Cargando…

Comparison of Misoprostol and Dinoprostone for elective induction of labour in nulliparous women at full term: A randomized prospective study

BACKGROUND: The objective of this randomized prospective study was to compare the efficacy of 50 mcg vaginal misoprostol and 3 mg dinoprostone, administered every nine hours for a maximum of three doses, for elective induction of labor in a specific cohort of nulliparous women with an unfavorable ce...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Papanikolaou, Evangelos G, Plachouras, Nikos, Drougia, Aikaterini, Andronikou, Styliani, Vlachou, Christina, Stefos, Theodoros, Paraskevaidis, Evangelos, Zikopoulos, Konstantinos
Formato: Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: BioMed Central 2004
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC524504/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15450119
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/1477-7827-2-70
_version_ 1782121907089309696
author Papanikolaou, Evangelos G
Plachouras, Nikos
Drougia, Aikaterini
Andronikou, Styliani
Vlachou, Christina
Stefos, Theodoros
Paraskevaidis, Evangelos
Zikopoulos, Konstantinos
author_facet Papanikolaou, Evangelos G
Plachouras, Nikos
Drougia, Aikaterini
Andronikou, Styliani
Vlachou, Christina
Stefos, Theodoros
Paraskevaidis, Evangelos
Zikopoulos, Konstantinos
author_sort Papanikolaou, Evangelos G
collection PubMed
description BACKGROUND: The objective of this randomized prospective study was to compare the efficacy of 50 mcg vaginal misoprostol and 3 mg dinoprostone, administered every nine hours for a maximum of three doses, for elective induction of labor in a specific cohort of nulliparous women with an unfavorable cervix and more than 40 weeks of gestation. MATERIAL AND METHODS: One hundred and sixty-three pregnant women with more than 285 days of gestation were recruited and analyzed. The main outcome measures were time from induction to delivery and incidence of vaginal delivery within 12 and 24 hours. Admission rate to the neonatal intensive care unit within 24 hours post delivery was a secondary outcome. RESULTS: The induction-delivery interval was significantly lower in the misoprostol group than in the dinoprostone group (11.9 h vs. 15.5 h, p < 0.001). With misoprostol, more women delivered within 12 hours (57.5% vs. 32.5%, p < 0.01) and 24 hours (98.7% vs. 91.4%, p < 0.05), spontaneous rupture of the membranes occurred more frequently (38.8% vs. 20.5%, p < 0.05), there was less need for oxytocin augmentation (65.8% vs. 81.5%, p < 0.05) and fewer additional doses were required (7.5% vs. 22%, p < 0.05). Although not statistically significant, a lower Caesarean section (CS) rate was observed with misoprostol (7.5% vs. 13.3%, p > 0.05) but with the disadvantage of higher abnormal fetal heart rate (FHR) tracings (22.5% vs. 12%, p > 0.05). From the misoprostol group more neonates were admitted to the intensive neonatal unit, than from the dinoprostone group (13.5% vs. 4.8%, p > 0.05). One woman had an unexplained stillbirth following the administration of one dose of dinoprostone. CONCLUSIONS: Vaginal misoprostol, compared with dinoprostone in the regimens used, is more effective in elective inductions of labor beyond 40 weeks of gestation. Nevertheless, this is at the expense of more abnormal FHR tracings and more admissions to the neonatal unit, indicating that the faster approach is not necessarily the better approach to childbirth.
format Text
id pubmed-524504
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2004
publisher BioMed Central
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-5245042004-10-31 Comparison of Misoprostol and Dinoprostone for elective induction of labour in nulliparous women at full term: A randomized prospective study Papanikolaou, Evangelos G Plachouras, Nikos Drougia, Aikaterini Andronikou, Styliani Vlachou, Christina Stefos, Theodoros Paraskevaidis, Evangelos Zikopoulos, Konstantinos Reprod Biol Endocrinol Research BACKGROUND: The objective of this randomized prospective study was to compare the efficacy of 50 mcg vaginal misoprostol and 3 mg dinoprostone, administered every nine hours for a maximum of three doses, for elective induction of labor in a specific cohort of nulliparous women with an unfavorable cervix and more than 40 weeks of gestation. MATERIAL AND METHODS: One hundred and sixty-three pregnant women with more than 285 days of gestation were recruited and analyzed. The main outcome measures were time from induction to delivery and incidence of vaginal delivery within 12 and 24 hours. Admission rate to the neonatal intensive care unit within 24 hours post delivery was a secondary outcome. RESULTS: The induction-delivery interval was significantly lower in the misoprostol group than in the dinoprostone group (11.9 h vs. 15.5 h, p < 0.001). With misoprostol, more women delivered within 12 hours (57.5% vs. 32.5%, p < 0.01) and 24 hours (98.7% vs. 91.4%, p < 0.05), spontaneous rupture of the membranes occurred more frequently (38.8% vs. 20.5%, p < 0.05), there was less need for oxytocin augmentation (65.8% vs. 81.5%, p < 0.05) and fewer additional doses were required (7.5% vs. 22%, p < 0.05). Although not statistically significant, a lower Caesarean section (CS) rate was observed with misoprostol (7.5% vs. 13.3%, p > 0.05) but with the disadvantage of higher abnormal fetal heart rate (FHR) tracings (22.5% vs. 12%, p > 0.05). From the misoprostol group more neonates were admitted to the intensive neonatal unit, than from the dinoprostone group (13.5% vs. 4.8%, p > 0.05). One woman had an unexplained stillbirth following the administration of one dose of dinoprostone. CONCLUSIONS: Vaginal misoprostol, compared with dinoprostone in the regimens used, is more effective in elective inductions of labor beyond 40 weeks of gestation. Nevertheless, this is at the expense of more abnormal FHR tracings and more admissions to the neonatal unit, indicating that the faster approach is not necessarily the better approach to childbirth. BioMed Central 2004-09-27 /pmc/articles/PMC524504/ /pubmed/15450119 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/1477-7827-2-70 Text en Copyright © 2004 Papanikolaou et al; licensee BioMed Central Ltd. http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0 This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License ( (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0) ), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
spellingShingle Research
Papanikolaou, Evangelos G
Plachouras, Nikos
Drougia, Aikaterini
Andronikou, Styliani
Vlachou, Christina
Stefos, Theodoros
Paraskevaidis, Evangelos
Zikopoulos, Konstantinos
Comparison of Misoprostol and Dinoprostone for elective induction of labour in nulliparous women at full term: A randomized prospective study
title Comparison of Misoprostol and Dinoprostone for elective induction of labour in nulliparous women at full term: A randomized prospective study
title_full Comparison of Misoprostol and Dinoprostone for elective induction of labour in nulliparous women at full term: A randomized prospective study
title_fullStr Comparison of Misoprostol and Dinoprostone for elective induction of labour in nulliparous women at full term: A randomized prospective study
title_full_unstemmed Comparison of Misoprostol and Dinoprostone for elective induction of labour in nulliparous women at full term: A randomized prospective study
title_short Comparison of Misoprostol and Dinoprostone for elective induction of labour in nulliparous women at full term: A randomized prospective study
title_sort comparison of misoprostol and dinoprostone for elective induction of labour in nulliparous women at full term: a randomized prospective study
topic Research
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC524504/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15450119
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/1477-7827-2-70
work_keys_str_mv AT papanikolaouevangelosg comparisonofmisoprostolanddinoprostoneforelectiveinductionoflabourinnulliparouswomenatfulltermarandomizedprospectivestudy
AT plachourasnikos comparisonofmisoprostolanddinoprostoneforelectiveinductionoflabourinnulliparouswomenatfulltermarandomizedprospectivestudy
AT drougiaaikaterini comparisonofmisoprostolanddinoprostoneforelectiveinductionoflabourinnulliparouswomenatfulltermarandomizedprospectivestudy
AT andronikoustyliani comparisonofmisoprostolanddinoprostoneforelectiveinductionoflabourinnulliparouswomenatfulltermarandomizedprospectivestudy
AT vlachouchristina comparisonofmisoprostolanddinoprostoneforelectiveinductionoflabourinnulliparouswomenatfulltermarandomizedprospectivestudy
AT stefostheodoros comparisonofmisoprostolanddinoprostoneforelectiveinductionoflabourinnulliparouswomenatfulltermarandomizedprospectivestudy
AT paraskevaidisevangelos comparisonofmisoprostolanddinoprostoneforelectiveinductionoflabourinnulliparouswomenatfulltermarandomizedprospectivestudy
AT zikopouloskonstantinos comparisonofmisoprostolanddinoprostoneforelectiveinductionoflabourinnulliparouswomenatfulltermarandomizedprospectivestudy