+ Site Statistics
References:
54,258,434
Abstracts:
29,560,870
PMIDs:
28,072,757
+ Search Articles
+ Subscribe to Site Feeds
Most Shared
PDF Full Text
+ PDF Full Text
Request PDF Full Text
+ Follow Us
Follow on Facebook
Follow on Twitter
Follow on LinkedIn
+ Translate
+ Recently Requested

A randomized trial that compared intravaginal misoprostol and dinoprostone vaginal insert in pregnancies at high risk of fetal distress



A randomized trial that compared intravaginal misoprostol and dinoprostone vaginal insert in pregnancies at high risk of fetal distress



American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology 191(1): 247-253



The purpose of this study was to compare the safety and efficacy of misoprostol and dinoprostone in pregnancies at high risk of fetal distress. Medical indications for the induction of labor with postdate pregnancy or intrauterine growth restriction were randomized. A sequential design that was based on the triangular test was used. At the fourth interim analysis, which included 140 patients, the trial was stopped because no significant difference was found in neonatal safety between misoprostol and dinoprostone, which was assessed on arterial cord pH <7.20 (14.3% vs 10.0%, respectively; P=.60). Neonatal tolerance was similar in the 2 groups, with no difference in the cesarean delivery rate for fetal distress or in the incidence of meconium-stained amniotic fluid. Time to vaginal delivery was shortened by misoprostol (P=.03). Misoprostol and dinoprostone are equally safe for the induction of labor in pregnancies that are at high risk of fetal distress; however, misoprostol allowed the earlier induction of labor than did dinoprostone.

(PDF emailed within 0-6 h: $19.90)

Accession: 011704890

Download citation: RISBibTeXText

PMID: 15295374

DOI: 10.1016/j.ajog.2003.12.038


Related references

Misoprostol vaginal insert compared with dinoprostone vaginal insert: a randomized controlled trial. Obstetrics and Gynecology 112(4): 801-812, 2008

Labor induction with prostaglandin E1 misoprostol compared with dinoprostone vaginal insert: A randomized trial. Obstetrics and Gynecology 91(3): 401-405, 1998

Labor induction with intravaginal misoprostol compared with the dinoprostone vaginal insert: a systematic review and metaanalysis. American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology 202(6): 624.E1-9, 2010

Randomized controlled trial of vaginal misoprostol versus dinoprostone vaginal insert for labor induction. Journal of Maternal-Fetal and Neonatal Medicine 13(4): 254-259, 2003

Comparative efficacy and safety of vaginal misoprostol versus dinoprostone vaginal insert in labor induction at term: a randomized trial. Archives of Gynecology and Obstetrics 280(1): 19-24, 2008

Oral and vaginal misoprostol compared with dinoprostone for induction of labor: A randomized controlled trial. Obstetrics & Gynecology 99(2): 201-205, February, 2002

Reduction in resource use with the misoprostol vaginal insert vs the dinoprostone vaginal insert for labour induction: a model-based analysis from a United Kingdom healthcare perspective. Bmc Health Services Research 16: 49, 2016

A randomized controlled trial of 24-hour vaginal dinoprostone pessary compared to gel for induction of labor in term pregnancies with a Bishop score < or = 4. Acta Obstetricia et Gynecologica Scandinavica 89(5): 651-657, 2010

Initial clinical experience with a misoprostol vaginal insert in comparison with a dinoprostone insert for inducing labor. European Journal of Obstetrics, Gynecology, and Reproductive Biology 200: 89-93, 2017

A randomized trial of vaginal prostaglandin E(2) gel and dinoprostone vaginal insert for induction of labor at term. Primary Care Update for Ob/Gyns 5(4): 183, 2000

Cervical ripening A randomized clinical trial of an intracervical balloon catheter combined with either intravaginal dinoprostone or misoprostol. American Journal of Obstetrics & Gynecology 180(1 PART 2): S127, 1999

Randomized trial of sustained-release vaginal dinoprostone with concurrent oxytocin versus vaginal misoprostol for induction of labor at term. American Journal of Obstetrics & Gynecology 187(6 Supplement): S175, December, 2002