Is Low Dose Vaginal Misoprostol Better Than Dinoprostone Gel For Induction of Labor: A Randomized Controlled Trial

Madaan, Monika; Agrawal, Swati; Puri, Manju; Nigam, Aruna; Kaur, Harvinder; Trivedi, Shubha Sagar

doi:10.7860/jcdr/2014/8101.4906

Cited by 8 publications

(13 citation statements)

References 8 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Despite the confirmed effectiveness of misoprostol in labor pre-induction, there considerations regarding risk of causing tachysystole, hyperstimulation, meconium-stained fluids or cardiotocographic abnormalities [8,17,18,[22][23][24]29]. In our study we recorded only 2% of cases with tachysystoly, same for hyperstimulation.…”

Section: %mentioning

confidence: 61%

“…The most common extra drugs used in our study were oxytocin (56% of cases) and Fenoterol (19% of cases), both used more commonly in primigravidas. There are many studies confirming a less frequent use of drugs in the setting of MVI [3,10,14,17,20,23]. Since the rate of deliveries in our clinic was high, duration of hospitalization was short and all our patients were discharged within 2-4 days.…”

Section: %mentioning

confidence: 79%

“…The literature is rich is articles that compare and assess the effectiveness and safety of pre-induction methods involving prostaglandins such as dinoprostone gel and vaginal insert or misoprostol in form of tablets or inserts [7,[15][16][17][18][19]. Misoprostol tablets are registered in Europe for the prevention and treatment of gastric ulcers only.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Most studies confirm that prostaglandins are superior to mechanical methods in pre-induction and induction of labor, while misoprostol is superior to dinoprostone [2,3,14,17,20,22,26]. Vaginal delivery in shortest time possible is the aim of every induction.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 3 more Smart Citations

Obstetric outcomes of pre-induction of labor with a 200 μg misoprostol vaginal insert

et al. 2017

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Objectives: Labor induction is indicated in 20% to 40% of pregnancies. Over half of pregnancies qualified for the induction of labor require stimulation of the cervix to ripen. The drug used increasingly more often in pre-induction is the PGE-1 prostaglandin analog -misoprostol 200 μg. Material and methods:The study includes a total of 100 patients qualified for labor pre-induction with Misodel® (misoprostol 200 μg vaginal insert). The study group comprises two subgroups: primigravidas and multiparas. Assessments included: indications for labor pre-induction, time from Misodel application to delivery, caesarean section rate and indications, duration of first and second stage of labor, rate of vaginal deliveries, need for oxytocin or fenoterol administration side effects and newborn condition. Results:The most common indication for labor induction was gestational diabetes and pregnancy past term. The average time to vaginal delivery was 14 h 45 min, time to the onset of active phase of labor -11 h 45 min, time to membranes' rupture -15 h, time to vaginal delivery -14 h 18 min. The times of multiparas were significantly shorter. The rate of vaginal deliveries within 12 hours amounted to 42.42%, while within 24 hours it reached 83.33%. The overall caesarean section rate was 33%. The most common indication for caesarean section was the risk of intrauterine hypoxia. Tachysystole and hyperstimulation was observed in 4% of cases, while abnormalities in the cardiotocographic tracing in 43%. Conclusions:Misodel is an effective method for labor pre-induction, without affecting the caesarean section rate and has no adverse effect on the newborn condition.

show abstract

Section: %mentioning

confidence: 61%

Section: %mentioning

confidence: 79%

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Obstetric outcomes of pre-induction of labor with a 200 μg misoprostol vaginal insert

et al. 2017

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…This study found no differences between both methods. However, because of a limited sample size (50 patients for each group), there may not have been enough statistical power to detect differences …”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Low‐dose vaginal misoprostol vs vaginal dinoprostone insert for induction of labor beyond 41st week: A randomized trial

Torralba

Cabrejas

Lázaro

et al. 2019

Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Abbreviations: CI, confidence Interval; RR, relative risk. AbstractIntroduction: The aim of this study was to compare the efficacy and safety of a lowdose protocol of vaginal misoprostol and vaginal dinoprostone insert for induction of labor in women with post-term pregnancies. Material and methods:We designed a prospective, randomized, open-labeled trial with evaluators blinded to the end-point, including women of at least 41 weeks of gestational age with uncomplicated singleton pregnancies and a Bishop score <6.They were randomized into dinoprostone or misoprostol groups in a 1:1 ratio.Baseline maternal data and perinatal outcomes were recorded for statistical analysis.Successful vaginal delivery within 24 hours was the primary outcome variable. A P value <0.05 was considered statistically significant. This study was registered in ClinicalTrials.gov (number NTC03744364). Results:We included 198 women for analysis (99 women in each group). Vaginal birth rate within 24 hours did not differ between groups (49.5% vs 42.4%; P = 0.412).When the Bishop score was <4, dinoprostone insert showed a higher probability of vaginal delivery within 12 hours (17.8% vs 4%; P = 0.012). In the dinoprostone group, removal of the insert was more likely to be due to an adverse event (5.1% vs 14.1%; P = 0.051) and an abnormal fetal heart rate pattern during active labor (44.4% vs 58.6%; P = 0.047). Both groups were similar in neonatal outcomes including Apgar score, umbilical cord pH and neonatal intensive care unit admission. Conclusions: Low-dose vaginal misoprostol and vaginal dinoprostone insert seem tobe equally effective and safe for induction of labor in pregnant women with a gestational age beyond 41 weeks. K E Y W O R D S cervical ripening, dinoprostone, induced labor, misoprostol, obstetric labor, pregnancy O RCI D Carlos De Bonrostro Torralba https://orcid.

show abstract

Labor induction with prostaglandin E1 versus E2: a comparison of outcomes

et al. 2020

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Is Low Dose Vaginal Misoprostol Better Than Dinoprostone Gel For Induction of Labor: A Randomized Controlled Trial

Cited by 8 publications

References 8 publications

Obstetric outcomes of pre-induction of labor with a 200 μg misoprostol vaginal insert

Obstetric outcomes of pre-induction of labor with a 200 μg misoprostol vaginal insert

Low‐dose vaginal misoprostol vs vaginal dinoprostone insert for induction of labor beyond 41st week: A randomized trial

Labor induction with prostaglandin E1 versus E2: a comparison of outcomes

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About