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 induction of labor as an outpatient procedure

Journal of Perinatology volume 36, pages 618–622 (2016)Cite this article

Subjects

Abstract

Objective:

The aim of our study was to introduce outpatient induction of labor by Foley catheter, and to compare outcomes and preferences between in-patients and outpatients.

Study Design:

This clinical cohort study was conducted in Helsinki University Hospital between January 2011 and January 2012. A total of 485 women scheduled for induction of labor by Foley catheter were included. The main outcome measures were cesarean delivery rate, and maternal and neonatal infectious morbidity. Maternal satisfaction of outpatients was measured after delivery.

Results:

Two hundred and four (42.1%) women were managed as outpatients and 281 (57.9%) women as in-patients. The rates of cesarean delivery, and maternal or neonatal infections did not differ between outpatients and in-patients. Of the outpatients, 85.3% were satisfied.

Conclusion:

Induction of labor by Foley catheter appears suitable for outpatients, and resulted in no differences in cesarean delivery or infection rates compared with in-patients. Most women were satisfied with the outpatient induction.

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

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Sciscione AC, Muench M, Pollock M, Jenkins TM, Tildon-Burton J, Colmorgen GH . Transcervical Foley catheter for preinduction cervical ripening in an outpatient versus inpatient setting. Obstet Gynecol 2001; 98 (5, Part 1): 751–756.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Zeitlin J, Mohangoo AD, Delnord M, Cuttini M, EURO-PERISTAT Scientific Committee. The second European Perinatal Health Report: documenting changes over 6 years in the health of mothers and babies in Europe. J Epidemiol Community Health 2013; 67 (12): 983–985.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Martin JA, Hamilton BE, Ventura SJ, Osterman MJ, Mathews TJ . Births: final data for 2011. Natl Vital Stat Rep 2013; 62 (1): 1–69, 72.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Henry A, Madan A, Reid R, Tracy SK, Austin K, Welsh A et al. Outpatient Foley catheter versus inpatient prostaglandin E2 gel for induction of labour: a randomised trial. BMC Pregnancy Childb 2013; 13: 25.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  5. Kelly AJ, Alfirevic Z, Ghosh A . Outpatient versus inpatient induction of labour for improving birth outcomes. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2013; 11: CD007372.

    Google Scholar 

  6. McKenna DS, Duke JM . Effectiveness and infectious morbidity of outpatient cervical ripening with a Foley catheter. J Reprod Med 2004; 49 (1): 28–32.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Rath WH . Outpatient induction—how safe. J Perinat Med 2009; 37 (5): 461–467.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Farmer KC, Schwartz WJ 3rd, Rayburn WF, Turnbull G . A cost-minimization analysis of intracervical prostaglandin E2 for cervical ripening in an outpatient versus inpatient setting. Clin Ther 1996; 18 (4): 747–756; discussion 702.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Biem SR, Turnell RW, Olatunbosun O, Tauh M, Biem HJ . A randomized controlled trial of outpatient versus inpatient labour induction with vaginal controlled-release prostaglandin-E2: effectiveness and satisfaction. J Obstet Gynaecol Can 2003; 25 (1): 23–31.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Wilkinson C, Bryce R, Adelson P, Turnbull D . A randomised controlled trial of outpatient compared with inpatient cervical ripening with prostaglandin E2 (OPRA study). BJOG 2015; 122 (1): 94–104.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Jozwiak M, Oude Rengerink K, Benthem M, van Beek E, Dijksterhuis MG, de Graaf IM et al. Foley catheter versus vaginal prostaglandin E2 gel for induction of labour at term (PROBAAT trial): an open-label, randomised controlled trial. Lancet 2011; 378 (9809): 2095–2103.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Jozwiak M, Bloemenkamp KW, Kelly AJ, Mol BW, Irion O, Boulvain M . Mechanical methods for induction of labour. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2012; 3: CD001233.

    Google Scholar 

  13. Sciscione AC, Bedder CL, Hoffman MK, Ruhstaller K, Shlossman PA . The timing of adverse events with Foley catheter preinduction cervical ripening; implications for outpatient use. Am J Perinatol 2014; 31 (9): 781–786.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. BISHOP EH . Pelvic scoring for elective induction. Obstet Gynecol 1964; 24: 266–268.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. McGill J, Shetty A . Mifepristone and misoprostol in the induction of labor at term. Int J Gynaecol Obstet 2007; 96 (2): 80–84.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Neale E, Pachulski A, Whiterod S, McGuinness E, Gallagher N, Wallace R . Outpatient cervical ripening prior to induction of labour. J Obstet Gynaecol 2002; 22 (6): 634–635.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Sawai SK, O'Brien WF . Outpatient cervical ripening. Clin Obstet Gynecol 1995; 38 (2): 301–309.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Simon CE, Grobman WA . When has an induction failed? Obstet Gynecol 2005; 105 (4): 705–709.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Howard K, Gerard K, Adelson P, Bryce R, Wilkinson C, Turnbull D . Women's preferences for inpatient and outpatient priming for labour induction: a discrete choice experiment. BMC Health Serv Res 2014; 14: 330.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  20. Rauf Z, Alfirevic Z . Outpatient approaches to elective induction of labor: past, present, and future. Clin Obstet Gynecol 2014; 57 (2): 391–400.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

This study was supported by the Finnish Medical Society Duodecim, Helsinki University Hospital Research Funds (No. TYH2014237), and the SalWe Research Program ‘Get it done’ (Tekes—The Finnish Funding Agency for Technology and Innovation Grant No. 3986/31/2013).

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, University of Helsinki and Helsinki University Hospital, Helsinki, Finland

    H Kruit, O Heikinheimo, V-M Ulander, A Aitokallio-Tallberg, J Paavonen & L Rahkonen

  2. Children's Hospital, University of Helsinki and Helsinki University Hospital, Helsinki, Finland

    I Nupponen

Authors
  1. H Kruit
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. O Heikinheimo
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. V-M Ulander
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. A Aitokallio-Tallberg
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. I Nupponen
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. J Paavonen
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  7. L Rahkonen
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to H Kruit.

Ethics declarations

Competing interests

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Kruit, H., Heikinheimo, O., Ulander, VM. et al. Foley catheter induction of labor as an outpatient procedure. J Perinatol 36, 618–622 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1038/jp.2016.62

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Revised:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/jp.2016.62

This article is cited by

Search

Advanced search

Quick links