Intravaginal Misoprostol Versus Cervidil for Cervical Ripening in Term Pregnancies*

Harms, K.; Nguyen, Catherine; Toy, Eugene C.; Baker, Benton

doi:10.1097/00006250-200104001-00086

Cited by 6 publications

(5 citation statements)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…This review also demonstrated a similar safety for both drugs. Our findings for effectiveness and safety are consistent with those obtained in this review; in fact, the rate of cesarean sections were similar for both prostaglandins in these randomized trials that used misoprostol at dose of 25 μg [5,10,11].…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 90%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Effectiveness, safety and costs of labor induction with intravaginal misoprostol versus dinoprostone vaginal insert

Cazorla¹,

Marques²,

Sanmartín³

et al. 2017

Clinical-Investigation

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background: Over the last decade, a lot of clinical reviews have been published, but they are heterogeneous and present disparity of outcomes. The best choice for inducing labor is not clear today. The objective of the study is to compare misoprostol with dinoprostone for labor induction including obstetrical and neonatal outcomes, side effects and costs. Methods and findings:From September 2012 to December 2013 a retrospective observational study was performed, including all pregnant women with medical indication of induction of labor. Three-hundred ten patients were included: 180 received 25μg of vaginal misoprostol and 130 received 10mg of vaginal dinoprostone. The study groups were similar with regard to age, parity, initial Bishop score and birth weight. Misoprostol group had higher percentage of entering active phase of labor within 24 hours (61.1% versus 45.4%; ORa=2.0 [1.3-3.3]). The cesarean section rate was lower with misoprostol (17.2% versus 24.6%; ORa=0.6 [0.3-1.1]). The Bishop score obtained with misoprostol was more favorable after ripening. The use of epidural analgesia was statistically higher in misoprostol group (81.7% versus 68.5%; ORa=2.4 [1.4-4.2]). The difference in time from the start of induction to delivery and adverse neonatal outcomes were similar in both groups. The hospital stay and the costs of hospital stay were significantly lower with misoprostol (€2690 versus €3152; pa=0.006). Conclusions:Misoprostol at doses of 25μg is more effective and more cost effective than vaginal dinoprostone, with the same safety in labor induction in women with unfavorable cervix.

show abstract

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 90%

“…As in our study, the clinical trials that used 25 μg of misoprostol found no significant differences in the frequency of hypertonia or uterine hyperstimulation between dinoprostone and misoprostol [5,10,11]. However, Harms [10] reports a longer hospital stay and a tendency to greater post-partum complications in misoprostol group.…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 62%

Effectiveness, safety and costs of labor induction with intravaginal misoprostol versus dinoprostone vaginal insert

Cazorla¹,

Marques²,

Sanmartín³

et al. 2017

Clinical-Investigation

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Harms indicated no differences [10]. Thus, more works are necessary to evaluate the frequency of alterations in uterine contractions at the doses employed under study.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 96%

“…Only Wing, Bolnik and Harms used the same doses as we do for both drugs [8] [9] [10]. Of these three studies, that by Bolnik simultaneously employed misoprostol and dinoprostone, and intravenous oxytocin perfusion in different protocols.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Low-Dose Misoprostol versus Vaginal-Insert Dinoprostone for At-Term Labor Induction: A Prospective Cohort Study

Saá¹,

Ríos²,

Meseguer³

2017

OJOG

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Introduction: Given the pharmacological change taking place in Spanish delivery rooms, we designed this study to compare the effectiveness and safety of misoprostol (25 mcg/4h) to 10 mg dinoprostone in its slow-releasing vaginalinsert form to induce at-term labor. Methods: In a prospective cohort study (2013)(2014)(2015), 401 at-term pregnant women referred for induction (Bishop score ≤ 6), who gave birth at the Rey Juan Carlos Hospital in Móstoles (Madrid, Spain), of whom 241 participants were induced with misoprostol and 160 with dinoprostone. Patients were recruited by non-probabilistic sampling of consecutive cases as the inductions in the Obstetrics Block during the study period were indicated. Results: The cesarean section rate was 14% for the mi- Conclusion: Inducing delivery by low-dose misoprostol offers similar effectiveness and safety to induction by dinoprostone in its slow-releasing vaginal-insert form. However, our sample is limited, and few studies are available on the subject. Further analyses to draw solid conclusions are required.

show abstract

“…Cost of prostaglandin E 2 is quite high compared to Misoprostol (E 1 ). [9][10][11] Misoprostol has been found safe in induction of labour in resource constrained hospital settings in developing countries like ours, using basic clinical tools for monitoring.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Misoprostol For Induction Of Labour: The Hyderabad Experience

2007

J Liaquat Uni Med Health Sci

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Intravaginal Misoprostol Versus Cervidil for Cervical Ripening in Term Pregnancies*

Cited by 6 publications

References 0 publications

Effectiveness, safety and costs of labor induction with intravaginal misoprostol versus dinoprostone vaginal insert

Effectiveness, safety and costs of labor induction with intravaginal misoprostol versus dinoprostone vaginal insert

Low-Dose Misoprostol versus Vaginal-Insert Dinoprostone for At-Term Labor Induction: A Prospective Cohort Study

Misoprostol For Induction Of Labour: The Hyderabad Experience

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About