Intracervical double-balloon catheter versus dinoprostone for cervical ripening in labor induction in pregnancies with a high risk of uterine hyperstimulation.

Purpose: There are numerous methods for cervical ripening although not all of them are indicated in women presenting a higher risk of uterine hyperstimulation. To compare the efficacy and security of the two methods for cervical ripening in the induction of labor in these pregnancies.

Methods: Retrospective analysis of two cohorts consisting of pregnant women who gave birth from 2016 to 2019 (112 inductions with dinoprostone and 112 with intracervical double- balloon).

Results: There are statistically significant differences in favor of dinoprostone in deliveries that occurred before 12 h since the start of the induction (28.6% vs 13.4%, p = 0.005) and a higher rate of cervical ripening (55.4% vs 33.9%; p = 0.001). There were no statistically significant differences in induction time, the percentage of women delivering within 24 h or beyond, nor in the type of delivery. Additionally, a decreased need of oxytocin (60.7% vs 42.9%; p = 0.001) and a lower dose when used has been observed in the dinoprostone group. However, Dinoprostone also has a higher rate of minor maternal complications as uterine hyperstimulation (18.8% vs 3.6%; p = 0.001) and altered cardiotocography (26.8% vs 4.5%; p = 0.001). No significant difference has been found between the two groups regarding severe complications.

Conclusions: Dinoprostone presents a greater efficacy for cervical ripening and delivery in ≤ 12 h, with less need of oxytocin perfusion than inductions using an intracervical double-balloon. There is no significant difference in severe maternal complications between the two groups. In conclusion, Dinoprostone could be an effective and safe option for patients at risk of uterine hyperstimulation.