Cervical ripening at term. A randomized and prospective study: Misoprotol versus dinoprostone

##plugins.themes.academic_pro.article.sidebar##

Published May 9, 2012
Download
pdf
Vol. 90 No. 5 (2012): Issue May 2012

##plugins.themes.academic_pro.article.main##

Haikel Trabelsi
Nabil Mathlouthi
Sonia Zayen
Mohamed Dhouib
Kaies Chaabene
Khaled Trabelsi
Habib Amouri
Belhassen Ben Ayed
Mohamed Guermazi

Abstract

Aim: To compare the efficacy and safety of cervical ripening at term by vaginal Misoprostol and Dinoprostone.
Methods:We performed a prospective randomized study on cervical ripening with misoprostol and dinoprostone in the third trimester of pregnancy. 300 patients have been divided into two groups: one consisted by 150 patients who received Misoprostol (Cytotec ®) and the second consisted by 150 patients who received Dinoprostone (Prépidil ®).
Results: Analysis of our results allowed to reveal: a significant decrease in the time of entry into work for the Misoprostol group (9.08 hours versus 12.51 hours, p = 0.007), a significant reduction delivery time (14.48 hours versus 19.30 hours, p = 0.001). Moreover, the birth rate in the first 24 hours after the first dose was significantly higher in the Misoprostol group (86.7% versus 72.7%, p = 0.003). The use of oxytocin was significantly reduced with Misoprostol (44% versus 58.7%, p = 0.01). The mode of delivery was not influenced by membership in one or other of the two groups.
Conclusion: Misoprostol seems an interesting molecule for cervical ripening and labor induction.

Keywords:

Cervical ripening ; Misoprostol ; Dinoprostone ; Delivery Randomized clinical trial

##plugins.themes.academic_pro.article.details##

References

  1. Agarwal N, Gupta A, Kriplani A, Bhatla N. Six hourly vaginal misoprostol versus intracervical dinoprostone for cervical ripening and labor induction. J Obstet Gynaecol Res. 2003; 29:147-51.
  2. C. Vayssière. Pour l'utilisation du Misoprostol dans le déclenchement du travail à terme en routine. Gynécol Obstét Fertil 2006; 34: 155-60.
  3. EG. Papanikolaou, N. Plachouras, A. Drougia. Comparison of Misoprostol and Dinoprostone for elective induction of labour in nulliparous women at full term: A randomized prospective study. Reprod Biol Endoc 2004, 2:70
  4. M. Elhassan, OA. Mirghani, I. Adam. Intra vaginal Misoprostol vs. Dinoprostone as cervical ripening and labor-inducing agents. Int J Gynecol Obstet 2004 ;85: 285-86.
  5. Chamberlain JE, Natale R Schmuck ML. Efficacy and patient satisfaction with outpatient prostaglandin E2 versus Foley catheter for cervical ripening- a randomized trial. J Soc Obstet Gynaecol Can 1998; 20:1093-9.
  6. C. Thornton, M. Whaites. Protocol audit of dinoprostone gel induction of labour Aust. Mid. J.ACM 2004; 17: 22-26.
  7. JK. Chyu, HT. Strassner. Prostaglandin E2 for cervical ripening: A randomised comparison of cervidil versus Prépidil. Am J Obstet Gynecol 1997; 177: 606-11.
  8. S. Hidar, M. Bibi, M. Jerbi, et al. Apport de l'administration intracervicale de PGE2 dans les ruptures prématurées des membranes à terme. J Gynécol Obstet Biol Reprod 2000; 29: 607-13.
  9. A. Bugalho, C. Bique, F. Machungo, A. Faúndes. Low-dose vaginal Misoprostol for induction of labor with a live fetus. Int J Gynecol Obstet 1995; 49: 149-55.
  10. P. Rozenberg, S. Chevret, MV. Sénat, F. Bretelle. A randomized trial that compared intravaginal Misoprostol and dinoprostone vaginal insert in pregnancies at high risk of fetal distress. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2004; 191:247-53.
  11. A. Megalo, P. Petignat, P. Hohlfeld. Influence of misoprostol or prostaglandin E2 for induction of labor on the incidence of pathological CTG tracing: a randomized trial. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol 2004; 116: 34-38.
  12. L. Kolderup, L. McLean, K. Grullon. Misoprostol is more efficacious for labor induction than prostaglandin E2, but is it associated with more risk? Am J Obstet Gynecol. 1999; 180:1543-50.
  13. P. Rozenberg, S. Chevret, MV. Sénat, F. Bretelle. A randomized trial that compared intravaginal Misoprostol and dinoprostone vaginal insert in pregnancies at high risk of fetal distress. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2004;191:247-53.
  14. Patrick S. Ramsey, Denise Y. Harris, Paul L. Ogburn.Comparative efficacy and cost of the prostaglandin analogs dinoprostone and Misoprostol as labor preinduction agents. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2003; 188:560-5.
  15. S. Zeteroglu, GH. Sahin, HA. Sahin. Induction of labor with misoprostol in pregnancies with advanced maternal age. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol 2006;129: 140-44.
  16. Has R, Batukan C, Ermis H, Cevher F, Araman A, Kilic G. Comparison of 25 and 50 ÃŒg vaginally administered Misoprostol for pre-induction of cervical ripening and labour induction. Gynecol Obstet Invest 2002;53:16-21.
  17. El Cherbiny MT, El Gharieb IH, Gewely HA.Vaginal Misoprostol for induction of labor: 25 vs 50 μg dose regimen. Int J Gynecol Obstet. 2001; 72:25-30.
  18. William F, Barbara L, Terry F, Denis C. Pharmacokinetics of a Controlled-Release Misoprostol Vaginal Insert at Term. J soc Gynecol Invest 2006; 13: 112-17.
  19. KG Danielsson, L Marions, A Rodriguez, Spur BW, Wong PY, Bygdeman M. Comparison Between Oral and Vaginal Administration of Misoprostol on Uterine Contractility. Obstet Gynecol 1999; 93:275-80.
  20. Shetty A, Livingstone I, Asharya S, Rice P, Danelian P, Templeton A. Oral Misoprostol (100 μg) versus vaginal Misoprostol (25 μg) in term labor induction: a randomized comparison. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand 2003; 82: 1103.
  21. Alferevic Z. Oral Misoprostol for induction of labour (Cochrane review). Cochrane Database Rev. 2001; 2.
  22. A. Bartusevicius, E. Barcaite, R.Nadisauskiene. Oral, vaginal and sublingual misoprostol for induction of labor. Int J Gynecol Obstet 2005; 91:2-9.
  23. ML. Rochelle, VL. Holt, TR. Easterling. Risk of Uterine Rupture during Labor among Women with a Prior Cesarean Delivery. N Eng J Med 2001; 345:3-8.
  24. Sanchez-Ramos L, Kaunitz A, Wears R. Misoprostol for cervical ripening and labor induction: A meta-analysis. Obstet Gynecol 1997;89: 633-42.
  25. Farah LA, Sanchez-Ramos L, Cesar R, GO Del Valle. Randomized trial of two doses of the prostaglandin E1 analogue Misoprostol for labor induction. Am J Obstet Gynecol 1997; 177: 364-71.
  26. Mbele A, Makin JD, Pattinson RC. Can the outcome of induction of labour with oral Misoprostol be predicted? SAMJ 2007; 97:234-38.
  27. Frank J, Huffaker J. Labor induction with intra vaginal Misoprostol versus intracervical prostaglandin E2 gel (Prépidil gel): Randomized comparison. Am J Obstet Gynecol 1995; 173:1137-42.
  28. Ramsey P, Paul L, Ogburn P, Denise Y, Robert H. Effect of vaginal pH on efficacy of the dinoprostone gel for cervical ripening/labor induction. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2002; 187: 143- 49.
  29. Joan M, David C, Kimberly D, Kelly A, Donna H. Excessive Uterine Activity Accompanying Induced Labor. Obstet Gynecol. 2001 ; 97 : 926-31
  30. E.J. Langenegger, H.J. Odendaal, D. Grové. Oral Misoprostol versus intracervical dinoprostone for induction of labor. Int J Gynecol Obstet 2005;88 : 242-48.
  31. Kruse B, Poppema S, Creinin M, Paul M. Management of side effects and complications in medical abortion. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2000; 183: 65-75.