Literature DB >> 27582576

Induction of Labor in Post-Term Nulliparous and Parous Women - Potential Advantages of Misoprostol over Dinoprostone.

P Tsikouras1, Z Koukouli1, B Manav1, M Soilemetzidis1, A Liberis1, R Csorba2, G Trypsianis3, G Galazios1.   

Abstract

INTRODUCTION: We undertook a prospective cohort study to compare the effectiveness and safety of 50 µg misoprostol versus 3 mg dinoprostone in two vaginal doses 6 hours apart, followed if necessary by oxytocin for labor induction in low-risk post-term (> 40 weeks) pregnancies with unfavorable cervix (Bishop score ≤ 6).
METHODS: Labor induction and subsequent management were conducted using a standardized protocol. The primary outcome of the study was labor induction rate. Secondary outcomes included mode of delivery, time interval from induction to delivery, maternal complications and neonatal outcome.
RESULTS: 107 patients received misoprostol (Group A) and 99 patients received dinoprostone (Group B). Compared with group A, more women in Group B needed a second vaginal dose of prostaglandin or oxytocin infusion in order to proceed to labor (21.5 vs. 43.4 %; p = 0.01). Misoprostol alone as a single or double vaginal dose was more effective than dinoprostone alone in inducing labor without oxytocin administration (85.0 vs. 50.4 %; p = 0.04). Overall, the rate of successful induction of labor did not differ between groups (91.6 vs. 85.8 %; p = 0.75). Vaginal delivery, operative vaginal delivery and Caesarean section rates were not significantly different. Time interval from induction to delivery however, was shorter for Group A (median 11 hours vs. 14.1 hours; p < 0.001). Though emergency Caesarean section due to fetal distress was more frequent in Group A (16.8 vs. 4.0 %; p = 0.007), low Apgar scores < 7 and NICU admissions did not differ significantly. Maternal complications, mostly not serious, were higher in Group A (31.8 vs. 2.0, p < 0.001).
CONCLUSION: Misoprostol is a more effective agent than dinoprost in post-term pregnancy for labor induction with few maternal adverse effects.

Entities:  

Keywords:  dinoprostone; labor induction; misoprostol; post-term pregnancy

Year:  2016        PMID: 27582576      PMCID: PMC5001574          DOI: 10.1055/s-0042-105287

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Geburtshilfe Frauenheilkd        ISSN: 0016-5751            Impact factor:   2.915


  26 in total

1.  Active-phase labor arrest: oxytocin augmentation for at least 4 hours.

Authors:  D J Rouse; J Owen; J C Hauth
Journal:  Obstet Gynecol       Date:  1999-03       Impact factor: 7.661

Review 2.  Labor induction with 25 microg versus 50 microg intravaginal misoprostol: a systematic review.

Authors:  Luis Sanchez-Ramos; Andrew M Kaunitz; Isaac Delke
Journal:  Obstet Gynecol       Date:  2002-01       Impact factor: 7.661

Review 3.  Labor induction with intravaginal misoprostol compared with the dinoprostone vaginal insert: a systematic review and metaanalysis.

Authors:  S Campbell Austin; Luis Sanchez-Ramos; C David Adair
Journal:  Am J Obstet Gynecol       Date:  2010-04-28       Impact factor: 8.661

4.  Misoprostol and the debate over off-label drug use.

Authors:  Andrew D Weeks; Christian Fiala; Peter Safar
Journal:  BJOG       Date:  2005-03       Impact factor: 6.531

Review 5.  ACOG Practice Bulletin No. 107: Induction of labor.

Authors: 
Journal:  Obstet Gynecol       Date:  2009-08       Impact factor: 7.661

6.  Labor induction with 25-microg misoprostol vaginal capsules.

Authors:  Susana Santo; Regina Lourenço; Mónica Centeno; Luísa Pargana; Nuno Clode; Helena Ferreira; Luís M da Graça
Journal:  Gynecol Obstet Invest       Date:  2009-09-30       Impact factor: 2.031

Review 7.  Uterine rupture associated with the use of misoprostol in the gravid patient with a previous cesarean section.

Authors:  M M Plaut; M L Schwartz; S L Lubarsky
Journal:  Am J Obstet Gynecol       Date:  1999-06       Impact factor: 8.661

Review 8.  Misoprostol compared with prostaglandin E2 for labour induction in women at term with intact membranes and unfavourable cervix: a systematic review.

Authors:  J M G Crane; B Butler; D C Young; M E Hannah
Journal:  BJOG       Date:  2006-12       Impact factor: 6.531

9.  Oral versus vaginal misoprostol for labour induction.

Authors:  Rozina Rasheed; Azra Ahsan Alam; Shehnaz Younus; Farahnaz Raza
Journal:  J Pak Med Assoc       Date:  2007-08       Impact factor: 0.781

10.  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

View more
  1 in total

1.  Effect of Premature Rupture of Membranes on Induction of Labor: A Historical Cohort Study.

Authors:  Sven Kehl; Christel Weiss; Ulf Dammer; Friederike Baier; Florian Faschingbauer; Matthias W Beckmann; Marc Sütterlin; Jutta Pretscher
Journal:  Geburtshilfe Frauenheilkd       Date:  2017-11-27       Impact factor: 2.915

  1 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.