+ 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

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



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



In view of the increasing pressure on the UK's maternity units, new methods of labour induction are required to alleviate the burden on the National Health Service, while maintaining the quality of care for women during delivery. A model was developed to evaluate the resource use associated with misoprostol vaginal inserts (MVIs) and dinoprostone vaginal inserts (DVIs) for the induction of labour at term. The one-year Markov model estimated clinical outcomes in a hypothetical cohort of 1397 pregnant women (parous and nulliparous) induced with either MVI or DVI at Southmead Hospital, Bristol, UK. Efficacy and safety data were based on published and unpublished results from a phase III, double-blind, multicentre, randomised controlled trial. Resource use was modelled using data from labour induction during antenatal admission to patient discharge from Southmead Hospital. The model's sensitivity to key parameters was explored in deterministic multi-way and scenario-based analyses. Over one year, the model results indicated MVI use could lead to a reduction of 10,201 h (28.9%) in the time to vaginal delivery, and an increase of 121% and 52% in the proportion of women achieving vaginal delivery at 12 and 24 h, respectively, compared with DVI use. Inducing women with the MVI could lead to a 25.2% reduction in the number of midwife shifts spent managing labour induction and 451 fewer hospital bed days. These resource utilisation reductions may equate to a potential 27.4% increase in birthing capacity at Southmead Hospital, when using the MVI instead of the DVI. Resource use, in addition to clinical considerations, should be considered when making decisions about labour induction methods. Our model analysis suggests the MVI is an effective method for labour induction, and could lead to a considerable reduction in resource use compared with the DVI, thereby alleviating the increasing burden of labour induction in UK hospitals.

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

Accession: 058717956

Download citation: RISBibTeXText

PMID: 26864022

DOI: 10.1186/s12913-016-1278-9


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

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

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 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

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

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

Misoprostol vaginal insert versus misoprostol vaginal tablets for the induction of labour: a cohort study. Bmc Pregnancy and Childbirth 18(1): 149, 2018

Pre-induction of labour: comparing dinoprostone vaginal insert to repeated prostaglandin administration: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Journal of Maternal-Fetal and Neonatal Medicine 25(10): 1965-1969, 2013

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

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

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

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