Am J Perinatol 2019 07 31;36(8):790-797. Epub 2018 Oct 31.
Division of Maternal Fetal Medicine, Department of Gynecology and Obstetrics, Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Baltimore, Maryland.
Objective: To evaluate for difference in outcomes between single- and double-balloon catheters for labor induction.
Study Design: We searched CINAHL, Embase, Cochrane Register, MEDLINE, ISI Web of Sciences, LILACs, and Google Scholar and retrieved studies through May 2017. Selection criteria included randomized controlled trials comparing single- versus double-balloon catheters. The primary outcome was time from catheter insertion to delivery. Heterogeneity of the results among studies was tested with the quantity . For values ≥50%, a random effects model was used to pool data across studies. Summary measures were reported as adjusted odds ratios (aORs) or as a mean difference (MD) with 95% confidence interval (CI).
Results: Four trials including a total of 682 patients were included: 340 patients were randomized to induction with a single-balloon catheter and 342 to induction with a double-balloon catheter. There was no significant difference between groups with respect to time to delivery (18.8 vs. 19.6 hours; MD: 0.40; 95% CI: -1.56 to 0.76), vaginal delivery rate (65.3 vs. 62.3%; aOR: 1.04; 95% CI: 0.56-1.92), cesarean delivery rate (25.6 vs. 27.5%; aOR: 0.98; 95% CI: 0.55-1.73), or epidural use (58.4 vs. 62%; aOR: 0.81; 95% CI: 0.56-1.18).
Conclusion: Double-balloon catheters have no apparent advantage over single-balloon catheters for labor induction.