Outpatient versus inpatient induction of labour for improving birth outcomes.
BACKGROUND
More than 20% of women undergo induction of labour in some countries. The different methods used to induce labour have been the focus of previous reviews, but the setting in which induction takes place (hospital versus outpatient settings) may have implications for maternal satisfaction and costs. It is not known whether some methods of induction that are effective and safe in hospital are suitable in outpatient settings.


OBJECTIVE
To assess the effects on outcomes for mothers and babies of induction of labour for women managed as outpatients versus inpatients.


METHODS
We searched the Cochrane Pregnancy and Childbirth Group's Trials Register (30 June 2013).


METHODS
Published and unpublished randomised and quasi-randomised trials in which inpatient and outpatient methods of cervical ripening or induction of labour have been compared.


METHODS
Two review authors independently assessed trial reports for inclusion. Two review authors carried out data extraction and assessment of risk of bias independently.


RESULTS
We included four trials, with a combined total of 1439 women in the review; each trial examined a different method of induction and we were unable to pool the results from trials.1. Vaginal PGE2 (two studies including 1028 women). There were no differences between women managed as outpatients versus inpatients for most review outcomes. There was no evidence of a difference between the likelihood of women requiring instrumental delivery in either setting (risk ratio (RR) 1.29; 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.79 to 2.13). The overall length of hospital stay was similar in the two groups.2. Controlled release PGE2 10 mg (one study including 300 women). There was no evidence of differences between groups for most review outcomes, including success of induction. During the induction period itself, women in the outpatient group were more likely to report high levels of satisfaction with their care (satisfaction rated seven or more on a nine-point scale, RR 1.42; 95% CI 1.11 to 1.81), but satisfaction scores measured postnatally were similar in the two groups.3. Foley catheter (one study including 111 women). There was no evidence of differences between groups for caesarean section rates, total induction time and the numbers of babies admitted to neonatal intensive care.


CONCLUSIONS
The data available to evaluate the efficacy or potential hazards of outpatient induction are limited. It is, therefore, not yet possible to determine whether induction of labour is effective and safe in outpatient settings.
Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, Brighton and Sussex University Hospitals NHS Trust, Royal Sussex County Hospital, Eastern Road, Brighton, UK, BN2 5BE.
Anthony J
AJ
Kelly
Zarko
Z
Alfirevic
Arpita
A
Ghosh
D000553:Ambulatory Care / Q000379:methods*; D002404:Catheterization; D020070:Cervical Ripening; D002585:Cesarean Section / Q000706:statistics & numerical data; D015232:Dinoprostone; D005260:Female; D006760:Hospitalization; D006801:Humans; D007231:Infant, Newborn; D007751:Labor, Induced / Q000379:methods*; D007902:Length of Stay; D010120:Oxytocics; D017060:Patient Satisfaction; D011247:Pregnancy; D011256:Pregnancy Outcome; D016032:Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic
D010120:Oxytocics; D015232:Dinoprostone