+ 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

Randomized controlled trial of vaginal misoprostol versus dinoprostone vaginal insert for labor induction



Randomized controlled trial of vaginal misoprostol versus dinoprostone vaginal insert for labor induction



Journal of Maternal-Fetal and Neonatal Medicine 13(4): 254-259



To compare the safety and efficacy of vaginal misoprostol versus dinoprostone vaginal inserts for cervical ripening and labor induction. Two hundred singleton gestations with an indication for cervical ripening and induction of labor were randomized to receive either 50 microg of misoprostol intravaginally every 3 h or a 10-mg dinoprostone vaginal insert every 12 h for a maximum of 24 h. Statistical analysis included Student's t test, the Mann-Whitney U test, chi2 analysis and Fisher's exact test. Ninety-seven women received vaginal misoprostol while 89 women received the dinoprostone vaginal insert. Fourteen women were removed from the study after randomization. The interval from start of induction to vaginal delivery (794.5 +/-408 min vs. 1005.3 +/- 523 min; p < 0.02) was significantly shorter in the misoprostol group. Women receiving misoprostol were more likely to deliver vaginally both in < 12 h (44% vs. 12%; p < 0.0001) and < 24 h (68% vs. 38%; p < 0.001). A non-reassuring fetal heart rate tracing was the indication for 71.4% (20/28) of Cesarean deliveries in the misoprostol group compared to 40% (14/35) in the dinoprostone group (p = 0.03). There were no significant differences in neonatal outcomes. Intravaginal misoprostol and dinoprostone are safe and effective medications for use in cervical ripening before labor induction. Misoprostol results in a shorter interval from induction to delivery. However, Cesarean delivery for a non-reassuring fetal heart rate tracing was more common with misoprostol.

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

Accession: 050110510

Download citation: RISBibTeXText

PMID: 12854927

DOI: 10.1080/jmf.13.4.254.259


Related references

Low-dose vaginal misoprostol versus vaginal dinoprostone insert for induction of labor beyond 41st week: A randomized trial. Acta Obstetricia et Gynecologica Scandinavica 2019, 2019

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

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

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

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 Suppl.): S175, 2002

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

Oral misoprostol or vaginal dinoprostone for labor induction: A randomized controlled trial. American Journal of Obstetrics & Gynecology 188(1): 162-167, 2003

Is low dose vaginal misoprostol better than dinoprostone gel for induction of labor: a randomized controlled trial. Journal of Clinical and Diagnostic Research 8(9): Oc31-Oc34, 2014

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

Effect of extra-amniotic Foley's catheter and vaginal misoprostol versus vaginal misoprostol alone on cervical ripening and induction of labor in Kenya, a randomized controlled trial. Bmc Pregnancy and Childbirth 18(1): 300, 2018

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

A randomized controlled trial comparing low dose vaginal misoprostol and dinoprostone gel for labor induction. The Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology of India 61(2): 153-160, 2011

Misoprostol vaginal insert for successful labor induction: a randomized controlled trial. Obstetrics and Gynecology 117(3): 533-541, 2011

Misoprostol Vaginal Insert for Successful Labor Induction: A Randomized Controlled Trial. Yearbook of Obstetrics, Gynecology and Women's Health 2011: 205-206, 2011

Vaginally administered misoprostol versus the dinoprostone vaginal insert for preinduction cervical ripening and labor induction. American Journal of Obstetrics & Gynecology 176(1 PART 2): S113, 1997