COMPARATIVE OUTCOMES OF INDUCTION OF LABOR WITH PROPESS VERSUS A MODIFIED DOUBLE-BALLOON FOLEY IN WOMEN AT ≥37 WEEKS AT NGHE AN OBSTETRICS AND PEDIATRICS HOSPITAL, 2025
Main Article Content
Abstract
Background: Induction of labor (IOL) is frequently indicated when the cervix is unfavorable and requires a method that balances effectiveness and safety. Evidence suggests both double-balloon catheters and dinoprostone are effective in increasing vaginal delivery rates, yet differences in safety profiles and oxytocin requirements remain debated. A head-to-head comparison in a provincial practice setting is therefore needed to guide optimal choice. Objective: To compare the effectiveness and safety of Propess versus a modified double-balloon Foley catheter for IOL in term women with an unfavorable cervix. Methods: Open-label randomized clinical trial at Nghe An Obstetrics and Pediatrics Hospital, March–September 2025; n=150, stratified by Bishop score and randomized 1:1 (Propess 75; double-balloon 75). Intention-to-treat analysis. Primary endpoint: vaginal delivery within ≤48 hours. Results: Vaginal delivery ≤48 hours did not differ significantly (Propess 62.7% vs double-balloon 72.0%; RR 1.24; 95% CI 0.86–1.81; p=0.22). Oxytocin augmentation was higher with the double-balloon (76.0% vs 18.9%; RR 3.48; 95% CI 2.28–5.30; p<0.001). Although the 5-minute Apgar differed statistically, medians were 10 (IQR 0) in both groups, indicating minimal clinical difference; NICU admission was rare (0 vs 1). Neonatal birthweight was slightly lower with the double-balloon (2800 vs 3000 g; p=0.04). Complications: Propess was associated with more premature rupture of membranes (38.7% vs 9.3%) and tachysystole (18.7% vs 0%). Fetal heart rate abnormalities were less frequent with the double-balloon (1.3% vs 12.0%). In interaction analyses, parity ≥1 strongly increased the probability of vaginal delivery in both groups, with a larger effect for the double-balloon (OR≈287.6 vs 20.8; interaction p=0.04). Conclusions: The two methods were comparable for vaginal delivery within 48 hours. The modified double-balloon Foley required more oxytocin but was associated with fewer tachysystole events and premature rupture of membranes; neonatal outcomes were broadly similar with differences of limited clinical significance.
Article Details
Keywords
: induction of labor; Propess; double-balloon Foley; Bishop score; dinoprostone, tachysystole.
References
2. Yan J, Yin B, Lv H. Comparing the effectiveness and safety of dinoprostone vaginal insert and double-balloon catheter Front Med (Lausanne). 2022;9:976983. doi:10.3389/fmed.2022.976983
3. Yuan L, Peng J, Yang L, Zhao Y. Efficacy and safety of double balloon catheter and dinoprostone for labor induction in multipara at term. Arch Gynecol Obstet. 2024;309(2):533-540. doi:10.1007/s00404-022-06891-9.
4. Li S, He H, Zheng W, Liu J, Chen C. Comparison of outcomes of induction with Propess vs double-balloon in term nulliparas. J Obstet Gynaecol Res. 2025;51(1):e16107. doi:10.1111/jog.16107.
5. Diguisto C, Le Gouge A, Arthuis C, et al. Double-balloon vs vaginal dinoprostone in prolonged pregnancies (MAGPOP RCT). PLoS Med. 2021;18(2):e1003448. doi:10.1371/journal. pmed.1003448.
6. Liu YR, Pu CX, Wang XY, Wang XY. Double-balloon catheter versus dinoprostone insert: meta-analysis. Arch Gynecol Obstet. 2019;299(1): 7-12. doi:10.1007/s00404-018-4929-8.
7. Wang W, Zheng J, Fu J, et al. Safer method of induction in oligohydramnios: double-balloon vs dinoprostone insert. J Matern Fetal Neonatal Med. 2014;27(17): 1805-8. doi:10.3109/14767058. 2014.880880.
8. Cromi A, Ghezzi F, Uccella S, et al. Preinduction cervical ripening: dinoprostone vaginal insert vs double-balloon catheter (RCT). Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2012;207(2):125.e1-7. doi:10.1016/j.ajog.2012.05.020.