of labor with intravenous oxytocin results in a lower risk of maternal infection than does expectant management. Women view induction of labor more positively than expectant management. Induction of labour is a common obstetric intervention. When the cervix is unfavourable ripening agents are used, commonly prostaglandin E2. There are several methods of administration of prostaglandin E2 and little comparative work has been performed as to their acceptability by patients. Patients undergoing induction of labour by prostaglandin E2 were randomised to receive either intravaginal gel or an intravaginal slow-release pessary. Patient satisfaction with the method received was then assessed. Sixty-nine patients were randomised, 34 to receive gel and 35 to receive a pessary. Median scores for satisfaction of the induction process were the same for both methods; however, satisfaction with the labour was increased with those who had been randomised to the pessary group (median pessary=5, gel=4). There may be a marginal improvement in patient satisfaction when a slow-release intravaginal prostaglandin E2 pessary is used for the induction of labour. This randomized clinical trial compared oxytocin induction of labor with expectant care for 48 hours after prelabor rupture of the membranes at term. Women at term with prelabor rupture of the membranes for at least 8 hours were assigned at random to induction with oxytocin or to expectant management for 48 hours followed by induction if necessary. Of 168 eligible women, 123 (73%) agreed to participate. More women in the induction group (23%) than in the expectant group (10%) had operative delivery, either cesarean section or instrumental vaginal delivery. In the induction group 41% received analgesia versus 24% in the expectant group (p < 0.005). There was no difference in the rate of maternal and neonatal infection between groups and sepsis was not observed. The active policy of oxytocin induction exposed the mother to a higher risk of operative delivery and a less comfortable labor than the 48 hours expectant care option. The rate of Cesarean Section for failed induction of labor and maternal and fetal compilations are high when labor is induced in a nulliparas women with an unripe cervix by amniotomy and oxytocin infusion. Prostaglandins (PG) in different forms have been used for ripening the cervix with an aim of reducing these problems. A prospective randomized trial was performed on one hundred primigravid women between 37 and 42 weeks of gestation with singleton pregnancy, cephalic presentation and unfavorable cervix (Modified Bishop Score < or = 5) in the department of Obstetrics & Gynaecology of Institute of Postgraduate Medicine & Research from 1st May 1996 to 30th April 1997. In this study the efficiency of prostaglandin E2 intracervical (PGE2 IC) gel in induction of labor in a group of primigravid women with unripe cervix was assessed and compared with another group with similar characteristics using oxytocin infusion and artificial rupture of membrane (ARM). The Modified Bishop Score (MBS), interval between IOL and onset of labor and the duration of labor after insertion of PGE2 gel was significantly different from those of oxytocin infusion group. But the Apgar Score at 1 & 5 min had shown no statistically significant difference. Any significant difference could also not be detected in the mode of delivery between the two induction group. The proportion of emergency Cesarean Section (CS) was high in the oxytocin infusion group than that of in the prostaglandin group. There was also no significant difference regarding the acceptability of both the induction methods. To test the hypothesis that commencing induction of labor in the morning more closely reflects the physiologic timing of onset of labor and is associated with fewer women who remain undelivered 24 hours after cervical ripening and induction begins.
                This was a nested randomized clinical trial, conducted between April 2001 and December 2004. Pregnant women at more than 36+6 weeks gestation with a cephalic presentation who were scheduled for prostaglandin induction of labor were eligible to participate. Women were randomly assigned to either admission in the morning (0800 hours) or admission in the evening (2,000 hours). The primary outcome measures were vaginal birth not achieved in 24 hours, uterine hyperstimulation with associated fetal heart rate changes, and cesarean delivery.
                A total of 620 women were entered in the trial, with 280 women in the morning admission group and 340 women in the evening admission group. There were no statistically significant differences between the timing of admission for induction and the primary trial outcomes. However, women admitted in the morning were less likely to require oxytocin infusion (morning admission 126 of 280 [45.0%] compared with evening admission 184 of 340 [54.1%]; relative risk 0.83, 95% confidence interval 0.70-0.97; P=.022). Nulliparous women admitted in the morning were less likely to require operative vaginal birth (morning admission 10 of 62 [16.1%] compared with evening admission 28 of 82 [34.2%]; relative risk 0.47, 95% confidence interval 0.25-0.90; P=.015).
                For women who require induction of labor, consideration should be given to admission in the morning rather than admission in the evening.
                Australian Clinical Trials Registry, www.actr.org.au, 12606000156583. In a randomized controlled study of 100 women of low parity and favourable induction features, induction of labour by means of a single vaginal tablet containing 3 mg of prostaglandin E2 (PGE2) was compared with the conventional method of amniotomy and intravenous oxytocin. Four of the patients (8%) who received the prostaglandin tablet required additional intravenous oxytocin to achieve delivery. The prostaglandin group had a longer mean overall induction-delivery interval but a shorter amniotomy-delivery interval than the oxytocin group. One patient in the PGE2 group and two in the oxytocin group required caesarean section. The PGE2 treated patients expressed a higher level of satisfaction with their method of induction, they required less analgesia, had less blood loss at delivery and their babies had a lower incidence of neonatal jaundice.
Induction of labour in outpatient settings appears feasible. We do not have sufficient evidence to know which induction methods are preferred by women, or the interventions that are most effective and safe to use in outpatient settings.