OBJECTIVE: To evaluate whether a synthetic osmotic cervical dilator is noninferior to oral misoprostol for cervical ripening. METHODS: In an open-label, noninferiority randomized trial, pregnant women undergoing induction of labor at 37 weeks of gestation or more with Bishop scores less than 6 were randomized to either mechanical cervical dilation or oral misoprostol. Participants in the mechanical dilation group underwent insertion of synthetic osmotic cervical dilator rods, and those in the misoprostol group received up to six doses of 25 micrograms orally every 2 hours. After 12 hours of ripening, oxytocin was initiated, with artificial rupture of membranes. Management of labor was at the physician's discretion. The primary outcome was the proportion of women achieving vaginal delivery within 36 hours of initiation of study intervention. Secondary outcomes included increase in Bishop score, mode of delivery, induction-to-delivery interval, total length of hospital stay, and patient satisfaction. On the basis of a noninferiority margin of 10%, an expected primary outcome frequency of 65% for misoprostol and 71% for mechanical methods, and 85% power, a sample size of 306 participants was needed. RESULTS: From November 2018 through January 2021, 307 women were randomized, with 151 evaluable participants in the synthetic osmotic cervical dilator group and 152 in the misoprostol group (there were four early withdrawals). The proportion of women achieving vaginal delivery within 36 hours was higher with mechanical cervical dilation compared with misoprostol (61.6% vs 59.2%), with an absolute difference of 2.4% (95% CI -9% to 13%), indicating noninferiority for the prespecified margin. No differences were noted in the mode of delivery. Tachysystole was more frequent in the misoprostol group (70 [46.4%] vs 35 [23.3%]; P=.01). Participants in the synthetic osmotic cervical dilator group reported better sleep, less unpleasant abdominal sensations, and lower pain scores (P<.05). CONCLUSION: Synthetic osmotic cervical dilator is noninferior to oral misoprostol for cervical ripening. Advantages of synthetic osmotic cervical dilator include a better safety profile and patient satisfaction, less tachysystole, lower pain scores, and U.S. Food and Drug Administration approval. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT03670836. FUNDING SOURCE: Medicem Technology s.r.o., Czech Republic.

Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology Columbia University Irving Medical Center New York New York; the Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology University of Texas Medical Branch at Galveston Galveston Texas; and NEOX s r o Prague Czech Republic

See more in PubMed

Orr L, Reisinger-Kindle K, Roy A, Levine L, Connolly K, Visintainer P, et al. Combination of Foley and prostaglandins versus Foley and oxytocin for cervical ripening: a network meta-analysis. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2020;223:743.e1–17. doi: 10.1016/j.ajog.2020.05.007 DOI

Migliorelli F, De Oliveira SS, Martínez de Tejada B. The ARRIVE trial: towards a universal recommendation of induction of labour at 39 weeks? Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol 2020;244:192–5. doi: 10.1016/j.ejogrb.2019.10.034 DOI

Society of Maternal-Fetal Medicine (SMFM) Publications Committee. SMFM statement on elective induction of labor in low-risk nulliparous women at term: the ARRIVE trial. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2019;221:B2–4. doi: 10.1016/j.ajog.2018.08.009 DOI

Induction of labor. ACOG Practice Bulletin No. 107. American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists. Obstet Gynecol 2009;114:386–97. doi: 10.1097/AOG.0b013e3181b48ef5 DOI

Talaulikar VS, Arulkumaran S. Failed induction of labor: strategies to improve the success rates. Obstet Gynecol Surv 2011;66:717–28. doi: 10.1097/OGX.0b013e31823e0c69 DOI

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;128:1357–64. doi: 10.1097/AOG.0000000000001778 DOI

Hofmeyr GJ, Gülmezoglu AM. Vaginal misoprostol for cervical ripening and induction of labour. The Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews 2003, Issue 1. Art. No.: CD000941. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD000941

Kerr RS, Kumar N, Williams MJ, Cuthbert A, Aflaifel N, Haas DM. Low-dose oral misoprostol for induction of labour. The Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews 2021, Issue 6. Art. No.: CD014484. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD014484

Weeks AD, Navaratnam K, Alfirevic Z. Simplifying oral misoprostol protocols for the induction of labour. BJOG 2017;124:1642–5. doi: 10.1111/1471-0528.14657 DOI

ten Eikelder MLG, Oude Rengerink K, Jozwiak M, de Leeuw JW, de Graaf IM, van Pampus MG, et al. Induction of labour at term with oral misoprostol versus a Foley catheter (PROBAAT-II): a multicentre randomized controlled non-inferiority trial. Lancet 2016;387:1619–28. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(16)00084-2 DOI

Tang OS, Gemzell-Danielsson K, Ho PC. Misoprostol: pharmacokinetic profiles, effects on the uterus and side-effects. Int J Gynaecol Obstet 2007;99(suppl 2):S160–7. doi: 10.1016/j.ijgo.2007.09.004 DOI

Drunecký T, Reidingerová M, Plisová M, Dudič M, Gdovinová D, Stoy V. Experimental comparison of properties of natural and synthetic osmotic dilators. Arch Gynecol Obstet 2015;292:349–54. doi: 10.1007/s00404-015-3623-3 DOI

Gilson GJ, Russell DJ, Izquierdo LA, Qualls CR, Curet LB. A prospective randomized evaluation of a hygroscopic cervical dilator, Dilapan, in the preinduction ripening of patients undergoing induction of labor. Am J Obstet Gynecol 1996;175:145–9. doi: 10.1016/S0002-9378(96)70264-8 DOI

Saad AF, Villarreal J, Eid J, Spencer N, Ellis V, Hankins GD, et al. A randomized controlled trial of Dilapan-S vs Foley balloon for preinduction cervical ripening (DILAFOL trial). Am J Obstet Gynecol 2019;220:275.e1–9. doi: 10.1016/j.ajog.2019.01.008 DOI

Baev OR, Babich DA, Prikhodko AM, Tysyachniy OV, Sukhikh GT. A comparison between labor induction with only Dilapan-S and a combination of mifepristone and Dilapan-S in nulliparous women: a prospective pilot study. J Matern Fetal Neonatal Med 2021;34:2832–7. doi: 10.1080/14767058.2019.1671340 DOI

Kashanian M, Eshraghi N, Sheikhansari N, Eshraghi N. Comparing the efficacy of Dilapan with extra-amniotic saline infusion and oral misoprostol for cervical ripening in term pregnancies. J Matern Fetal Neonatal Med 2021 Feb 23 [Epub ahead of print]. doi: 10.1080/14767058.2021.1888912 DOI

Gupta J, Chodankar R, Baev O, Bahlmann F, Brega E, Gala A, et al. Synthetic osmotic dilators in the induction of labour—an international multicentre observational study. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol 2018;229:70–5. doi: 10.1016/j.ejogrb.2018.08.004 DOI

Moher D, Schulz KF, Altman DG; CONSORT Group. The CONSORT statement: revised recommendations for improving the quality of reports of parallel-group randomized trials. Clin Oral Investig 2003;7:2–7. doi: 10.1007/s00784-002-0188-x DOI

Macaya F, Ryan N, Salinas P, Pocock SJ. Challenges in the design and interpretation of noninferiority trials. J Am Coll Cardiol 2017;70:894–903. doi: 10.1016/j.jacc.2017.06.039 DOI

Buonaccorsi JP, Laake P, Veierød MB. On the power of the Cochran–Armitage test for trend in the presence of misclassification. Stat Methods Med Res 2014;23:218–43. doi: 10.1177/0962280211406424 DOI

Walker KF, Wilson P, Bugg GJ, Dencker A, Thornton JG. Childbirth experience questionnaire: validating its use in the United Kingdom. BMC Pregnancy Childbirth 2015;15:86. doi: 10.1186/s12884-015-0513-4 DOI

Thong ISK, Jensen MP, Miró J, Tan G. The validity of pain intensity measures: what do the NRS, VAS, VRS, and FPS-R measure? Scand J Pain 2018;18:99–107. doi: 10.1515/sjpain-2018-0012 DOI

See more in PubMed

ClinicalTrials.gov
NCT03670836