+ 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

Membrane sweeping versus dinoprostone vaginal insert in the management of pregnancies beyond 41 weeks with an unfavorable cervix



Membrane sweeping versus dinoprostone vaginal insert in the management of pregnancies beyond 41 weeks with an unfavorable cervix



Journal of Perinatology 19(2): 88-91



To determine the best method of cervical ripening to prevent postdate inductions in women with an unfavorable cervix at 41 weeks' gestation. Women presenting at 41 weeks' gestation with a Bishop score of < or = 4 received daily dinoprostone (Cervidil) vaginal inserts (group I) or daily membrane sweeping (group II). One-hundred and eighty-two women were prospectively randomized with 91 women in each arm. The women in group II, membrane sweeping, had Bishop scores significantly greater on admission for delivery (p < 0.001), had less time elapsed from admission to delivery (p = 0.018), and had fewer labor inductions at 42 weeks (p = 0.04) than the women in group I, the dinoprostone group. In addition, a greater number of women in group II were admitted in spontaneous labor (p = 0.006) than in group I. Total antenatal costs for the membrane sweeping group was $15,120 versus $59,540 for the dinoprostone group. Daily membrane sweeping was more effective than dinoprostone administration with fewer postdate inductions at one-fourth the cost.

(PDF emailed within 1 workday: $29.90)

Accession: 046661719

Download citation: RISBibTeXText

PMID: 10642965


Related references

Membrane stripping vs dinoprostone vaginal insert in the management of pregnancies beyond 41 weeks with an unfavorable cervix. American Journal of Obstetrics & Gynecology 178(1 PART 2): S30, 1998

Double-balloon catheter vs. dinoprostone vaginal insert for induction of labor with an unfavorable cervix. Archives of Gynecology and Obstetrics 291(6): 1221-1227, 2015

Randomized clinical trial evaluating the frequency of membrane sweeping with an unfavorable cervix at 39 weeks. International Journal of Women's Health 3(): 287-294, 2011

Oxytocin versus sustained-release dinoprostone vaginal pessary for labor induction of unfavorable cervix with Bishop score ≥ 4 and ≤ 6: a randomized controlled trial. Journal of Obstetrics and Gynaecology Research 39(4): 790-798, 2013

Risk factors for secondary arrest of labor among women > 41 weeks' gestation with an unfavorable cervix undergoing membrane sweeping for cervical ripening. International Journal of Gynecology & Obstetrics 65(1): 1-5, April, 1999

Uterine hyperstimulation following cervix ripening with dinoprostone in a vaginal insert system. Nederlands Tijdschrift Voor Geneeskunde 148(26): 1300-1303, 2004

Labor induction for premature rupture of membranes using vaginal misoprostol versus dinoprostone vaginal insert. American Journal of Perinatology 31(3): 181-186, 2014

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

Dinoprostone vaginal insert versus intravenous oxytocin to reduce postpartum blood loss following vaginal or cesarean delivery. Clinical and Experimental Obstetrics & Gynecology 37(1): 53-55, 2010

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

Pre-induction cervical ripening: comparing between two vaginal preparations of dinoprostone in women with an unfavorable cervix. Journal of Maternal-Fetal & Neonatal Medicine 27(18): 1874-1879, 2015

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, 2004

Dinoprostone: slow release vaginal insert (Propess) and intracervical gel (Prepidil) for the induction of labour with unriped cervix. Minerva Ginecologica 56(5): 413-418, 2004

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(): 49-49, 2016