Hector Mendez-Figueroa1, Matthew J Bicocca2, Megha Gupta2, Stephen M Wagner2, Suneet P Chauhan2. 1. Department of Obstetrics, Gynecology and Reproductive Sciences, McGovern Medical School, The University of Texas Health Science Center at Houston (UTHealth), Houston, TX, USA. hector.mendezfigueroa@uth.tmc.edu. 2. Department of Obstetrics, Gynecology and Reproductive Sciences, McGovern Medical School, The University of Texas Health Science Center at Houston (UTHealth), Houston, TX, USA.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To compare the peripartum outcomes when labor is induced with prostaglandins E1 versus E2. METHODOLOGY: The Consortium of Safe Labor database was utilized. Women with non-anomalous singletons >24 weeks gestation undergoing induction were analyzed. The primary endpoint was a composite adverse maternal outcome with a composite adverse neonatal outcome as our secondary outcome. RESULTS: Of the 228,438 births within the database, 8229 (10.8%) met inclusion criteria with 4703 (55.7%) receiving PGE1, and 3741 (44.3%), PGE2. The rate of vaginal delivery was similar between both. Composite adverse maternal outcome, was more likely among the prostaglandin E1: 7.2% vs. 1.5% (aOR 4.20; 95% CI 3.02-5.85); similar trend observed with composite adverse neonatal outcome rates: 4.6% vs. 1.4% (aOR 1.69; 95% CI 1.14-2.50). CONCLUSION: Utilization of prostaglandin E1, compared to E2, was associated with an increased likelihood of adverse maternal and neonatal outcomes.
OBJECTIVE: To compare the peripartum outcomes when labor is induced with prostaglandins E1 versus E2. METHODOLOGY: The Consortium of Safe Labor database was utilized. Women with non-anomalous singletons >24 weeks gestation undergoing induction were analyzed. The primary endpoint was a composite adverse maternal outcome with a composite adverse neonatal outcome as our secondary outcome. RESULTS: Of the 228,438 births within the database, 8229 (10.8%) met inclusion criteria with 4703 (55.7%) receiving PGE1, and 3741 (44.3%), PGE2. The rate of vaginal delivery was similar between both. Composite adverse maternal outcome, was more likely among the prostaglandin E1: 7.2% vs. 1.5% (aOR 4.20; 95% CI 3.02-5.85); similar trend observed with composite adverse neonatal outcome rates: 4.6% vs. 1.4% (aOR 1.69; 95% CI 1.14-2.50). CONCLUSION: Utilization of prostaglandin E1, compared to E2, was associated with an increased likelihood of adverse maternal and neonatal outcomes.
Authors: Deborah A Wing; Raymond Brown; Lauren A Plante; Hugh Miller; Olof Rugarn; Barbara L Powers Journal: Obstet Gynecol Date: 2013-08 Impact factor: 7.661