Poster Session 3
Category: Labor
Poster Session 3
Robert E. Jones, MD (he/him/his)
OBGYN Resident Physician, PGY3
Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center
Boston, Massachusetts, United States
Elizabeth Bloom, MD
Resident Physician
Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center
BOSTON, Massachusetts, United States
Anna M. Modest, MPH, PhD
Faculty Scientist
Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center
Boston, Massachusetts, United States
Kimberley Campbell, MSN, RN
Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center
Boston, Massachusetts, United States
Sarah E. Little, MD, MPH
Attending Physician
Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center
Newton, Massachusetts, United States
Patients often defer or decline the use of a foley balloon (FB) for induction of labor (IOL) due to concern for significant discomfort. This study compares patients’ expected versus experienced discomfort with FB use for IOL.
Study Design:
Patients ≥ 18 years-old presenting for IOL with intact membranes were surveyed at the start of induction to assess expected discomfort (0-10 pain scale) with FB placement and while the FB remains in place. Patients who underwent FB placement and completed the initial survey completed a follow-up survey after FB removal or unsuccessful placement to assess experienced discomfort. Discomfort is presented as mean and standard deviation.
Results:
Over a 2-month period, there 366 inductions and 183 (50%) completed the initial survey. 92 (50.3%) completed the initial survey underwent FB placement and 76 (82.6%) of these completed the follow-up survey (Table 1). Four patients received neuraxial anesthesia prior to FB placement and were excluded. There was no significant difference between experienced and expected discomfort during FB placement (5.8 ± 2.7 vs. 6.2 ± 2.2, p= 0.22). However, patients experienced less discomfort than expected while the FB remained in place (5.1 ± 2.8 vs. 5.8 ± 2.1, p= 0.02). Hydromorphone use (0.5 mg IV and 1.0 mg subcutaneous) prior to FB placement was associated with a significant reduction in the experienced versus expected discomfort while the FB remained in place (4.5 ± 2.6 vs. 6.6 ± 2.2, p= 0.01) but not during placement (6.5 ± 2.8 vs. 7.0 ± 2.6, p= 0.45). Among those not receiving hydromorphone, no differences were observed between experienced and expected discomfort for FB placement (5.5 ± 2.6 vs. 5.8 ± 1.9, p= 0.34) or while in place (5.3 ± 2.9 vs. 5.4 ± 2.0, p=0.45).
Conclusion:
Patients experience less discomfort than expected while the FB remains in place, but not during placement. This reduction appears to be mediated by hydromorphone. Patients expecting significant discomfort while a FB remains in place benefit from the use of hydromorphone.