+ 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

Labor induction for premature rupture of membranes using vaginal misoprostol versus dinoprostone vaginal insert



Labor induction for premature rupture of membranes using vaginal misoprostol versus dinoprostone vaginal insert



American Journal of Perinatology 31(3): 181-186



To compare labor induction outcomes using vaginal misoprostol versus dinoprostone insert in women with premature rupture of membranes (PROM) and an unfavorable cervix. Charts of singleton gestations beyond 34 weeks with PROM and an unfavorable cervix from 2008 to 2011 were reviewed. Group assignment was determined by initial induction agent used. Dinoprostone was administered as a 10-mg vaginal insert left for up to 12 hours. Misoprostol was administered vaginally as a 25-μg tablet every 4 hours for up to six doses. Times to active labor, complete dilatation, and delivery and incidence of adverse outcomes (intrapartum fever, tachysystole, fetal heart rate abnormalities) were compared. Ninety-eight women were included. Baseline characteristics between groups were not different. Median times to active labor (7 versus 11 hours, p < 0.001) and complete dilatation (13.5 versus 19 hours, p < 0.001) were shorter in the misoprostol group. In the misoprostol group, 41.7 and 88.4% of patients delivered vaginally within 12 and 24 hours, respectively, compared with 20.8 and 58.0% in the dinoprostone group (p < 0.001). There was no difference in incidence of adverse outcomes. Vaginal misoprostol is more effective than dinoprostone insert for induction secondary to PROM without increasing the incidence of adverse outcomes.

Accession: 054059431

Download citation: RISBibTeXText

PMID: 23592314

DOI: 10.1055/s-0033-1343768


Related references

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

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

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

Premature rupture of membranes after 35 weeks A randomized clinical trial of induction of labor with oral versus vaginal administration of misoprostol. American Journal of Obstetrics & Gynecology 184(1): S85, 2001

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

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

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, 2002

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

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 comparison of misoprostol vaginal insert and misoprostol vaginal tablets for induction of labor in nulliparous women: a retrospective cohort study. Bmc Pregnancy and Childbirth 18(1): 11, 2018

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

The efficacy of dinoprostone vaginal insert for active management of premature rupture of membranes at term: a randomized controlled trial. Clinical and Experimental Obstetrics and Gynecology 39(3): 356-358, 2012

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