Open Research Newcastle
Browse

Double- versus single-balloon catheter for induction of labor: Systematic review and individual participant data meta-analysis

Download (1.63 MB)
journal contribution
posted on 2025-05-11, 20:40 authored by Morgan D. Peel, Doortje M. R. Croll, Wentao Li, Jørg Kessler, Birte Haugland, Craig PennellCraig Pennell, Jan E. Dickinson, Raed Salim, Noah Zafran, Kirsten R. Palmer, Ben W. Mol
Introduction: Evidence comparing double-balloon vs single-balloon catheter for induction of labor is divided. We aim to compare the efficacy and safety of double-vs single-balloon catheters using individual participant data. Material and methods: A search of Ovid MEDLINE, Embase, Ovid Emcare, CINAHL Plus, Scopus, and clinicaltrials.gov was conducted for randomized controlled trials published from March 2019 until April 13, 2021. Earlier trials were identified from the Cochrane Review on Mechanical Methods for Induction of Labour. Randomized controlled trials that compared double-balloon with single-balloon catheters for induction of labor in singleton gestations were eligible. Participant-level data were sought from trial investigators and an individual participant data meta-analysis was performed. The primary outcomes were rates of vaginal birth achieved, a composite measure of adverse maternal outcomes and a composite measure of adverse perinatal outcomes. We used a two-stage random-effects model. Data were analyzed from the intention-to-treat perspective. Results: Of the eight eligible randomized controlled trials, three shared individual-level data with a total of 689 participants, 344 women in the double-balloon catheter group and 345 women in the single-balloon catheter group. The difference in the rate of vaginal birth between double-balloon catheter and single-balloon catheter was not statistically significant (relative risk [RR] 0.93, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.86–1.00, p = 0.050; I2 0%; moderate-certainty evidence). Both perinatal outcomes (RR 0.81, 95% CI 0.54–1.21, p = 0.691; I2 0%; moderate-certainty evidence) and maternal composite outcomes (RR 0.65, 95% CI 0.15–2.87, p = 0.571; I2 55.46%; low-certainty evidence) were not significantly different between the two groups. Conclusions: Single-balloon catheter is at least comparable to double-balloon catheter in terms of vaginal birth rate and maternal and perinatal safety outcomes.

History

Journal title

Acta Obstetricia et Gynecologica Scandinavica

Volume

102

Issue

11

Pagination

1440-1449

Publisher

John Wiley & Sons

Language

  • en, English

College/Research Centre

College of Health, Medicine and Wellbeing

School

School of Medicine and Public Health

Rights statement

© 2023 The Authors. Acta Obstetricia et Gynecologica Scandinavica published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd on behalf of Nordic Federation of Societies of Obstetrics and Gynecology (NFOG).This is an open access article under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits use, distribution and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

Usage metrics

    Publications

    Licence

    Exports

    RefWorks
    BibTeX
    Ref. manager
    Endnote
    DataCite
    NLM
    DC