[Mechanical method of induction of labor in high-risk pregnant women with previous cesarean section].

PURPOSE To describe the maternal and fetal outcomes with the use of the Foley catheter for induction of labor in high-risk pregnant women with previous caesarean section. METHODS An interventive and descriptive study was conducted from November 2013 to June 2014. A total of 39 pregnant women at term, with a live fetus, cephalic presentation, estimated fetal weight <4,000 g, with previous cesarean section, medical indications for induction of labor, Bishop score ≤6 and amniotic fluid index >5 cm were included. A number 16F Foley catheter was introduced for a maximum of 24 hours, and was considered to be satisfactory when the patient began labor within 24 hours. RESULTS Labor was successfully induced in 79.5% of pregnant women. Nine women achieved vaginal delivery (23.1%), with a frequency of 18% of vaginal births occurring within 24 hours. The main indications for the induction of labor were hypertensive disorders (75%). The mean interval between the placement of the Foley catheter and the beginning of labor and delivery were 8.7±7.1 and 14.7±9.8 hours, respectively. Meconium-stained amniotic fluid was observed in two patients; and an Apgar score <7 in the first minute was detected in 5 newborns (12.8%). CONCLUSIONS The Foley catheter is an alternative for the induction of labor in women with previous caesarean section, despite the low vaginal delivery rate.

[1]  N. Melamed,et al.  Pregnancy outcome after induction of labor in women with previous cesarean section , 2015, The journal of maternal-fetal & neonatal medicine : the official journal of the European Association of Perinatal Medicine, the Federation of Asia and Oceania Perinatal Societies, the International Society of Perinatal Obstetricians.

[2]  F. Prefumo,et al.  Pregnancy outcomes of induced labor in women with previous cesarean section: a systematic review and meta-analysis , 2015, Archives of Gynecology and Obstetrics.

[3]  R. Favre,et al.  Efficacy and safety of labour induction in patients with a single previous Caesarean section: a proposal for a clinical protocol , 2014, Archives of Gynecology and Obstetrics.

[4]  M. Józwiak,et al.  Cervical ripening with Foley catheter for induction of labor after cesarean section: a cohort study , 2014, Acta obstetricia et gynecologica Scandinavica.

[5]  O. Morel,et al.  [Balloon catheter for cervical ripening on scarred uterus with unfavorable cervix: multicenter retrospective study of 151 patients]. , 2014, Journal de gynecologie, obstetrique et biologie de la reproduction.

[6]  G. Macones,et al.  Progress of labor in women induced with misoprostol versus the Foley catheter. , 2013, American journal of obstetrics and gynecology.

[7]  S. Siddiqui.  Obstetric factors for unsuccessful trial of labor in second-order birth following previous cesarean , 2013, Annals of Saudi medicine.

[8]  G. Al-Shaikh,et al.  The outcomes of trial of labour after cesarean section following induction of labour compared to spontaneous labour , 2013, Archives of Gynecology and Obstetrics.

[9]  J. Dodd,et al.  Methods of term labour induction for women with a previous caesarean section. , 2013, The Cochrane database of systematic reviews.

[10]  C. Denis,et al.  [Cervical ripening with balloon catheter for scared uterus: a three-year retrospective study]. , 2013, Journal de gynecologie, obstetrique et biologie de la reproduction.

[11]  J. Dodd,et al.  Planned elective repeat caesarean section versus planned vaginal birth for women with a previous caesarean birth. , 2013, The Cochrane database of systematic reviews.

[12]  M. Amorim,et al.  [Low dose of sublingual misoprostol (12.5 µg) for labor induction]. , 2012, Revista brasileira de ginecologia e obstetricia : revista da Federacao Brasileira das Sociedades de Ginecologia e Obstetricia.

[13]  J. Dungan.  Foley catheter versus vaginal prostaglandin E2 gel for induction of labour at term (PROBAAT trial): an open-label, randomised controlled trial , 2012 .

[14]  L. Shulman.  Vaginal Birth After Cesarean: New Insights on Maternal and Neonatal Outcomes , 2011 .

[15]  M. McDonagh,et al.  New Insights on Vaginal Birth After Cesarean: Can It Be Predicted? , 2010, Obstetrics and gynecology.

[16]  N. Sass,et al.  [Cervical Foley catheter versus vaginal misoprostol for cervical ripening and induction of labor: a randomized clinical trial]. , 2010, Revista brasileira de ginecologia e obstetricia : revista da Federacao Brasileira das Sociedades de Ginecologia e Obstetricia.

[17]  F. Feitosa,et al.  [Titrated oral solution of misoprostol for labour induction: a pilot study]. , 2010, Revista brasileira de ginecologia e obstetricia : revista da Federacao Brasileira das Sociedades de Ginecologia e Obstetricia.

[18]  Márcia Maria Auxiliadora de Aquino,et al.  Indução do parto em pacientes com cesárea anterior , 2009 .

[19]  A. Kaunitz,et al.  Do mechanical methods of cervical ripening increase infectious morbidity? A systematic review. , 2008, American journal of obstetrics and gynecology.

[20]  F. Menacker,et al.  Cesarean birth in the United States: epidemiology, trends, and outcomes. , 2008, Clinics in perinatology.

[21]  S. Walsh,et al.  Induction of Labor Using a Foley Balloon, With and Without Extra-Amniotic Saline Infusion , 2006, Obstetrics and gynecology.

[22]  J. Dodd,et al.  Elective repeat caesarean section versus induction of labour for women with a previous caesarean birth. , 2006, The Cochrane database of systematic reviews.

[23]  J. Cecatti,et al.  Cervical ripening methods for labor induction , 2004 .

[24]  S. Blackwell,et al.  Cervical Ripening With Transcervical Foley Catheter and the Risk of Uterine Rupture , 2004, Obstetrics and gynecology.

[25]  M. Boulvain,et al.  Mechanical methods for induction of labour. , 2001, The Cochrane database of systematic reviews.