Titrated misoprostol versus dinoprostone for labor induction

A. Yehia, Ihab Abd El Fattah, Karam M. Bayoumy, Ibrahim Anwar Abdelazim, Y. Elshehawy, N. Rabei, S. Daoud, A. Essam
{"title":"Titrated misoprostol versus dinoprostone for labor induction","authors":"A. Yehia, Ihab Abd El Fattah, Karam M. Bayoumy, Ibrahim Anwar Abdelazim, Y. Elshehawy, N. Rabei, S. Daoud, A. Essam","doi":"10.4103/2278-960X.194473","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Background: Misoprostol is as effective as dinoprostone for labor induction with low cost and temperature stability. Aim: This study designed to compare titrated misoprostol regarding its safety and efficacy with dinoprostone for induction of labor. Subjects and Methods: Women with a single pregnancy, above 37 weeks′ gestation, cephalic presentation, modified Bishop′s score <8, and not in labor with reassuring fetal heart rate, admitted for labor induction enrolled in this randomized controlled study. Studied women were randomized into; Group I: received oral misoprostol titrated in sterile water (200 μg tablet was dissolved in 200 ml sterile water [1 μg/ml]), starting dose of 20 μg misoprostol required, given every 2 h, and stopped if adequate contractions obtained and Group II: received vaginal dinoprostone tablet maximum two doses followed by augmentation of labor by oxytocin ± amniotomy if there is no uterine contractions after two doses of dinoprostone. In Group I, if the contractions were inadequate after two doses of oral titrated misoprostol (20 μg [20 ml]), the starting dose increased to 40 μg (40 ml), escalating the dose from 5 to 10 ml (45-50 μg), and 20 ml (60 μg) maximum ± amniotomy. If the uterine contractions were adequate, the next dose of misoprostol or dinoprostone was omitted. Statistical analysis done using Student′s t-test for quantitative data and Chi-square test for qualitative data. Results: Induction-to-delivery time was significantly longer in misoprostol than dinoprostone group (975 vs. 670 min, respectively), (P = 0.01). About 20.2% (21/104) of women in misoprostol group did not deliver vaginally within 24 h compared to 7.4% (8/108) in dinoprostone group (significant difference, P = 0.01). Augmentation of labor was significantly high in dinoprostone (37.96% [41/108]) compared to misoprostol group (10.6% [11/104]) (P < 0.01). Conclusion: Titrated misoprostol for induction of labor seems to be associated with significantly longer induction-to-delivery time, low incidence of vaginal birth within 24 h, and less need for augmentation of labor compared to vaginal dinoprostone.","PeriodicalId":356195,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Basic and Clinical Reproductive Sciences","volume":"24 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2016-07-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"5","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Basic and Clinical Reproductive Sciences","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.4103/2278-960X.194473","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 5

Abstract

Background: Misoprostol is as effective as dinoprostone for labor induction with low cost and temperature stability. Aim: This study designed to compare titrated misoprostol regarding its safety and efficacy with dinoprostone for induction of labor. Subjects and Methods: Women with a single pregnancy, above 37 weeks′ gestation, cephalic presentation, modified Bishop′s score <8, and not in labor with reassuring fetal heart rate, admitted for labor induction enrolled in this randomized controlled study. Studied women were randomized into; Group I: received oral misoprostol titrated in sterile water (200 μg tablet was dissolved in 200 ml sterile water [1 μg/ml]), starting dose of 20 μg misoprostol required, given every 2 h, and stopped if adequate contractions obtained and Group II: received vaginal dinoprostone tablet maximum two doses followed by augmentation of labor by oxytocin ± amniotomy if there is no uterine contractions after two doses of dinoprostone. In Group I, if the contractions were inadequate after two doses of oral titrated misoprostol (20 μg [20 ml]), the starting dose increased to 40 μg (40 ml), escalating the dose from 5 to 10 ml (45-50 μg), and 20 ml (60 μg) maximum ± amniotomy. If the uterine contractions were adequate, the next dose of misoprostol or dinoprostone was omitted. Statistical analysis done using Student′s t-test for quantitative data and Chi-square test for qualitative data. Results: Induction-to-delivery time was significantly longer in misoprostol than dinoprostone group (975 vs. 670 min, respectively), (P = 0.01). About 20.2% (21/104) of women in misoprostol group did not deliver vaginally within 24 h compared to 7.4% (8/108) in dinoprostone group (significant difference, P = 0.01). Augmentation of labor was significantly high in dinoprostone (37.96% [41/108]) compared to misoprostol group (10.6% [11/104]) (P < 0.01). Conclusion: Titrated misoprostol for induction of labor seems to be associated with significantly longer induction-to-delivery time, low incidence of vaginal birth within 24 h, and less need for augmentation of labor compared to vaginal dinoprostone.
滴定米索前列醇与迪诺前列酮用于引产
背景:米索前列醇具有成本低、温度稳定等优点,与迪诺前列酮同样适用于引产。目的:本研究旨在比较滴定米索前列醇与迪诺前列酮用于引产的安全性和有效性。对象和方法:单次妊娠,孕37周以上,头位,改良Bishop评分<8,非产程胎心稳定,接受引产的妇女纳入本随机对照研究。被研究的女性被随机分为;组1:口服无菌水滴定米索前列醇(200 μg片剂溶解于200 ml无菌水中[1 μg/ml]),米索前列醇起始剂量20 μg,每2 h给药一次,宫缩充分时停药;组2:阴道服用迪诺前列醇片,最多2剂,2剂后子宫无宫缩,经催产素±羊膜切开助产。第一组,口服咪索前列醇(20 μg [20 ml]) 2次后,如果收缩不足,则起始剂量增加至40 μg (40 ml),剂量从5至10 ml (45-50 μg)递增,最大剂量为20 ml (60 μg)±羊膜切开。如果子宫收缩足够,则省略下一剂量的米索前列醇或迪诺前列酮。定量数据采用学生t检验,定性数据采用卡方检验。结果:米索前列醇诱导至分娩时间明显长于迪诺前列酮组(分别为975 min和670 min),差异有统计学意义(P = 0.01)。米索前列醇组约20.2%(21/104)未在24 h内阴道分娩,而迪诺前列酮组为7.4%(8/108),差异有统计学意义(P = 0.01)。迪诺前列醇组增高产程(37.96%[41/108])明显高于米索前列醇组(10.6% [11/104])(P < 0.01)。结论:与阴道迪诺前列酮相比,滴定米索前列醇用于引产的引产时间明显延长,24 h内阴道分娩发生率低,需要增加产程的次数少。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信