Dinoprostone Group Research Articles

Efficacy and safety of misoprostol compared with dinoprostone for labor induction at term: an updated systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

BackgroundLabor induction is a common obstetric intervention, increasingly performed worldwide, often using prostaglandins like misoprostol and dinoprostone.ObjectiveThis study aims to compare the effectiveness and safety of intravaginal misoprostol versus dinoprostone for inducing labor, examining their impact on various maternal and neonatal outcomes.MethodsA systematic review and meta-analysis were conducted using four databases—PubMed, Google Scholar, EBSCO, and the Cochrane Library—from January 2000 to April 2023. We included randomized controlled trials (RCTs) involving singleton pregnancies at term (37–42 weeks) with unfavorable cervices, where intravaginal misoprostol was compared to dinoprostone. Key outcomes evaluated for effectiveness included vaginal delivery within 24 h, overall vaginal delivery rate, and need for oxytocin augmentation. Safety outcomes assessed were tachysystole, uterine hyperstimulation, abnormal cardiotocography, NICU admissions, cesarean delivery, and APGAR scores. Risk ratios (RRs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were calculated using a random-effects model in Review Manager (RevMan) version 5.4.1.ResultsEight RCTs with a total of 1,801 participants (937 in the misoprostol group and 864 in the dinoprostone group) met the inclusion criteria. Misoprostol required a significantly less oxytocin augmentation than dinoprostone [RR = 0.83; 95% CI (0.71, 0.97), p = 0.02]. Other outcomes, including rates of cesarean delivery, uterine tachysystole, hyperstimulation, and NICU admissions, showed no significant differences between the two groups, indicating comparable safety and efficacy profiles.ConclusionThis meta-analysis demonstrates that intravaginal misoprostol is an effective and safe alternative to dinoprostone for labor induction at term. Misoprostol achieved comparable efficacy and safety outcomes while requiring less oxytocin augmentation, supporting its potential as a practical induction agent in clinical settings.

Comparison of the efficacy and safety of dinoprostone and double-balloon catheters in cervical ripening: a propensity score matching retrospective study.

The methods of prompting cervical ripening (CR) include mechanical and pharmacological approaches. The former seems safer. However, this superiority may change with the application of a new labor curve. Therefore, we aimed to compare the efficacy and safety of dinoprostone and double-balloon catheters (DBC) in promoting CR in induction of labor (IOL). A total of 877 primipara women with Bishop score ≤ 6 were divided into the dinoprostone group (n = 502) and DBC group (n = 375) according to the IOL way. The women in the dinoprostone group received dinoprostone to perform IOL, while those in the DBC group received DBC to perform IOL. The natural birth rate, time to labor onset and birth, and maternal and neonatal complications were compared between the two groups. A propensity score match (PSM) was used to eliminate the selection bias. A total of 516 cases were left after PSM (1:1) to Bishop score. The dinoprostone was associated with an improved Bishop score. However, there were no significant differences in the vaginal delivery rate, the stage of labor, and the time from ripening to labor onset and delivery between the two groups (p > 0.05). The incidence rates of puerperal infection and blood loss were notably higher in the DBC group than in the dinoprostone group (p < 0.05). However, there was no statistical difference in the incidence of postpartum hemorrhage between the two groups (p > 0.05). Dinoprostone is associated with a lower puerperal infection rate and improved Bishop score in IOL without an increased success rate of vaginal delivery.

Vaginal dinoprostone vs Foley catheter for induction of labor at term with an unfavorable cervix: an open-label randomized controlled trial

BackgroundInduction of labor (IOL) with mechanical methods or pharmacological agents is used in about 20% to 30% of all pregnant women. We specialized in comparing the effectiveness and safety of dinoprostone vs transcervical Foley catheter for IOL in term pregnant women with an unfavorable cervix with adequate samples. ObjectiveTo compare the effectiveness and safety of dinoprostone vs transcervical Foley catheter for IOL in term pregnant women with an unfavorable cervix. Study DesignThis is a parallel, open-label randomized controlled trial in two maternal centers in Shanghai, China between October 2019 and July 2022. Women with a singleton pregnancy in cephalic presentation at term and an unfavorable cervix (Bishop score <6) scheduled for IOL were eligible. A total of 1860 women were randomly allocated to cervical ripening with either a dinoprostone vaginal insert (10 mg) or a 60 cc Foley catheter for up to 24 hours. The primary outcomes were vaginal delivery rate and time to vaginal delivery. Secondary outcomes included time to delivery and maternal and neonatal morbidity. Analysis was done from an intention-to-treat perspective. The trial was registered with the China trial registry (CTR2000038435). ResultsThe vaginal birth rates were 72.8% (677/930) vs 69.9% (650/930) in vaginal dinoprostone and Foley catheter, respectively (aRR 1.04, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.98-1.10, risk difference: 0.03). Time to vaginal delivery was not significantly different between the two groups (sub-distribution hazard ratio 1.11, 95% CI 0.99-1.24). Vaginal dinoprostone was more likely complicated with hyperstimulation with fetal heart rate changes (5.8% vs 2.8%, aRR 2.09, 95% CI 1.32-3.31) and placenta abruption (0.9% vs 0.1%, aRR: 8.04, 95% CI 1.01-64.15), while Foley catheter was more likely complicated with suspected intrapartum infection (5.1% vs 8.2%, aRR: 0.62, 95% CI 0.44-0.88) and postpartum infection (1.4% vs 3.7%, aRR: 0.38, 95% CI 0.20-0.72). The composite of poor neonatal outcomes was not significantly different between the two groups (4.5% vs 3.8%, aRR 1.21, 95% CI 0.78-1.88), while more neonatal asphyxia occurred in the dinoprostone group (1.2% vs 0.2%, aRR 5.39, 95% CI 1.22-23.92). In a subgroup analysis, vaginal dinoprostone decreased vaginal birth rate slightly in multiparous women (90.6% vs 97.0%, aRR 0.93, 95% CI 0.88-0.99). ConclusionsIn term pregnant women with an unfavorable cervix, IOL with vaginal dinoprostone or Foley catheter has similar effectiveness. Foley catheter leads to better safety for neonates, while it may result in a higher risk of maternal infection. Furthermore, Foley catheter should be preferred in multiparous women.

Impact of dinoprostone versus cook cervical ripening balloon on induction in pregnancies complicated by small-for-gestational-age fetuses at term

Objective To explore the complications and pregnancy outcomes of vaginal dinoprostone vs. Cook’s double balloon for the induction of labor among pregnancies complicated by small-for-gestational-age (SGA) at term. Methods This retrospective study included consecutive singleton pregnancies complicated by SGA treated at Fujian Maternity and Child Health Hospital between January 2017 and December 2021. The patients were divided into the Cook’s double balloon and dinoprostone groups according to the induction method they received. The primary outcome was vaginal delivery. Results This study included 318 women [165 (aged 30.25 ± 4.72 years) and 153 (aged 28.80 ± 3.91 years) in the dinoprostone and Cook’s balloon groups]. The dinoprostone group had a higher vaginal delivery rate than the Cook’s balloon group (83.6% vs. 71.9%, p = .012). The cervical ripening duration (9.73 ± 4.82 vs. 17.50 ± 8.77 h, p < .001) and induction to delivery duration (22.11 ± 8.13 vs. 30.27 ± 12.28, p < .001) were significantly shorter in the dinoprostone group compared with the Cook’s balloon group. Less women needed oxytocin infusion in the dinoprostone group compared with that in the Cook’s balloon group (32.7% vs. 86.3%, p < .001). Dinoprostone was independently associated with vaginal delivery (HR = 1.756, 95%CI: 1.286–2.399, p = .000). The rates of uterine tachysystole and spontaneous rupture of the fetal membrane were significantly higher in the dinoprostone group than that in the Cook’s balloon group (10.3% vs. 0.7%, p < .001; 7.3% vs. 1.3%, p = .012). There were no differences in maternal complications and neonatal outcomes between the two groups. Conclusion In pregnant woman with pregnancies complicated by SGA, cervical ripening using dinoprostone were more likely to achieve vaginal delivery than those with Cook’s balloon, and with a favorable complication profile.

Risk of Cesarean Delivery after Vaginal Inserts with Prostaglandin Analogs and Single-Balloon Catheter Used for Cervical Ripening and Induction of Labor.

(1) Background: Induction of labor is currently the most frequently performed procedure in modern obstetrics, referring to more than one in five women, and it is postulated that the percentage of labor induction will increase. (2) Methods: In total, 2935 patients in uncomplicated full-term pregnancy fulfilled the study inclusion criteria and underwent induction of labor. Pregnant women were divided into three groups: IOL with Dinoprostone, Misoprostol vaginal suppositories, and Foley catheter. Outcomes, including cesarean section rates, time to delivery, and cesarean section indications, were analyzed. (3) Results: There was statistically significantly more cesarean sections within 24 h in the Misoprostol group in comparison with the Dinoprostone and Foley catheter groups (p < 0.0001). The percentage of patients who had a cesarean section due to clinically diagnosed threatened fetal asphyxia was 63% in the Dinoprostone group, 81.3% in the Misoprostol group, and 55.3% in the Foley catheter group. There were statistically significantly more cesarean deliveries due to nonreassuring fetal heart rate patterns within 24 h in the Misoprostol group in comparison with the Dinoprostone and Foley catheter groups (p = 0.0031 and p = 0.0363). (4) Conclusions: Misoprostol may cause a more turbulent and violent course of labor, with a higher rate of increased incidence of nonreassuring fetal heart rate patterns and cesarean deliveries. The use of a Dinoprostone vaginal insert or Foley catheter may provide longer labor, although still within 48 h, with a lower risk of cesarean section caused by nonreassuring fetal heart rate patterns.

Comparison of labor duration of induced labor with dinoprostone insert vs spontaneous labor.

Labor induction is one of the most common procedures in modern obstetrics. One in five pregnant women and 30-40% of women delivering vaginally undergo this procedure. If the cervical status is unfavorable, a ripening process is used prior to induction to shorten the duration of oxytocin administration and maximize the possibility of vaginal birth. The aim of this study was to compare the duration of labor induced with dinoprostone vaginal insert to spontaneous labor. It was a retrospective study conducted between May 2019 and February 2021 in the tertiary reference center, the Obstetrics and Perinatology Department of the Jagiellonian University Hospital in Krakow. The research group involved 182 patients in singleton pregnancy at term, qualified for cervical ripening procedure. The control group consisted of 178 patients that were delivering spontaneously and admitted to the delivery ward in the first stage of labor. Statistical analysis was performed to compare the duration of labor between groups. To find factors affecting the procedure we compared different models consisting of maternal and fetal characteristics. Successful vaginal delivery in the dinoprostone group was achieved in the group of 88% of patients. There was no significant difference in labor duration between the groups: 315 minutes in the study group and 300 min in the control group. Only being primipara was a factor related to longer labor in both groups. Pre-induction with dinoprostone insert and additional foley catheter, if indicated, does not make labor longer in comparison with spontaneous labor.

Comparison of Obstetric Outcomes Between Controlled-Release Dinoprostone Vaginal Delivery System (PROPESS) and Administration of Oral Dinoprostone for Labor Induction in Multiparous Women at Term.

The aim of this study was to compare the rate of vaginal delivery and adverse outcomes of a controlled-release dinoprostone vaginal delivery system (PROPESS) and the administration of oral dinoprostone for labor induction in multiparous women at term. This retrospective case-controlled study included 92 multiparous pregnant women (46 and 46 in the PROPESS and oral dinoprostone groups, respectively) who required labor induction at ≥37 weeks of gestation. The primary outcome was the success rate of vaginal delivery following the insertion of PROPESS only or the administration of oral dinoprostone (up to six tablets) only. The secondary outcomes were uterine tachysystole with non-reassuring fetal status, the proportion of cases requiring pre-delivery oxytocin, and the rate of cesarean delivery. The proportion of pregnant women who delivered vaginally as the primary outcome was significantly higher in the PROPESS group (33/46 [72%]) than in the oral dinoprostone group (16/46 [35%], p < 0.01). In the secondary outcomes, the proportion of cases requiring pre-delivery oxytocin in the PROPESS group was significantly lower than that in the oral dinoprostone group (24% vs. 57%, p < 0.01). In multiparous women at term, PROPESS may be able to induce labor and lead to a higher vaginal delivery rate without adverse outcomes compared to oral dinoprostone.

A Comparative Study of the Efficacy and Safety of Oral Misoprostol, Intravenous Oxytocin, and Intravaginal Dinoprostone for Labor Induction in Pakistani Women.

A frequent medical procedure to accelerate labor is the induction of labor. There are different methods of labor induction, including the use of medications such as misoprostol, oxytocin, and dinoprostone. This research compared the effectiveness and safety of oral misoprostol, intravenous oxytocin, and intravaginal dinoprostone for labor induction in Pakistani women. A study was conducted in the Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, Hayatabad Medical Complex-Medical Teaching Institute (MTI) and Lady Reading Hospital-MTI, Peshawar, Pakistan, over two years. It included 378 women between 38 and 42 gestational weeks, divided into three groups of 126 women each. The oral misoprostol group was given a maximum of six doses of a 25 μg oral misoprostol solution (oral misoprostol tablet of 200 μg dissolved in 200 ml) at intervals of two hours. The drip rate for the intravenous oxytocin group ranged from 6 mIU/minute to 37 mIU/minute. The intravaginal dinoprostone group received a controlled-release vaginal insert containing 10mg of intravaginal dinoprostone, which was left in place for 12 hours. More women in the oral misoprostol group (n=94; 74.6%) had successful inductions when compared to the intravaginal dinoprostone (n=83; 65.9%) and intravenous oxytocin (n = 77; 64.71%) groups. Oral misoprostol had the greatest proportion of normal vaginal deliveries (n=62; 65.95%), followed by intravaginal dinoprostone (n=47; 56.63%), and intravenous oxytocin had the lowest rate (n=33; 42.85%). Cesarean section rates were greatest in the intravenous oxytocin group (n=31; 40.26%), followed by the intravaginal dinoprostone group (n=29; 34.94%), and lowest in the oral misoprostol group (n=24; 25.53%). Oral misoprostol induces labor in women safely and effectively, resulting in the lowest percentage of cesarean deliveries and the highest percentage of normal vaginal deliveries, respectively. Intravaginal dinoprostone showed the lowest rate of side effects, followed by oral misoprostol while intravenous oxytocin had the highest rate of side effects.

Vaginal misoprostol versus dinoprostone before copper IUD application in women with anticipated difficult loop application

Background: Intrauterine device (IUD) are safe, reliable and highly effective forms of long-acting reversible contraception. (1) The major advantage of LARC compared with other reversible contraceptive methods is that they do not require ongoing effort on the part of the patient for long-term and effective use. In addition, after the device is removed, the return of fertility is rapidAim and Objectives: The aim of this study was to compare the effect of Vaginal Misoprostol versus vaginal Dinoprostone to facilitate loop application in women with anticipated difficult loop application.Subjects and Methods: About 270 of women were assessed to select of 100 women were randomized to two groups using simple randomization and classified into: Group A: (Misoprostol group): Include 50 patients who received one tablet (200mcg misoprostol in posterior fornix of vagina 3 to 4 hour before IUD insertion.Group B: (Dinoprostone group): Include 50 patients who received one tablet (3mg dinoprostone in posterior fornix of vagina 3 to 4 hour before IUD insertion.Result: Side effect between two study drugs there is more side effects in group A (Misoprostol) than group B (Dinoprostone)but there is no significant difference between two group p value in all side effect is >0.05. Significance difference between two studied group regarding to satisfaction level p value s.002 where p value >0.05Conclusion: Both Dinoprostone and Misoprostol were effective in decreasing pain and easing insertion of Copper IUD in women with anticipated difficult insertion. However, more satisfaction lesser, adverse effects in dinoprostone group, we recommend misoprostol as is less cost than dinoprostone and stable at room temperature. This study further supports the clinical using of dinoprostone in an additional-obstetric indication.

Efficacy and safety of double balloon catheter and dinoprostone for labor induction in multipara at term

PurposeThe aim of this study was to comparatively assess the efficacy and safety of double balloon catheter (DBC) and dinoprostone as labor-inducing agents just for multipara at term.MethodsA retrospective cohort study was conducted among multipara at term with a Bishop score < 6 who needed planned labor induction from January 1, 2020, to December 30, 2020 in Maternal and Child Health Hospital of Hubei province, Tongji Medical College, Huazhong University of Science and Technology. They were divided into DBC group and dinoprostone group, respectively. Baseline maternal data, maternal and neonatal outcomes were recorded for statistical analysis. Total vaginal delivery rate, rate of vaginal delivery within 24 h, rate of uterine hyperstimulation combined with abnormal fetal heart rate(FHR) were regarded as the primary outcome variables. The difference between groups was considered statistically significant when p value < 0.05.ResultsA total of 202 multiparas was included for analysis (95 women in DBC group vs 107 women in dinoprostone group). There were no significant differences in total vaginal delivery rate and rate of vaginal delivery within 24 h between groups. Uterine hyperstimulation combined with abnormal FHR occurred exclusively in dinoprostone group.ConclusionDBC and dinoprostone seem to be equally effective, while, DBC seems to be safer than dinoprostone.

Pain and satisfaction in women induced by vaginal dinoprostone, double balloon catheter and oral misoprostol

ObjectiveThe aim of this study was to evaluate the pain experience of women induced by intravaginal dinoprostone (Propess®), oral misoprostol (Angusta®) or double balloon catheter (Cook®). MethodsThis single-center prospective study was carried out in the obstetric gynecology department of the university hospital of Saint-Etienne from March 2018 to April 2021 in women requiring cervical ripening for the purpose of artificial labor induction. ResultsWe included 82 women in the oral misoprostol group, 35 in the vaginal dinoprostone group and 58 in the balloon group. The overall pain, assessed by a numerical scale from 0 to 10, was similar for the different methods of induction (p = 0.253). Pain at insertion was greater with the double balloon catheter compared to the vaginal dinoprostone (3.67 versus 5.75 p = 0.001). Pain in the 2 h prior to the delivery room was greater with vaginal dinoprostone and oral misoprostol compared with the double balloon catheter (7.91 and 7.4 versus 5.47 respectively, p = <0.0001). Women induced by balloon catheter would more often have preferred to be induced by another method compared to those induced by oral misoprostol or vaginal dinoprostone (p = 0.004). Adjusting for previous cesarian section, gestational age at delivery, need for oxytocin augmentation and indication for induction, women induced by balloon were five times more risk to prefer another induction method (OR 5.01 95% CI [1.09–23.03], p = 0.038). There was no significant difference in stress and overall experience of induction depending on the method. ConclusionIn order to improve the women experience, information, consent and participation in the decisions and choices of their induction method are essential.

Comparing the effectiveness and safety of Dinoprostone vaginal insert and double-balloon catheter as cervical ripening treatments in Chinese patients.

BackgroundThis retrospective study was to compare the effectiveness and safety of Dinoprostone vaginal insert vs. double-balloon catheter as cervical ripening agents for labor induction.MethodsPregnant women with Bishop score <7, who received either Dinoprostone vaginal insert 10 mg or Cook's double-balloon catheter for labor induction, were studied. The primary outcome was the rate of vaginal delivery within 48 h; the secondary outcomes were the proportion of women undergoing cesarean section, labor duration, oxytocin administration, changes in Bishop score, complications during labor, and maternal/neonatal outcomes.ResultsOne hundred and eighty-two women were included in Dinoprostone group, and 199 women were in double-balloon catheter group. The rate of vaginal delivery within 48 h was significantly higher in Dinoprostone group than that in double-balloon catheter group (90.11% vs. 75.38%, P = 0.0002). There were 18 cesarean section deliveries (9.89%) in Dinoprostone group and 49 cesarean section deliveries (24.62%) in double-balloon catheter group, with significant differences between two groups (P = 0.0002). The duration of labor was higher in Dinoprostone group, while the augmentation with oxytocin was significantly lower in Dinoprostone group than in double-balloon catheter group (all P < 0.0001). The incidence of chorioamnionitis was significantly higher in double-balloon catheter group as compared with Dinoprostone group (0 vs. 12, P = 0.0005), while neonatal outcomes were similar in two groups.ConclusionDinoprostone vaginal insert as cervical ripening agent is more effective for labor induction and with lower risks of chorioamnionitis as compared with double balloon catheter in Chinese populations.

Comparative study of dinoprostone and misoprostol for induction of labor in patients with premature rupture of membranes after 35 weeks

The modalities of induction of labor in the event of premature rupture of membranes are controversial. The main purpose of this study was to compare the modalities of delivery after the use of dinoprostone or misoprostol for labor induction in the preterm rupture of membranes after 35 weeks in women with an unfavorable cervix. We then studied maternal and fetal morbidity for the two drugs. Retrospective, single-center, comparative cohort study in a level 3 maternity unit in France from 2009 to 2018 comparing vaginal administration of misoprostol 50 µg every six hours (maximum 150 µg) and administration of dinoprostone 10 mg, a slow-release vaginal insert, for 24 h (maximum 20 mg), for labor induction in the preterm rupture of membranes after 35 weeks in women with an unfavorable cervix (Bishop score < 6). We included 904 patients, 656 in the misoprostol group and 248 in the dinoprostone group. Vaginal delivery rate was significantly higher in the dinoprostone group (89% vs. 82%, p = 0.016). There were more cesarean sections for abnormal fetal heart rate in the misoprostol group (p = 0.005). The time interval from induction to the beginning of the active phase of labor and the duration of labor were shorter in the misoprostol group than in the dinoprostone group (437 min vs. 719 min, p < 0.001 and 335 min vs. 381 min, p = 0.0023, respectively). Maternal and neonatal outcomes were not significantly different in the two groups. Vaginal dinoprostone used for labor induction in preterm rupture of membranes seems to be more effective for vaginal delivery than vaginal misoprostol (50 µg).

Vaginal Dinoprostone Insert versus Cervical Ripening Balloon for Term Induction of Labor in Obese Nulliparas-A Randomized Controlled Trial.

Data regarding the preferred induction method in women with obesity is scarce. The current study was aimed at comparing pharmacological and mechanical induction in this population. This prospective randomized controlled trial was conducted between 2016–2020, in nulliparas with a pre-pregnancy body mass index >30. Inclusion criteria were singleton-term pregnancies, bishop score < 5, and indication for induction. Patients were randomized to induction by a cervical ripening balloon (CRB) or a 10 mg vaginal dinoprostone insert. The primary outcome was delivery rate within 24 h. Secondary outcomes included time to delivery, cesarean section rate, maternal and neonatal outcomes, satisfaction, and anxiety. The study population comprised of 83 women in the CRB group and 81 in the dinoprostone group. There was a significant difference in delivery rates within 24 h and time to delivery between the dinoprostone and CRB groups (45% vs. 71%, p = 0.017 and 49.3 ± 6.8 h vs. 23.5 ± 5.9 h, p = 0.003, respectively). There were no differences in cesarean delivery rates or maternal and neonatal outcomes, though CRB induction was associated with a significantly lower rate of tachysystole. Induction with CRB was accompanied by higher satisfaction and lower anxiety. In summary, CRB induction is associated with shorter time to delivery, higher satisfaction, and lower anxiety compared to PGE2 in women with obesity, without compromising maternal or neonatal outcomes.

A randomized trial of synthetic osmotic cervical dilator for induction of labor vs dinoprostone vaginal insert

Induction of labor is a commonly performed obstetrical intervention. Vaginal prostaglandin E2 (dinoprostone) is a first-choice agent. Mechanical methods of induction are slower in achieving cervical ripening but have a lower risk of adverse effects. This study aimed to compare the efficacy, maternal and neonatal safety, and maternal satisfaction of a synthetic osmotic cervical dilator (Dilapan-S) with those of dinoprostone. This was an open-label superiority randomized controlled trial in 4 English hospitals. Eligible participants were women ≥16 years of age undergoing induction of labor for a singleton pregnancy at ≥37 weeks' gestation with vertex presentation and intact membranes. The women were randomly assigned to receive either Dilapan-S or dinoprostone using a telephone randomization system minimized by hospital, parity, body mass index, and maternal age. The induction agent was replaced as required until the cervix was assessed as favorable for labor by the Bishop score. The primary outcome was failure to achieve vaginal delivery (ieor a cesarean delivery being performed). The secondary outcome measures included maternal and neonatal adverse events. Analysis was by intention-to-treat, adjusting for design variables where possible. Between December 19, 2017 and January 26, 2021, 674 women were randomized (337 to Dilapan-S, and 337 to dinoprostone). The trial did not reach its planned sample size of 860 participants because of restrictions on research during the COVID-19 pandemic. The primary outcome was missing for 2 women in the dinoprostone group. Failure to achieve vaginal delivery (or a cesarean delivery being performed) occurred in 126 women (37.4%) allocated to Dilapan-S and in 115 (34.3%) women allocated to dinoprostone (adjusted risk difference, 0.02; 95% confidence interval, -0.05 to 0.10). There were similar maternal and neonatal adverse events between the groups. Women undergoing induction of labor with Dilapan-S have similar rates of cesarean delivery and maternal and neonatal adverse events compared with dinoprostone.

Comparison of the effectiveness and pregnancy outcomes of labor induction with dinoprostone or single-balloon catheter in term nulliparous women with borderline oligohydramnios.

Backgrounds:At present, there is no consensus on the induction methods in term pregnancy with borderline oligohydramnios. This study aimed to compare the effectiveness and pregnancy outcomes of labor induction with dinoprostone or single-balloon catheter (SBC) in term nulliparous women with borderline oligohydramnios.Methods:We conducted a retrospective cohort study from January 2016 to November 2018. During the study period, a total of 244 cases were enrolled. Of these, 103 cases were selected for induction using dinoprostone and 141 cases were selected for induction with SBC. The pregnancy outcomes between the two groups were compared. Primary outcomes were successful vaginal delivery rates. Secondary outcomes were maternal and neonatal adverse events. Multivariate logistic regression was used to assess the risk factors for vaginal delivery failure in the two groups.Results:The successful vaginal delivery rates were similar between the dinoprostone group and the SBC group (64.1% [66/103] vs. 59.6% [84/141], P = 0.475), even after adjustment for potential confounding factors (adjusted odds ratio [aOR]: 1.07, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.57–2.00, P = 0.835). The incidence of intra-amniotic infection was lower in the dinoprostone group than in the SBC group (1.9% [2/103] vs. 7.8% [11/141], P < 0.001), but the presence of non-reassuring fetal heart rate was higher in the dinoprostone group than in the SBC group (12.6% [13/103] vs. 0.7% [1/141], P < 0.001). Multivariate logistic regression showed that nuchal cord was a risk factor for vaginal delivery failure after induction with dinoprostone (aOR: 6.71, 95% CI: 1.96–22.95). There were three factors related to vaginal delivery failure after induction with SBC, namely gestational age (aOR: 1.51, 95% CI: 1.07–2.14), body mass index (BMI) >30 kg/m2 (aOR: 2.98, 95% CI: 1.10–8.02), and fetal weight >3500 g (aOR: 2.49, 95% CI: 1.12–5.50).Conclusions:Term nulliparous women with borderline oligohydramnios have similar successful vaginal delivery rates after induction with dinoprostone or SBC, with their advantages and disadvantages. In women with nuchal cord, the risk of vaginal delivery failure is increased if dinoprostone is used in the induction of labor. BMI >30 kg/m2, large gestational age, and estimated fetal weight >3500 g are risk factors for vaginal delivery failure after induction with SBC.

Efficacité et tolérance du misoprostol oral 25 μg vs dinoprostone vaginale dans le déclenchement du travail à terme

ObjectiveTo compare the efficacy and safety of oral misoprostol 25μg compared to vaginal dinoprostone in the induction of labor at term. MethodsAnalytic, retrospective study of patients induced at term by prostaglandins with an unfavorable cervix, over two consecutive periods from 01/01/2019 to 19/02/2020 and from 20/02/2020 to 07/04/2021, within a regional level III university hospital center. We compared the safety and the efficacy between the oral misoprostol Angusta® used since 20/02/2020 and the vaginal dinoprostone previously used in gel or diffuser. The primary endpoint was the rate of vaginal deliveries within 24h. Secondary endpoints were cesarean section rate, indications for cesarean section, uterine contractility abnormalities and neonatal outcomes. ResultsOur study found no difference in terms of efficacy with similar rates of vaginal deliveries within 24h (51.88% vs. 51.25%; P=0.87) and caesarean sections (misoprostol group: 19.42% vs. dinoprostone group: 16.62%; P=0.33). However, the tolerance criteria revealed in the dinoprostone group an increase in tachysystole (misoprostol group: 9.28% vs. dinoprostone group: 16.90%; P=0.003) and acidosis (arterial pH<7.10, misoprostol group: 3.83% vs. dinoprostone group: 9.29%; P=0.006). ConclusionNo difference in efficacy was found between the two induction techniques. Oral misoprostol 25μg seems to be better tolerated from a maternal and fetal point of view.

A randomized prospective comparative study to evaluate the efficacy of prostaglandin E2 (Dinoprostone) controlled release vaginal insert versus sublingual prostaglandin E1(Misoprostol) in induction of labor in term gestation

In modern obstetrics, one of the common challenges is induction of labour (IOL). WHO Global Survey reported that IOL accounted for 9.6% of all deliveries. Prostaglandins have evolved and frequently used pharmacologic agents for IOL, owing to their dual action of cervical ripening and uterine contraction inducing effect. : 1. To compare the efficacy and induction to delivery interval (IDI) of PGE2 vaginal insert and Sublingual PGE1 in induction of labor in term pregnant women; 2. To study the maternal and fetal outcome in both groups.: This a randomized, prospective, comparative study of 100 term pregnant women for induction of labour. Group 1-(50 women) PGE2-10mg vaginal insert and group 2-(50 women) PE1 Sublingual tablets – maximum 200 mcg in 24 hrs, at Dr LH Hiranandani Hospital, Mumbai, India.: In my study the mean induction to delivery interval in Dinoprostone group was 17.47 hours and 23.44 hours in Misoprostol group. So the mean IDI was shorter in Dinoprostone insert group than Misoprostol group by about 6 hours. There was no significant difference noted in terms of overall incidence of caesarean deliveries among the groups. Our study concluded that Dinoprostone 10mg vaginal insert was more efficacious than sublingual Misoprostol in reducing induction to delivery interval without maternal and fetal complications.Our study suggests that the Dinoprostone vaginal insert can be used as both inducing as well as augmentating agent in labour. Dinoprostone vaginal insert maybe more effective in reducing the incidence of caesarean sections.

The efficacy and safety of second dinoprostone pessary or balloon catheter after unsuccessful primary ripening with dinoprostone pessary

We investigated which treatment should be applied if primary cervical ripening with a dinoprostone pessary is unsuccessful. We included 281 women who experienced unsuccessful cervical ripening with a dinoprostone pessary and continued on induction of labour (IOL). Of the 281 women recruited, 177 were given a second dose of dinoprostone; 104 women received a balloon catheter. The second dinoprostone pessary was successful in achieving vaginal delivery in 88 of the 177 (48.6%) women, while the balloon catheter was successful in 42 of the 104 women (40.4%); there was no significant difference between the two treatments with regards to successful vaginal delivery. However, of the women who experienced successful vaginal delivery, the delivery rate in the dinoprostone group was significantly higher than that in the balloon catheter group 12, 24, 36, or 48 h after insertion (p = .0094, .0005, .0258, .0483, respectively). The neonatal outcomes, the proportion of maternal infection and postpartum haemorrhage were similar between the two groups. IMPACT STATEMENT What is already known on this subject? Labour induction is a common procedure in obstetrics in a bid to achieve vaginal delivery in China, because vaginal delivery is more beneficial and associated with a better quality of life as compared to a Caesarean delivery. There is consensus relating to the preferred method of IOL after unsuccessful IOL with a dinoprostone pessary. What do the results of this study add? This is the first study in a Chinese population to compare the dinoprostone pessary and balloon catheter for women with no response to dinoprostone for cervical ripening with a sample size greater than 100. We found that a second dose of dinoprostone can reduce the time from the re-initiation of IOL to vaginal delivery compared with the balloon catheter. Our data also indicated that all other outcomes relating to the mother and infant were similar. What are the implications of these findings for clinical practice and/or future research? A second dose of dinoprostone is a superior choice for women who experience unsuccessful IOL with dinoprostone to further accelerate vaginal delivery.

COMPARISON OF MISOPROSTOLAND 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 efcacy 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 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 signicantly lower in the misoprostol group than in the dinoprostone group (11.9 h vs. 15.5 h, p &lt; 0.001). With misoprostol, more women delivered within 12 hours (57.5% vs. 32.5%, p &lt; 0.01) and 24 hours (98.7% vs. 91.4%, p &lt; 0.05), spontaneous rupture of the membranes occurred more frequently (38.8% vs. 20.5%, p &lt; 0.05), there was less need for oxytocin augmentation (65.8% vs. 81.5%, p &lt; 0.05) and fewer additional doses were required (7.5% vs. 22%, p &lt; 0.05). Although not statistically signicant, a lower Caesarean section (CS) rate was observed with misoprostol (7.5% vs. 13.3%, p &gt; 0.05) but with the disadvantage of higher abnormal fetal heart rate (FHR) tracings (22.5% vs. 12%, p &gt; 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 &gt; 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