Effectiveness of dinoprostone gel, misoprostol vaginal insert and dinoprostone vaginal insert for induction of labour in twin pregnancies

Abstract

ObjectivesTo compare the effectiveness and safety of Dinoprostone Gel (DG), Misoprostol Vaginal Insert (MVI) and Dinoprostone Vaginal Insert (DVI) for induction of labour (IOL) in twin pregnancies. Study DesignRetrospective cohort study of twin pregnancies > 34 + 0 weeks gestation that underwent induction of labour (IOL) with DG, MVI or DVI between December 2016 and November 2019 in a Tertiary NHS hospital, North West England, UK. Delivery characteristics, maternal complications and neonatal outcomes were compared between the three groups. ResultsA total of 87 twin pregnancies were included for analysis. 27 women received DG, 34 received MVI and 26 DVI. The MVI cohort had a higher proportion of nulliparous women (55.9%) compared to the DG and DVI cohorts, 29.6% and 38.5% respectively. No other differences amongst demographic characteristics were considered clinically significant.DG demonstrated a significantly quicker time to delivery (minutes) compared to DVI (1021 ± 556 versus 1649 ± 852; P = 0.0026). Significantly fewer women required terbutaline for hyperstimulation/tachysystole in the DG group compared to MVI (0% vs 32%; RR 0.05; 95% CI 0.003–0.88). Both DG and MVI groups required significantly less oxytocin following artificial rupture of membranes compared to DVI (33% vs 65%; RR 0.51; 95% CI 0.28–0.93) and (29% vs 65%; RR 0.45; 95% CI 0.25–0.81). There were no significant differences in mode of delivery, maternal complications and neonatal outcomes. ConclusionOur data suggests that for women with a twin pregnancy considering a planned labour that induction with DG, MVI and DVI appear to be equally safe and effective IOL methods. These results should be interpreted with caution due to the study being underpowered to detect significant adverse outcomes. In order to determine the optimal method of IOL in twins, direct randomised comparison is needed.