+ 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

Dinoprostone: slow release vaginal insert (Propess) and intracervical gel (Prepidil) for the induction of labour with unriped cervix



Dinoprostone: slow release vaginal insert (Propess) and intracervical gel (Prepidil) for the induction of labour with unriped cervix



Minerva Ginecologica 56(5): 413-418



The purpose of the present study is to compare the effectiveness and safety of a slow release vaginal PGE2 insert (Propess) with intracervical PGE2 gel (Prepidil gel) in the induction of cervical ripening and labour. For the induction of labour we selected 103 single pregnancies at term presenting a Bishop score of less than 5. Fifty-one were induced with Propess, and 52 with intracervical Prepidil. The 2 groups were homogeneous as regards indications to induction and obstetric characteristics. The success of induction (achievement of uncomplicated vaginal delivery) was comparable in the 2 groups: Propess 67%, Prepidil 65%. The times needed to induce labour were on average longer with Propess (16 h 59 min) than with Prepidil (12 h 54 min), (p<0.05); nevertheless the time needed to achieve delivery by the vaginal route within 24 hours was comparable (49% vs 48%). The number of patients requiring more than one application of prostaglandin was less in the Propess group (5.9%) than in the Prepidil group (55.8%) (p<0.001). The times relative to dilation and expulsion did not differ significantly. Resort to cesarean section for fetal indication (cardiotocographic changes) was greater in inductions with Prepidil (8 cases) compared to Propess (2 cases), p<0.05. The systems proved equally effective, nevertheless Propess seems to be safer thanks to the lower incidence of cardiotocographic changes such as to indicate urgent cesarean section. Propess would seem to be more acceptable on the part of patients thanks to the smaller number of applications necessary.

(PDF emailed within 1 workday: $29.90)

Accession: 048797278

Download citation: RISBibTeXText

PMID: 15531859


Related references

''Prepidil versus Propess'': pharmacological induction of labour with dinoprostone. Minerva Ginecologica 60(2): 127-133, 2008

Prediction of the efficacy of dinoprostone slow release vaginal insert (Propess) for cervical ripening: A prospective cohort study. Journal of Obstetrics and Gynaecology Research 44(9): 1739-1746, 2018

Comparison of Dinoprostone slow release pessary (Propess) with gel (Prostin) for induction of labour at term-a randomised trial. Journal of Obstetrics and Gynaecology 28(7): 695-699, 2008

Effectiveness of prostaglandin E2 intracervical gel (Prepidil), with immediate oxytocin, versus vaginal insert (Cervidil) for induction of labor. American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology 179(5): 1175-1180, 1998

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

Comparing efficiency and outcomes of propess (dinoprostone slow release pessary) and prostin gel as a method of inducing labour. Archives of Disease in Childhood - Fetal and Neonatal Edition 95(Supplement 1): Fa70-Fa70, 2010

Pre-induction cervical ripening using two different dinoprostone vaginal preparations: A randomized clinical trial of tablets and slow release retrievable insert. Taiwanese Journal of Obstetrics & Gynecology 57(4): 560-566, 2018

Induction of labour: a comparison between controlled-release dinoprostone vaginal pessary (Cervidil) and dinoprostone intravaginal gel (Prostin E2). Australian & New Zealand Journal of Obstetrics & Gynaecology 48(5): 473-477, 2008

Dinoprostone vaginal insert for labour induction: a comparison of outpatient and inpatient settings. Journal of Obstetrics and Gynaecology Canada 31(11): 1028-1034, 2014

Misoprostol vaginal insert versus dinoprostone vaginal insert: A comparison of labour and delivery outcomes. European Journal of Obstetrics, Gynecology, and Reproductive Biology: -, 2018

Dinoprostone vaginal slow-release system (Propess) compared to expectant management in the active treatment of premature rupture of the membranes at term: impact on maternal and fetal outcomes. Acta Obstetricia et Gynecologica Scandinavica 87(2): 195-200, 2008

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

Observational Study of Neonatal Safety for Outpatient Labour Induction Priming with Dinoprostone Vaginal Insert. Journal of Obstetrics and Gynaecology Canada 39(5): 354-360, 2017

Effect of vaginal pH on efficacy of the controlled-release dinoprostone vaginal insert for cervical ripening/labor induction. Journal of Maternal-Fetal & Neonatal Medicine 13(4): 250-253, 2003

Induction of labor A randomized comparison between the intracervical balloon catheter and slow release dinoprostone. American Journal of Obstetrics & Gynecology 187(6 Supplement): S166, December, 2002