Skip to main content

Thank you for visiting nature.com. You are using a browser version with limited support for CSS. To obtain the best experience, we recommend you use a more up to date browser (or turn off compatibility mode in Internet Explorer). In the meantime, to ensure continued support, we are displaying the site without styles and JavaScript.

  • Original Article
  • Published:

Foley catheter for induction of labor: potential barriers to adopting the technique

Journal of Perinatology volume 35, pages 996–999 (2015)Cite this article

Subjects

Abstract

Objective:

To evaluate if a learning curve exists for cervical Foley placement for labor induction in women with unfavorable cervices and whether labor curves differ compared with the dinoprostone insert (PGE2).

Study Design:

We conducted a secondary analysis of a multicenter randomized controlled trial.

Result:

For Foley and PGE2, successful placement occurred in 157/185 (85%) and 188/191 (98%) women (P<0.001). Unsuccessful Foley placements decreased over time (P=0.005); all occurred at the site previously using PGE2 preferentially. In women with allocated agent placed successfully who achieved complete cervical dilation, median progress with Foley (n=112), compared with PGE2 (n=123), was: 1–3 cm (6.2 vs 14.1 h; P<0.001), 3–6 cm (11.1 vs 6.7 h; P<0.001) and 6–10 cm (1.9 vs 1.5 h; P=0.14).

Conclusion:

There is a learning curve for placing cervical Foley catheters. Despite faster times to delivery, Foley is associated with slower dilation from 3 to 6 cm compared with PGE2.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution

Access options

Buy this article

  • Purchase on Springer Link
  • Instant access to full article PDF
Buy now

Prices may be subject to local taxes which are calculated during checkout

Figure 1
Figure 2

Similar content being viewed by others

Article 16 February 2023

Evdokia Dimitriadis, Daniel L. Rolnik, … Ellen Menkhorst

References

  1. Martin JA, Hamilton BE, Ventura SJ, Osterman MJ, Wilson EC, Mathews TJ . Births: final data from 2010. Natl Vital Stat Rep 2012; 61: 1–72.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Alfirevic Z, Kelly AJ, Dowswell T . Intravenous oxytocin alone for cervical ripening and induction of labour. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2009; (4): CD003246.

  3. Facchinett F, Fontanesi F, Del Giovane C . Pre-induction of labour: comparing dinoprostone vaginal insert to repeated prostaglandin administration: a systematic review and meta-analysis. J Matern Fetal Neonatal Med 2012; 25: 1965–1969.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Jozwiak M, ten Eikelder M, Oude Rengerink K, de Groot C, Feitsma H, Spaanderman M et al. Foley catheter versus vaginal misoprostol: randomized controlled trial (PROBAAT-M study) and systematic review and meta-analysis of literature. Am J Perinatol 2014; 31: 145–156.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Edwards RK, Szychowski JM, Berger JL, Petersen M, Ingersoll M, Bodea-Braescu AV et al. Foley catheter compared with the controlled-release dinoprostone insert: a randomized controlled trial. Obstet Gynecol 2014; 123: 1280–1287.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Scissione AC, Nguyen L, Manley J, Pollock M, Maas B, Colmorgen G . A randomized comparison of transcervical Foley catheter to intravaginal misoprostol for preinduction cervical ripening. Obstet Gynecol 2001; 97: 603–607.

    Google Scholar 

  7. Guinn DA, Davies JK, Jones RO, Sullivan L, Wolf D . Labor induction in women with an unfavorable Bishop score: randomized controlled trial of intrauterine Foley catheter with concurrent oxytocin infusions versus Foley catheter with extra-amniotic saline infusion with concurrent oxytocin infusion. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2004; 191: 225–229.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Chung JH, Huang WH, Rumney PJ, Garite TJ, Nageotte MP . A prospective randomized controlled trial that compared misoprostol, Foley catheter, and combination misoprostol-Foley catheter for labor induction. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2003; 189: 1031–1035.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Harper LM, Caughey AB, Odibo AO, Roehl KA, Zhao Q, Cahill AG . Normal progress of induced labor. Obstet Gynecol 2012; 119: 1113–1118.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Zhang J, Troendle JF, Yancey MK . Reassessing the labor curve in nulliparous women. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2002; 187: 824–828.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Zhang J, Landy HJ, Branch DW, Burkman R, Haberman S, Gregory KD et al. Contemporary patterns of spontaneous labor with normal neonatal outcomes. Obstet Gynecol 2010; 116: 1281–1287.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  12. Vahratian A, Hoffman MK, Troendle JF, Zhang J . The impact of parity on course of labor in a contemporary population. Birth 2006; 33: 12–17.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Tuuli MG, Keegan MB, Odibo AO, Roehl K, Macones GA, Cahill AG . Progress of labor in women induced with misoprostol versus the Foley catheter. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2013; 209: 237.e1–e7.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Spong CY, Berghella V, Wenstrom KD, Mercer BM, Saade GR . Preventing the first cesarean delivery: summary of a joint Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development, Society for Maternal-Fetal Medicine, and American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists workshop. Obstet Gynecol 2012; 120: 1181–1193.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

All work was performed by the listed authors supported by departmental funds.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Maternal-Fetal Medicine Division, Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Center for Women’s Reproductive Health, Women and Infants Center, University of Alabama at Birmingham, Birmingham, AL, USA

    R K Edwards, J M Szychowski & J R Biggio

  2. Phoenix Perinatal Associates,

    A V Bodea-Braescu & M G Lin

  3. Maternal-Fetal Medicine,

    A V Bodea-Braescu & M G Lin

  4. Obstetrix/Mednax, Phoenix, AZ, USA

    A V Bodea-Braescu & M G Lin

Authors
  1. R K Edwards
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. J M Szychowski
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. A V Bodea-Braescu
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. J R Biggio
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. M G Lin
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to R K Edwards.

Ethics declarations

Competing interests

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

Additional information

These data were presented in part at the 35th annual meeting of the Society for Maternal-Fetal Medicine in San Diego, CA, USA on February 7, 2015.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Edwards, R., Szychowski, J., Bodea-Braescu, A. et al. Foley catheter for induction of labor: potential barriers to adopting the technique. J Perinatol 35, 996–999 (2015). https://doi.org/10.1038/jp.2015.123

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Revised:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/jp.2015.123

This article is cited by

Search

Advanced search

Quick links