Prospective multi-centre randomised trial comparing induction of labour with a double-balloon catheter versus dinoprostone

Research output: Contribution to journal › Journal article › Research › peer-review

Standard

Prospective multi-centre randomised trial comparing induction of labour with a double-balloon catheter versus dinoprostone. / Løkkegaard, E; Lundstrøm, M; Kjær, Michael; Christensen, I J; Pedersen, H B; Nyholm, H.

In: Journal of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, Vol. 35, No. 8, 2015, p. 797-802.

Research output: Contribution to journal › Journal article › Research › peer-review

Harvard

Løkkegaard, E, Lundstrøm, M, Kjær, M, Christensen, IJ, Pedersen, HB & Nyholm, H 2015, 'Prospective multi-centre randomised trial comparing induction of labour with a double-balloon catheter versus dinoprostone', Journal of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, vol. 35, no. 8, pp. 797-802. https://doi.org/10.3109/01443615.2015.1011101

APA

Løkkegaard, E., Lundstrøm, M., Kjær, M., Christensen, I. J., Pedersen, H. B., & Nyholm, H. (2015). Prospective multi-centre randomised trial comparing induction of labour with a double-balloon catheter versus dinoprostone. Journal of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, 35(8), 797-802. https://doi.org/10.3109/01443615.2015.1011101

Vancouver

Løkkegaard E, Lundstrøm M, Kjær M, Christensen IJ, Pedersen HB, Nyholm H. Prospective multi-centre randomised trial comparing induction of labour with a double-balloon catheter versus dinoprostone. Journal of Obstetrics and Gynaecology. 2015;35(8):797-802. https://doi.org/10.3109/01443615.2015.1011101

Author

Løkkegaard, E ; Lundstrøm, M ; Kjær, Michael ; Christensen, I J ; Pedersen, H B ; Nyholm, H. / Prospective multi-centre randomised trial comparing induction of labour with a double-balloon catheter versus dinoprostone. In: Journal of Obstetrics and Gynaecology. 2015 ; Vol. 35, No. 8. pp. 797-802.

Bibtex

@article{dc5747761bd54ad983e5d9f2cea86e10,
title = "Prospective multi-centre randomised trial comparing induction of labour with a double-balloon catheter versus dinoprostone",
abstract = "This randomised controlled study compared the efficacy of double-balloon catheter versus vaginal prostaglandin E2 (dinoprostone) for induction of labour. In total, 825 pregnant women with cephalic presentation and an unfavourable cervix undergoing induction for conventional indications were randomised to double-balloon or vaginal dinoprostone (3 mg) groups. There was a significantly higher failure rate for labour induction in the balloon group (relative risk: 1.25, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.02-1.49). Median induction time was 27.3 h in the balloon group and 29.8 h in the dinoprostone group (difference not significant). After 24 h, 55.3% had given birth in the balloon group versus 54.3% in the dinoprostone group. Additional oxytocin stimulation was used more often in the balloon (46%) compared with that in the dinoprostone (34%) (relative risk: 1.34 (95%CI 1.16 -1.54) group. Caesarean section rates and neonatal outcome were similar. Overall, the two methods for induction were comparable with regard to efficacy and safety.",
author = "E L{\o}kkegaard and M Lundstr{\o}m and Michael Kj{\ae}r and Christensen, {I J} and Pedersen, {H B} and H Nyholm",
year = "2015",
doi = "10.3109/01443615.2015.1011101",
language = "English",
volume = "35",
pages = "797--802",
journal = "Journal of Obstetrics and Gynaecology",
issn = "0144-3615",
publisher = "Taylor & Francis",
number = "8",

}

RIS

TY - JOUR

T1 - Prospective multi-centre randomised trial comparing induction of labour with a double-balloon catheter versus dinoprostone

AU - Løkkegaard, E

AU - Lundstrøm, M

AU - Kjær, Michael

AU - Christensen, I J

AU - Pedersen, H B

AU - Nyholm, H

PY - 2015

Y1 - 2015

N2 - This randomised controlled study compared the efficacy of double-balloon catheter versus vaginal prostaglandin E2 (dinoprostone) for induction of labour. In total, 825 pregnant women with cephalic presentation and an unfavourable cervix undergoing induction for conventional indications were randomised to double-balloon or vaginal dinoprostone (3 mg) groups. There was a significantly higher failure rate for labour induction in the balloon group (relative risk: 1.25, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.02-1.49). Median induction time was 27.3 h in the balloon group and 29.8 h in the dinoprostone group (difference not significant). After 24 h, 55.3% had given birth in the balloon group versus 54.3% in the dinoprostone group. Additional oxytocin stimulation was used more often in the balloon (46%) compared with that in the dinoprostone (34%) (relative risk: 1.34 (95%CI 1.16 -1.54) group. Caesarean section rates and neonatal outcome were similar. Overall, the two methods for induction were comparable with regard to efficacy and safety.

AB - This randomised controlled study compared the efficacy of double-balloon catheter versus vaginal prostaglandin E2 (dinoprostone) for induction of labour. In total, 825 pregnant women with cephalic presentation and an unfavourable cervix undergoing induction for conventional indications were randomised to double-balloon or vaginal dinoprostone (3 mg) groups. There was a significantly higher failure rate for labour induction in the balloon group (relative risk: 1.25, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.02-1.49). Median induction time was 27.3 h in the balloon group and 29.8 h in the dinoprostone group (difference not significant). After 24 h, 55.3% had given birth in the balloon group versus 54.3% in the dinoprostone group. Additional oxytocin stimulation was used more often in the balloon (46%) compared with that in the dinoprostone (34%) (relative risk: 1.34 (95%CI 1.16 -1.54) group. Caesarean section rates and neonatal outcome were similar. Overall, the two methods for induction were comparable with regard to efficacy and safety.

U2 - 10.3109/01443615.2015.1011101

DO - 10.3109/01443615.2015.1011101

M3 - Journal article

C2 - 25692241

VL - 35

SP - 797

EP - 802

JO - Journal of Obstetrics and Gynaecology

JF - Journal of Obstetrics and Gynaecology

SN - 0144-3615

IS - 8

ER -

ID: 161850900