medigraphic.com
Federación Mexicana de Ginecología y Obstetricia, A.C.

2022, Number 11

<< Back Next >>

Ginecol Obstet Mex 2022; 90 (11)

Effectiveness and safety of vaginal misoprostol vs dinoprostone for cervical ripening and labour induction

Beira-Salvador P, Aneiros-Campos Y, González-Seoane R, Veiga-Tuimil MÁ

Language: Spanish
References: 24
Page: 893-900
PDF size: 208.25 Kb.


ABSTRACT

Objective: To compare the efficacy of intravaginal misoprostol with the dinoprostone extended-release vaginal device in labor induction. In addition, to analyze the safety profile in relation to maternal and perinatal outcomes.
Materials and Methods: Retrospective and comparative study performed in patients attended between 2018 and 2020 in the Health Area of Ferrol, La Coruña, Spain, with deliveries that were initiated with prostaglandin induction. The patients were divided into two cohorts, depending on the synthetic prostaglandin administered (misoprostol vaginally or dinoprostone in intravaginal device). The Mann-Whitney U test was used to compare the two groups. For qualitative variables, the total number and percentage were described and compared with Pearson's 2 test.
Results: A total of 508 patients undergoing labor induction were analyzed. No differences were found in the indications for induction of labor between one group and the other, although the indication for misoprostol in patients with chronologically prolonged pregnancy (63%) and for dinoprostone in premature rupture of membranes (49%) stood out. In relation to perinatal outcomes, an Apgar of less than 7 at 5 minutes was recorded in 2 patients treated with dinoprostone and 1 with misoprostol; as well as an umbilical arterial pH of less than 7.10 in 8 patients treated with dinoprostone and 7 with misoprostol.
Conclusions: The data reported here suggest that both prostaglandins achieve a similar rate of onset of labor, although dinoprostone appears to reduce the time to onset of labor in women indicated for induction.


REFERENCES

  1. EURO‐PERISTAT Project with SCPE and EUROCA. The healthand care of pregnant women and babies in Europe in 2010.https://www.europeristat.com/images/European%20Perinatal%20Health%20Report_2010.pdf

  2. Laughon SK, Zhang J, Grewal J, Sundaram R, Beaver J,Reddy UM. Induction of labor in a contemporary obstetriccohort. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2012; 206 (6): 486.e1-486.e9.doi:10.1016/j.ajog.2012.03.014

  3. ACOG Practice Bulletin No. 107: Induction of Labor. Obstetrics& Gynecology 2009; 114 (2): 386-97. doi:10.1097/AOG.0b013e3181b48ef5

  4. Wang L, Zheng J, Wang W, Fu J, Hou L. Efficacy and safetyof misoprostol compared with the dinoprostone for laborinduction at term: a meta-analysis. J Maternal-Fetal &Neonatal Medicine 2016; 29 (8): 1297-307. doi:10.3109/14767058.2015.1046828

  5. Hertelendy F, Zakár T. Prostaglandins and the myometriumand cervix. Prostaglandins Leukot Essent Fatty Acids 2004;70 (2): 207-22. doi:10.1016/j.plefa.2003.04.009

  6. Rath W, Osmers R, Adelmann-Grill BC, Stuhlsatz HW,Szvereny M, Kuhn W. Biochemical changes in humancervical connective tissue after intracervical applicationof prostaglandin E2. Prostaglandins 1993; 45 (4): 375-84.doi:10.1016/0090-6980(93)90114-M

  7. Boulvain M, Kelly AJ, Irion O. Intracervical prostaglandinsfor induction of labour. Cochrane Database ofSystematic Reviews. Published online January 23, 2008.doi:10.1002/14651858.CD006971

  8. SEGO. Protocolo de inducción del parto. 2013. PublishedMay 2013. www.sego.es

  9. Allen R, O’Brien BM. Uses of misoprostol in obstetrics andgynecology. Rev Obstet Gynecol 2009; 2 (3): 159-68. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19826573

  10. Church S, van Meter A, Whitfield R. Clinical Round: Dinoprostonecompared with Misoprostol for cervical ripeningfor induction of labor at term. J Midwifery Women’s Health2009; 54 (5): 405-11. doi:10.1016/j.jmwh.2009.03.006

  11. Wing DA, Sheibani L. Pharmacotherapy options for laborinduction. Expert Opin Pharmacother 2015; 16 (11): 1657-68. doi:10.1517/14656566.2015.1060960

  12. Xi M, Gerriets V. Prostaglandin E2 (Dinoprostone). TreasureIsland (FL): Stat Publishing, 2022. PMID: 3142863

  13. Austin SC, Sanchez-Ramos L, Adair CD. Labor inductionwith intravaginal misoprostol compared with the dinoprostonevaginal insert: a systematic review and metaanalysis.Am J Obstet Gynecol 2010; 202 (6): 624.e1-624.e9. doi:10.1016/j.ajog.2010.03.014

  14. Wing DA, Ortiz-Omphroy G, Paul RH. A comparison ofintermittent vaginal administration of misoprostol withcontinuous dinoprostone for cervical ripening and laborinduction. Am J Obstet Gynecol 1997; 177 (3): 612-18.doi:10.1016/S0002-9378(97)70154-6

  15. Rozenberg P, Chevret S, Sénat MV, Bretelle F, Paule BonnalA, Ville Y. A randomized trial that compared intravaginalmisoprostol and dinoprostone vaginal insert in pregnanciesat high risk of fetal distress. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2004; 191(1): 247-53. doi:10.1016/j.ajog.2003.12.038

  16. Rozenberg P, Chevret S, Goffinet F, et al. Induction of labourwith a viable infant: a randomised clinical trial comparingintravaginal misoprostol and intravaginal dinoprostone.BJOG 2001; 108 (12): 1255-62. doi:10.1111/j.1471-0528.2001.00270.x

  17. Buser D, Mor G, Arias F. A randomized comparison betweenmisoprostol and dinoprostone for cervical ripeningand labor induction in patients with unfavorable cervices.Obstetrics & Gynecology 1997; 89 (4): 581-85. doi:10.1016/S0029-7844(97)00015-X

  18. Alfirevic Z, Keeney E, Dowswell T, et al. Labour inductionwith prostaglandins: a systematic review and networkmeta-analysis. BMJ 2015; 350: h217-h217. doi:10.1136/bmj.h217

  19. Cheng SY, Ming H, Lee JC. Titrated oral compared withvaginal misoprostol for labor induction. Obstetrics &Gynecology 2008; 111 (1): 119-25. doi:10.1097/01.AOG.0000297313.68644.71

  20. Rouzi AA, Alsibiani S, Mansouri N, Alsinani N, DarhouseK. Randomized clinical trial between hourly titrated oralmisoprostol and vaginal dinoprostone for induction oflabor. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2014; 210 (1): 56.e1-56.e6.doi:10.1016/j.ajog.2013.08.033

  21. Caughey AB, Cahill AG, Guise JM, Rouse DJ. Safe preventionof the primary cesarean delivery. Am J Obstet Gynecol2014; 210 (3): 179-93. doi:10.1016/j.ajog.2014.01.026

  22. Maggi C, Mazzoni G, Gerosa V, et al. Labor induction withmisoprostol vaginal insert compared with dinoprostonevaginal insert. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand 2019; 98 (10):1268-73. doi:10.1111/aogs.13667

  23. Rankin K, Chodankar R, Raymond K, Bhaskar S. Misoprostolvaginal insert versus dinoprostone vaginal insert: A comparisonof labour and delivery outcomes. Eur J Obstet GynecolReproductive Biology 2019; 235: 93-96. doi:10.1016/j.ejogrb.2018.07.025

  24. Wing DA, Brown R, Plante LA, Miller H, Rugarn O, PowersBL. Misoprostol vaginal insert and time to vaginal delivery.Obstetrics & Gynecology 2013; 122 (2): 201-9. doi:10.1097/AOG.0b013e31829a2dd6




2020     |     www.medigraphic.com