F Nunes1, R Rodrigues, M Meirinho. 1. Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Hospital Garcia de Orta, 2800 Almada, Portugal.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: We sought to evaluate the efficacy and safety of intravaginal misoprostol and dinoprostone for labor induction. STUDY DESIGN: One hundred eighty-nine women with singleton term pregnancies and unfavorable cervices were randomly assigned to receive intravaginal misoprostol or dinoprostone. The outcome variables were change in Bishop score, time from application to active phase of labor and delivery, fetal and maternal morbidity, and the incidence of cesarean deliveries. RESULTS: The interval from application of the initial dose to the beginning of the active phase of labor was 9.8 +/- 5.8 and 14.2 +/- 10.2 hours (P <.01), and the interval from initial dose to delivery was 15.3 +/- 9.8 and 19.1 +/- 13.2 hours (P =.027) for the misoprostol and dinoprostone groups, respectively. There were no significant differences in Bishop score change, cesarean delivery rate, and the incidence of tachysystole, hypersystole, and hyperstimulation. No maternal and neonatal adverse effects were noted. CONCLUSION:Intravaginal misoprostol is more effective than intravaginal dinoprostone for labor induction in low-risk patients at term with unfavorable cervices.
RCT Entities:
OBJECTIVE: We sought to evaluate the efficacy and safety of intravaginal misoprostol and dinoprostone for labor induction. STUDY DESIGN: One hundred eighty-nine women with singleton term pregnancies and unfavorable cervices were randomly assigned to receive intravaginal misoprostol or dinoprostone. The outcome variables were change in Bishop score, time from application to active phase of labor and delivery, fetal and maternal morbidity, and the incidence of cesarean deliveries. RESULTS: The interval from application of the initial dose to the beginning of the active phase of labor was 9.8 +/- 5.8 and 14.2 +/- 10.2 hours (P <.01), and the interval from initial dose to delivery was 15.3 +/- 9.8 and 19.1 +/- 13.2 hours (P =.027) for the misoprostol and dinoprostone groups, respectively. There were no significant differences in Bishop score change, cesarean delivery rate, and the incidence of tachysystole, hypersystole, and hyperstimulation. No maternal and neonatal adverse effects were noted. CONCLUSION: Intravaginal misoprostol is more effective than intravaginal dinoprostone for labor induction in low-risk patients at term with unfavorable cervices.