Literature DB >> 14687051

A randomised trial comparing low dose vaginal misoprostol and dinoprostone for labour induction.

N van Gemund1, S Scherjon, S LeCessie, J H Schagen van Leeuwen, J van Roosmalen, H H H Kanhai.   

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: To compare vaginal misoprostol with dinoprostone for induction of labour.
DESIGN: Randomised multicentre trial.
SETTING: Labour wards of one university hospital and two teaching hospitals. POPULATION: Six hundred and eighty-one women with indication for labour induction at >or=36 weeks of gestation, singleton pregnancy and no previous ceasarean section.
METHODS: Misoprostol (25 mcg, hospital-prepared capsule) in the posterior vaginal fornix, every four hours, maximum three times daily or dinoprostone gel (1 mg) every four hours. Oxytocin was administered if necessary. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Primary: 'adverse neonatal outcome' (5-minute Apgar score <7 and/or umbilical cord pH <7.15). Secondary: labour duration, mode of delivery and patient satisfaction.
RESULTS: Three hundred and forty-one women received misoprostol and 340 dinoprostone. The median induction-delivery interval was longer in the misoprostol group compared with the dinoprostone group (25 versus 19 hours, P= 0.008). The caesarean section rate was lower in the misoprostol group: 16.1%versus 21%, but this difference was not statistically significant RR = 0.8 (95% CI 0.6-1.04). 'Adverse neonatal outcome' was found to be similar in both groups: 21% in the misoprostol and 23% in the dinoprostone groups. Significantly fewer neonates were admitted to NICU in the misoprostol group compared with dinoprostone 19%versus 26% (RR = 0.7, 95% CI 0.5-0.98).
CONCLUSIONS: Misoprostol in this dosing regimen is a safe method of labour induction. NICU admission rates were lower in the misoprostol group. No difference could be detected in patient satisfaction between groups.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2004        PMID: 14687051     DOI: 10.1046/j.1471-0528.2003.00010.x

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  BJOG        ISSN: 1470-0328            Impact factor:   6.531


  9 in total

Review 1.  Vaginal misoprostol for cervical ripening and induction of labour.

Authors:  G Justus Hofmeyr; A Metin Gülmezoglu; Cynthia Pileggi
Journal:  Cochrane Database Syst Rev       Date:  2010-10-06

2.  A Comparison of Vaginal vs. Oral Misoprostol for Induction of Labor-Double Blind Randomized Trial.

Authors:  Promila Jindal; Kumkum Avasthi; Maninder Kaur
Journal:  J Obstet Gynaecol India       Date:  2011-10-26

3.  Labor induction with prostaglandin E1 versus E2: a comparison of outcomes.

Authors:  Hector Mendez-Figueroa; Matthew J Bicocca; Megha Gupta; Stephen M Wagner; Suneet P Chauhan
Journal:  J Perinatol       Date:  2020-12-07       Impact factor: 2.521

Review 4.  Reducing stillbirths: interventions during labour.

Authors:  Gary L Darmstadt; Mohammad Yawar Yakoob; Rachel A Haws; Esme V Menezes; Tanya Soomro; Zulfiqar A Bhutta
Journal:  BMC Pregnancy Childbirth       Date:  2009-05-07       Impact factor: 3.007

5.  Quality assessment of patient leaflets on misoprostol-induced labour: does written information adhere to international standards for patient involvement and informed consent?

Authors:  Jette Aaroe Clausen; Mette Juhl; Eva Rydahl
Journal:  BMJ Open       Date:  2016-05-27       Impact factor: 2.692

6.  [Induction of labour at term with misoprostol: the experience of a Tunisian maternity ward].

Authors:  Nadia Ouerdiane; Nihel Tlili; Kaouther Othmani; Walid Daaloul; Abdelwaheb Masmoudi; Sonia Ben Hamouda; Badreddine Bouguerra
Journal:  Pan Afr Med J       Date:  2016-05-09

7.  A comparison of misoprostol vaginal insert and misoprostol vaginal tablets for induction of labor in nulliparous women: a retrospective cohort study.

Authors:  Kjersti Engen Marsdal; Ingvil Krarup Sørbye; Lise C Gaudernack; Mirjam Lukasse
Journal:  BMC Pregnancy Childbirth       Date:  2018-01-05       Impact factor: 3.007

8.  Induction of labour with a Foley catheter or oral misoprostol at term: the PROBAAT-II study, a multicentre randomised controlled trial.

Authors:  Mieke L G Ten Eikelder; Femke Neervoort; Katrien Oude Rengerink; Gert J van Baaren; Marta Jozwiak; Jan-Willem de Leeuw; Irene de Graaf; Maria G van Pampus; Maureen Franssen; Martijn Oudijk; Paulien van der Salm; Mallory Woiski; Paula Jm Pernet; A Hanneke Feitsma; Huib van Vliet; Martina Porath; Frans Roumen; Erik van Beek; Hans Versendaal; Marion Heres; Ben Willem J Mol; Kitty W M Bloemenkamp
Journal:  BMC Pregnancy Childbirth       Date:  2013-03-19       Impact factor: 3.007

9.  Comparison of misoprostol and dinoprostone for elective induction of labour in nulliparous women at full term: a randomized prospective study.

Authors:  Evangelos G Papanikolaou; Nikos Plachouras; Aikaterini Drougia; Styliani Andronikou; Christina Vlachou; Theodoros Stefos; Evangelos Paraskevaidis; Konstantinos Zikopoulos
Journal:  Reprod Biol Endocrinol       Date:  2004-09-27       Impact factor: 5.211

  9 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.