PURPOSE: There are numerous methods for cervical ripening although not all of them are indicated in women presenting a higher risk of uterine hyperstimulation. To compare the efficacy and security of the two methods for cervical ripening in the induction of labor in these pregnancies. METHODS: Retrospective analysis of two cohorts consisting of pregnant women who gave birth from 2016 to 2019 (112 inductions with dinoprostone and 112 with intracervical double- balloon). RESULTS: There are statistically significant differences in favor of dinoprostone in deliveries that occurred before 12 h since the start of the induction (28.6% vs 13.4%, p = 0.005) and a higher rate of cervical ripening (55.4% vs 33.9%; p = 0.001). There were no statistically significant differences in induction time, the percentage of women delivering within 24 h or beyond, nor in the type of delivery. Additionally, a decreased need of oxytocin (60.7% vs 42.9%; p = 0.001) and a lower dose when used has been observed in the dinoprostone group. However, Dinoprostone also has a higher rate of minor maternal complications as uterine hyperstimulation (18.8% vs 3.6%; p = 0.001) and altered cardiotocography (26.8% vs 4.5%; p = 0.001). No significant difference has been found between the two groups regarding severe complications. CONCLUSIONS: Dinoprostone presents a greater efficacy for cervical ripening and delivery in ≤ 12 h, with less need of oxytocin perfusion than inductions using an intracervical double-balloon. There is no significant difference in severe maternal complications between the two groups. In conclusion, Dinoprostone could be an effective and safe option for patients at risk of uterine hyperstimulation.
PURPOSE: There are numerous methods for cervical ripening although not all of them are indicated in women presenting a higher risk of uterine hyperstimulation. To compare the efficacy and security of the two methods for cervical ripening in the induction of labor in these pregnancies. METHODS: Retrospective analysis of two cohorts consisting of pregnant women who gave birth from 2016 to 2019 (112 inductions with dinoprostone and 112 with intracervical double- balloon). RESULTS: There are statistically significant differences in favor of dinoprostone in deliveries that occurred before 12 h since the start of the induction (28.6% vs 13.4%, p = 0.005) and a higher rate of cervical ripening (55.4% vs 33.9%; p = 0.001). There were no statistically significant differences in induction time, the percentage of women delivering within 24 h or beyond, nor in the type of delivery. Additionally, a decreased need of oxytocin (60.7% vs 42.9%; p = 0.001) and a lower dose when used has been observed in the dinoprostone group. However, Dinoprostone also has a higher rate of minor maternal complications as uterine hyperstimulation (18.8% vs 3.6%; p = 0.001) and altered cardiotocography (26.8% vs 4.5%; p = 0.001). No significant difference has been found between the two groups regarding severe complications. CONCLUSIONS:Dinoprostone presents a greater efficacy for cervical ripening and delivery in ≤ 12 h, with less need of oxytocin perfusion than inductions using an intracervical double-balloon. There is no significant difference in severe maternal complications between the two groups. In conclusion, Dinoprostone could be an effective and safe option for patients at risk of uterine hyperstimulation.
Authors: Anjel Vahratian; Jun Zhang; James F Troendle; Anthony C Sciscione; Matthew K Hoffman Journal: Obstet Gynecol Date: 2005-04 Impact factor: 7.661
Authors: Mara B Greenberg; Yvonne W Cheng; Margaret Sullivan; Mary E Norton; Linda M Hopkins; Aaron B Caughey Journal: Am J Obstet Gynecol Date: 2007-10 Impact factor: 8.661