Maternal and neonatal outcomes with mechanical cervical dilation plus misoprostol compared to misoprostol alone for cervical ripening; a systematic review of literature and metaanalysis

Abstract

The aim of the present systematic review was to investigate the efficacy and safety of cervical ripening for the combination of mechanical dilation and misoprostol administration compared with misoprostol alone by evaluating 2 primary outcomes: time to delivery and rate of cesarean delivery. The Medline, EMBASE, and Web-of-Science electronic databases (from conception to end-of-search date December 31, 2018) were searched systematically. Randomized controlled trials that included patients with a singleton viable fetus who underwent induction of labor that required cervical ripening with an unfavorable cervix (Bishop ≤7) were eligible for inclusion. Data were pooled with the use of the random effects and fixed effects model after the assessment for the presence of heterogeneity. Risk of bias for each included study was assessed based on the criteria outlined in the Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions. Eleven trials met the inclusion criteria and included a total of 922 and 947 subjects in the combination and misoprostol-only groups, respectively. There was no difference in the incidence of cesarean delivery between the 2 groups (relative risk, 0.95; 95% confidence interval, 0.80-1.13). The combination of mechanical dilation and misoprostol resulted in overall shorter time to delivery (mean difference, -3.65 hours; 95% confidence interval, 5.23 to -2.07), shorter time to vaginal delivery (mean difference, -4.53 hours; 95% confidence interval, -5.79 to -3.27), lower risk of neonatal intensive care unit admission (relative risk, 0.71; 95% confidence interval, 0.53-0.96), meconium-stained fluid (relative risk, 0.62; 95% confidence interval, 0.43-0.90), tachysystole with fetal heart trace changes (relative risk, 0.53; 95% confidence interval, 0.30-0.94), and terbutaline use (relative risk, 0.63; 95% confidence interval, 0.47-0.85) compared with the use of misoprostol alone. Risk of endometritis (relative risk, 1.07; 95% confidence interval, 0.43-2.61) and chorioamnionitis (relative risk, 1.58; 95% confidence interval, 0.88-2.84) was comparable between the 2 groups. The combination of mechanical cervical dilation with misoprostol for cervical ripening is associated with a shorter time to delivery, a similar rate of cesarean delivery, and a lower incidence of neonatal intensive care unit admission compared with the use of misoprostol alone.