Cargando…

Misoprostol vaginal insert versus misoprostol vaginal tablets for the induction of labour: a cohort study

BACKGROUND: Misoprostol vaginal insert for induction of labor has been recently reported to be superior to dinoprostone vaginal insert in a phase III trial, but has never been compared to vaginal misoprostol in another galenic form. The aim of this study was to compare misoprostol vaginal insert (MV...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Bolla, Daniele, Weissleder, Saskia Vanessa, Radan, Anda-Petronela, Gasparri, Maria Luisa, Raio, Luigi, Müller, Martin, Surbek, Daniel
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: BioMed Central 2018
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5946434/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/29747591
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12884-018-1788-z
_version_ 1783322196663336960
author Bolla, Daniele
Weissleder, Saskia Vanessa
Radan, Anda-Petronela
Gasparri, Maria Luisa
Raio, Luigi
Müller, Martin
Surbek, Daniel
author_facet Bolla, Daniele
Weissleder, Saskia Vanessa
Radan, Anda-Petronela
Gasparri, Maria Luisa
Raio, Luigi
Müller, Martin
Surbek, Daniel
author_sort Bolla, Daniele
collection PubMed
description BACKGROUND: Misoprostol vaginal insert for induction of labor has been recently reported to be superior to dinoprostone vaginal insert in a phase III trial, but has never been compared to vaginal misoprostol in another galenic form. The aim of this study was to compare misoprostol vaginal insert (MVI) with misoprostol vaginal tablets (MVT) for induction of labor in term pregnancies. METHODS: In this retrospective cohort study we compared 200 consecutive women induced with 200-μg misoprostol 24-h vaginal insert (Misodel®) with a historical control of 200 women induced with Misoprostol 25-μg vaginal tablets (Cytotec®) every 4-6 h. Main outcomes variables included induction-to-delivery interval, vaginal delivery within 24-h, incidence of tachysystole, mode of delivery, and neonatal outcome. A subanalysis in the MVI group was performed in order to identify predictive factors for tachysistole and vaginal delivery within 24 h. RESULTS: The time from induction to vaginal delivery was 1048 ± 814 min in the MVI group and 1510 ± 1043 min in the MVT group (p < 0.001). Vaginal delivery within 24-h occurred in 127 (63.5%) patients of the MVI group and in 110 (55%) patients of the MVT group (p < 0.001). Tachysystole was more common in the MVI group (36% vs. 18%; p < 0.001). However, no significant predictors of uterine tachysystole in MVI group have been identified in crude and fully adjusted logistic regression models. Bishop score was the only predictor for vaginal delivery within 24 h (p < 0.001) in MVI group. Caesarean delivery rate (27% vs. 20%) and vaginal-operative deliveries (15.5% vs. 15.5%) did not differ significantly between the two groups. Neonatal outcomes were similar in both groups. CONCLUSIONS: MVI achieves a more vaginal delivery rate within 24 h and Tachysystole events compared to MVT. However, no differences in caesarean section, operative vaginal delivery, and neonatal outcomes are reported. No predictors of tachysistole after MVI administration have been identified. Bishop score and parity are the only predictors of vaginal delivery within 24 h after MVI administration.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-5946434
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2018
publisher BioMed Central
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-59464342018-05-14 Misoprostol vaginal insert versus misoprostol vaginal tablets for the induction of labour: a cohort study Bolla, Daniele Weissleder, Saskia Vanessa Radan, Anda-Petronela Gasparri, Maria Luisa Raio, Luigi Müller, Martin Surbek, Daniel BMC Pregnancy Childbirth Research Article BACKGROUND: Misoprostol vaginal insert for induction of labor has been recently reported to be superior to dinoprostone vaginal insert in a phase III trial, but has never been compared to vaginal misoprostol in another galenic form. The aim of this study was to compare misoprostol vaginal insert (MVI) with misoprostol vaginal tablets (MVT) for induction of labor in term pregnancies. METHODS: In this retrospective cohort study we compared 200 consecutive women induced with 200-μg misoprostol 24-h vaginal insert (Misodel®) with a historical control of 200 women induced with Misoprostol 25-μg vaginal tablets (Cytotec®) every 4-6 h. Main outcomes variables included induction-to-delivery interval, vaginal delivery within 24-h, incidence of tachysystole, mode of delivery, and neonatal outcome. A subanalysis in the MVI group was performed in order to identify predictive factors for tachysistole and vaginal delivery within 24 h. RESULTS: The time from induction to vaginal delivery was 1048 ± 814 min in the MVI group and 1510 ± 1043 min in the MVT group (p < 0.001). Vaginal delivery within 24-h occurred in 127 (63.5%) patients of the MVI group and in 110 (55%) patients of the MVT group (p < 0.001). Tachysystole was more common in the MVI group (36% vs. 18%; p < 0.001). However, no significant predictors of uterine tachysystole in MVI group have been identified in crude and fully adjusted logistic regression models. Bishop score was the only predictor for vaginal delivery within 24 h (p < 0.001) in MVI group. Caesarean delivery rate (27% vs. 20%) and vaginal-operative deliveries (15.5% vs. 15.5%) did not differ significantly between the two groups. Neonatal outcomes were similar in both groups. CONCLUSIONS: MVI achieves a more vaginal delivery rate within 24 h and Tachysystole events compared to MVT. However, no differences in caesarean section, operative vaginal delivery, and neonatal outcomes are reported. No predictors of tachysistole after MVI administration have been identified. Bishop score and parity are the only predictors of vaginal delivery within 24 h after MVI administration. BioMed Central 2018-05-10 /pmc/articles/PMC5946434/ /pubmed/29747591 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12884-018-1788-z Text en © The Author(s). 2018 Open AccessThis article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated.
spellingShingle Research Article
Bolla, Daniele
Weissleder, Saskia Vanessa
Radan, Anda-Petronela
Gasparri, Maria Luisa
Raio, Luigi
Müller, Martin
Surbek, Daniel
Misoprostol vaginal insert versus misoprostol vaginal tablets for the induction of labour: a cohort study
title Misoprostol vaginal insert versus misoprostol vaginal tablets for the induction of labour: a cohort study
title_full Misoprostol vaginal insert versus misoprostol vaginal tablets for the induction of labour: a cohort study
title_fullStr Misoprostol vaginal insert versus misoprostol vaginal tablets for the induction of labour: a cohort study
title_full_unstemmed Misoprostol vaginal insert versus misoprostol vaginal tablets for the induction of labour: a cohort study
title_short Misoprostol vaginal insert versus misoprostol vaginal tablets for the induction of labour: a cohort study
title_sort misoprostol vaginal insert versus misoprostol vaginal tablets for the induction of labour: a cohort study
topic Research Article
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5946434/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/29747591
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12884-018-1788-z
work_keys_str_mv AT bolladaniele misoprostolvaginalinsertversusmisoprostolvaginaltabletsfortheinductionoflabouracohortstudy
AT weissledersaskiavanessa misoprostolvaginalinsertversusmisoprostolvaginaltabletsfortheinductionoflabouracohortstudy
AT radanandapetronela misoprostolvaginalinsertversusmisoprostolvaginaltabletsfortheinductionoflabouracohortstudy
AT gasparrimarialuisa misoprostolvaginalinsertversusmisoprostolvaginaltabletsfortheinductionoflabouracohortstudy
AT raioluigi misoprostolvaginalinsertversusmisoprostolvaginaltabletsfortheinductionoflabouracohortstudy
AT mullermartin misoprostolvaginalinsertversusmisoprostolvaginaltabletsfortheinductionoflabouracohortstudy
AT surbekdaniel misoprostolvaginalinsertversusmisoprostolvaginaltabletsfortheinductionoflabouracohortstudy