Literature DB >> 15777441

A randomised controlled trial comparing low dose vaginal misoprostol and dinoprostone vaginal gel for inducing labour at term.

Sarah Gregson1, Mark Waterstone, Ian Norman, Trevor Murrells.   

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: To compare the efficacy of low dose vaginal misoprostol and dinoprostone vaginal gel for induction of labour at term.
DESIGN: A single-blind randomised controlled trial.
SETTING: Antenatal and labour ward of a UK district general hospital. PARTICIPANTS: Two hundred and sixty-eight women requiring induction of labour at term (>37 weeks of gestation) with no significant fetal or medical condition, no previous uterine surgery and no contraindication to prostaglandin.
METHODS: Misoprostol 25 microg (one-quarter of a 100 microg tablet) was inserted into the posterior vaginal fornix every 4 hours (to a maximum of six doses) or dinoprostone vaginal gel 1-2 mg 6 hourly (maximum of 3 mg in 24 hours). MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE: Induction-to-vaginal delivery interval. SECONDARY OUTCOME MEASURES: Requirements for oxytocin, mode of delivery, number of women delivering < 24 hours, incidence of uterine contraction abnormalities, incidence of abnormal cardiotocograph (CTG) recordings, 5-minute Apgar scores, umbilical cord pH recordings, analgesia requirements, admission to NICU and blood loss at delivery.
RESULTS: There were no significant differences between the two groups in induction-to-vaginal delivery interval, mode of delivery, number of women delivering within 24 hours and neonatal outcomes. The incidence of uterine contraction abnormalities (tachysystole and hyperstimulation) and the incidence of abnormal CTG recordings were also similar for both groups.
CONCLUSION: Low dose vaginal misoprostol is as effective as dinoprostone gel for inducing labour at term. There would be substantial cost savings, estimated at around 3.9 million UK pounds per annum, for maternity services if low dose misoprostol became the agent of choice for inducing labour in the UK.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2005        PMID: 15777441     DOI: 10.1111/j.1471-0528.2004.00496.x

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


  6 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.  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

3.  Comparison of two dosing regimens of vaginal misoprostol for labour induction: a randomised controlled trial.

Authors:  Shivarudraiah Girija; Attibele Palaksha Manjunath
Journal:  J Turk Ger Gynecol Assoc       Date:  2009-12-01

4.  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

5.  [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

6.  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

  6 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.