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

Initial clinical experience with a misoprostol vaginal insert in comparison with a dinoprostone insert for inducing labor



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



Only one phase III trial has been published to date on the efficacy and safety of misoprostol vaginal inserts for inducing labor. The aim of this study was to compare misoprostol inserts with dinoprostone inserts. This retrospective cohort study evaluated the reduction in time to vaginal delivery and delivery within 24h, in routine clinical work, in 119 labor inductions using a 200-μg misoprostol vaginal insert (Misodel(®); June-October 2014) in comparison with 124 inductions using a 10-mg dinoprostone insert (Propess(®); December 2013-April 2014). Vaginal delivery within 24h occurred in 77.3% (n=92) of the misoprostol cohort and 74.2% (n=92) of the dinoprostone cohort (P=0.654). Time from insert application to vaginal delivery (min) was 761.76 (±409.44, cohort M) versus 805.17 (±473.00, cohort D) (P=0.817). Cesarean delivery was performed in 10.1% (n=12) versus 10.5% (n=13) in the misoprostol and dinoprostone cohorts, respectively (P≥0.999). The modified Bishop scores were 2.0 versus 3.0 (P=0.001), mean body mass index (BMI) was 24.72 versus 23.95 (P=0.033), and fetal scalp blood testing was required in 12.6% (n=15) versus 3.2% (n=4; P=0.008). No differences were observed with regard to the rates of transfer to the neonatal unit or any type of fetal acidosis. The groups thus had similar results for rates of vaginal delivery within 24h, cesarean delivery and fetal outcomes. The misoprostol group had lower modified Bishop scores, higher BMIs, and a higher rate of fetal scalp blood testing.

Please choose payment method:






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

Accession: 058122173

Download citation: RISBibTeXText

PMID: 26995147

DOI: 10.1016/j.ejogrb.2016.03.008


Related references

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

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

Misoprostol vaginal insert (Misodel). Riskier than dinoprostone for inducing labour. Prescrire International 24(166): 291-291, 2016

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

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

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 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

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

A comparison of misoprostol, controlled-release dinoprostone vaginal insert and oxytocin for cervical ripening. Archives of Gynecology and Obstetrics 284(6): 1331-1337, 2012

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

Clinical experience with misoprostol vaginal insert for induction of labor: a prospective clinical observational study. Archives of Gynecology and Obstetrics 2018, 2018

Slow release vaginal insert of misoprostol versus orally administrated solution of misoprostol for induction of labor in primiparous term pregnant women: a randomized clinical trial. Bjog 2019, 2019