Literature DB >> 18827122

Misoprostol vaginal insert compared with dinoprostone vaginal insert: a randomized controlled trial.

Deborah A Wing1.   

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: To compare the 50-microgram (misoprostol vaginal insert 50) and 100-microgram (misoprostol vaginal insert 100) dose reservoirs of the misoprostol vaginal insert to 10-mg dinoprostone vaginal insert for time to vaginal delivery and rate of cesarean delivery.
METHODS: A total of 1,308 women requiring cervical ripening (modified Bishop score less than or equal to 4) before induction of labor were randomly assigned to receive misoprostol vaginal insert 100 (n=428), misoprostol vaginal insert 50 (n=443) or 10-mg dinoprostone vaginal insert (n=436). The primary outcomes were time to vaginal delivery and rate of cesarean births. Safety was also assessed by comparing frequency of adverse events.
RESULTS: Median time to vaginal delivery was 1,596, 2,127, and 1,650 minutes for misoprostol vaginal insert 100, misoprostol vaginal insert 50, and dinoprostone vaginal insert, respectively (P=.97 and 0.01 compared with dinoprostone vaginal insert, respectively). Of those who delivered in first admission, cesarean deliveries occurred in 119 of 421 (28.3%), 124 of 429 (28.9%), and 115 of 424 (27.1%) of participants treated with misoprostol vaginal insert 100, misoprostol vaginal insert 50, and dinoprostone vaginal inserts, respectively (relative risk 1.04, 95% confidence interval 0.84-1.30 for misoprostol vaginal insert 100 and relative risk 1.06, 95% confidence interval 0.86-1.32 for misoprostol vaginal insert 50 compared with dinoprostone vaginal insert). Medication-related adverse events included hyperstimulation syndrome in 17 of 428 (4.0%), 6 of 443 (1.4%), and 21 of 436 (4.8%); and nonreassuring fetal heart rate patterns in 63 of 428 (14.7%), 54 of 443 (12.2%), and 67 of 436 (15.4%) of participants treated with the misoprostol vaginal insert 100, misoprostol vaginal insert 50, and dinoprostone vaginal inserts, respectively.
CONCLUSION: The misoprostol vaginal insert 100 and the dinoprostone vaginal insert had similar median time intervals to vaginal delivery, whereas the misoprostol vaginal insert 50 had a significantly longer time to vaginal delivery. The three products had similar cesarean rates and safety profiles.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2008        PMID: 18827122     DOI: 10.1097/AOG.0b013e318187042e

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Obstet Gynecol        ISSN: 0029-7844            Impact factor:   7.661


  7 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.  Racial/Ethnic Differences in Labor Outcomes with Prostaglandin Vaginal Inserts.

Authors:  Megan L Stephenson; J Seth Hawkins; Leo Pevzner; Barbara L Powers; Deborah A Wing
Journal:  J Racial Ethn Health Disparities       Date:  2014-10-02

3.  Influence of Maternal Obesity on Labor Induction: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

Authors:  Jessica A Ellis; Carolyn M Brown; Brian Barger; Nicole S Carlson
Journal:  J Midwifery Womens Health       Date:  2019-01-16       Impact factor: 2.388

Review 4.  A novel misoprostol delivery system for induction of labor: clinical utility and patient considerations.

Authors:  Megan L Stephenson; Deborah A Wing
Journal:  Drug Des Devel Ther       Date:  2015-04-22       Impact factor: 4.162

5.  Induction of labour in nulliparous women- quick or slow: a cohort study comparing slow-release vaginal insert with low-dose misoprostol oral tablets.

Authors:  Axelina Eriksson; Sarah Jeppesen; Lone Krebs
Journal:  BMC Pregnancy Childbirth       Date:  2020-02-07       Impact factor: 3.007

Review 6.  A critical appraisal of the misoprostol removable, controlled-release vaginal delivery system of labor induction.

Authors:  Charlotte Patte; Philippe Deruelle
Journal:  Int J Womens Health       Date:  2015-11-12

7.  Clinical experience with misoprostol vaginal insert for induction of labor: a prospective clinical observational study.

Authors:  Markus Schmidt; Maria Neophytou; Olaf Hars; Julia Freudenberg; Maritta Kühnert
Journal:  Arch Gynecol Obstet       Date:  2018-10-29       Impact factor: 2.344

  7 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.