Cargando…

Comparison of the Dinoprostone Vaginal Insert and Dinoprostone Tablet for the Induction of Labor in Primipara: A Retrospective Cohort Study

This retrospective study aimed to compare the safety and efficacy of Prostin E2 and Propess for the induction of labor (IOL) in nulliparous women between January 2018 and October 2021. The inclusion criteria were nulliparous, singleton, >37 weeks’ gestation, cephalic presentation with an unfavora...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Ting, Ning-Shiuan, Ding, Dah-Ching, Wei, Yu-Chi
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: MDPI 2022
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9225524/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/35743589
http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/jcm11123519
_version_ 1784733633944223744
author Ting, Ning-Shiuan
Ding, Dah-Ching
Wei, Yu-Chi
author_facet Ting, Ning-Shiuan
Ding, Dah-Ching
Wei, Yu-Chi
author_sort Ting, Ning-Shiuan
collection PubMed
description This retrospective study aimed to compare the safety and efficacy of Prostin E2 and Propess for the induction of labor (IOL) in nulliparous women between January 2018 and October 2021. The inclusion criteria were nulliparous, singleton, >37 weeks’ gestation, cephalic presentation with an unfavorable cervix (Bishop score ≤ 6), no signs of labor, and use of one form of dinoprostone (Prostin E2 or Propess) for IOL. The cesarean section (C/S) rate and induction-to-birth interval were the main outcome measures. In total, 120 women were recruited. Sixty (50%) patients received Propess and 60 (50%) received repeated doses of Prostin E2. The Prostin E2 and Propess groups had similar patient characteristics, but the Bishop score was significantly higher in the Propess group than in the Prostin E2 group; therefore, multivariate analysis was conducted, and the Bishop score was not associated with the induction-to-birth interval. The C/S rate was not significantly different between the two groups, but the Propess group achieved a shorter induction-to-birth interval, a higher rate of vaginal delivery in 24 h, and a lower number of vaginal examinations than the Prostin E2 group. Propess was effective and safe in IOL and could be an option for cervical ripening in nulliparous pregnancy.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-9225524
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2022
publisher MDPI
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-92255242022-06-24 Comparison of the Dinoprostone Vaginal Insert and Dinoprostone Tablet for the Induction of Labor in Primipara: A Retrospective Cohort Study Ting, Ning-Shiuan Ding, Dah-Ching Wei, Yu-Chi J Clin Med Article This retrospective study aimed to compare the safety and efficacy of Prostin E2 and Propess for the induction of labor (IOL) in nulliparous women between January 2018 and October 2021. The inclusion criteria were nulliparous, singleton, >37 weeks’ gestation, cephalic presentation with an unfavorable cervix (Bishop score ≤ 6), no signs of labor, and use of one form of dinoprostone (Prostin E2 or Propess) for IOL. The cesarean section (C/S) rate and induction-to-birth interval were the main outcome measures. In total, 120 women were recruited. Sixty (50%) patients received Propess and 60 (50%) received repeated doses of Prostin E2. The Prostin E2 and Propess groups had similar patient characteristics, but the Bishop score was significantly higher in the Propess group than in the Prostin E2 group; therefore, multivariate analysis was conducted, and the Bishop score was not associated with the induction-to-birth interval. The C/S rate was not significantly different between the two groups, but the Propess group achieved a shorter induction-to-birth interval, a higher rate of vaginal delivery in 24 h, and a lower number of vaginal examinations than the Prostin E2 group. Propess was effective and safe in IOL and could be an option for cervical ripening in nulliparous pregnancy. MDPI 2022-06-19 /pmc/articles/PMC9225524/ /pubmed/35743589 http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/jcm11123519 Text en © 2022 by the authors. https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
spellingShingle Article
Ting, Ning-Shiuan
Ding, Dah-Ching
Wei, Yu-Chi
Comparison of the Dinoprostone Vaginal Insert and Dinoprostone Tablet for the Induction of Labor in Primipara: A Retrospective Cohort Study
title Comparison of the Dinoprostone Vaginal Insert and Dinoprostone Tablet for the Induction of Labor in Primipara: A Retrospective Cohort Study
title_full Comparison of the Dinoprostone Vaginal Insert and Dinoprostone Tablet for the Induction of Labor in Primipara: A Retrospective Cohort Study
title_fullStr Comparison of the Dinoprostone Vaginal Insert and Dinoprostone Tablet for the Induction of Labor in Primipara: A Retrospective Cohort Study
title_full_unstemmed Comparison of the Dinoprostone Vaginal Insert and Dinoprostone Tablet for the Induction of Labor in Primipara: A Retrospective Cohort Study
title_short Comparison of the Dinoprostone Vaginal Insert and Dinoprostone Tablet for the Induction of Labor in Primipara: A Retrospective Cohort Study
title_sort comparison of the dinoprostone vaginal insert and dinoprostone tablet for the induction of labor in primipara: a retrospective cohort study
topic Article
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9225524/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/35743589
http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/jcm11123519
work_keys_str_mv AT tingningshiuan comparisonofthedinoprostonevaginalinsertanddinoprostonetabletfortheinductionoflaborinprimiparaaretrospectivecohortstudy
AT dingdahching comparisonofthedinoprostonevaginalinsertanddinoprostonetabletfortheinductionoflaborinprimiparaaretrospectivecohortstudy
AT weiyuchi comparisonofthedinoprostonevaginalinsertanddinoprostonetabletfortheinductionoflaborinprimiparaaretrospectivecohortstudy