Randomized controlled trial of vaginal misoprostol versus dinoprostone vaginal insert for labor induction

D. Garry, R. Figueroa, R. B. Kalish, C. J. Catalano, D. Maulik

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

28 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

Objective: To compare the safety and efficacy of vaginal misoprostol versus dinoprostone vaginal inserts for cervical ripening and labor induction. Methods: Two hundred singleton gestations with an indication for cervical ripening and induction of labor were randomized to receive either 50 μg of misoprostol intravaginally every 3 h or a 10-mg dinoprostone vaginal insert every 12 h for a maximum of 24 h. Statistical analysis included Student's t test, the Mann-Whitney U test, χ2 analysis and Fisher's exact test. Results: Ninety-seven women received vaginal misoprostol while 89 women received the dinoprostone vaginal insert. Fourteen women were removed from the study after randomization. The interval from start of induction to vaginal delivery (794.5 ± 408 min vs. 1005.3 ± 523 min; p < 0.02) was significantly shorter in the misoprostol group. Women receiving misoprostol were more likely to deliver vaginally both in < 12 h (44% vs. 12%; p < 0.0001) and < 24 h (68% vs. 38%; p < 0.001). A non-reassuring fetal heart rate tracing was the indication for 71.4% (20/28) of Cesarean deliveries in the misoprostol group compared to 40% (14/35) in the dinoprostone group (p = 0.03). There were no significant differences in neonatal outcomes. Conclusion: Intravaginal misoprostol and dinoprostone are safe and effective medications for use in cervical ripening before labor induction. Misoprostol results in a shorter interval from induction to delivery. However, Cesarean delivery for a non-reassuring fetal heart rate tracing was more common with misoprostol.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)254-259
Number of pages6
JournalJournal of Maternal-Fetal and Neonatal Medicine
Volume13
Issue number4
StatePublished - Apr 1 2003
Externally publishedYes

Fingerprint

Induced Labor
Misoprostol
Dinoprostone
Randomized Controlled Trials
Cervical Ripening
Fetal Heart Rate
Random Allocation
Nonparametric Statistics
Students
Safety
Pregnancy

Keywords

  • Dinoprostone vaginal insert
  • Labor induction
  • Misoprostol
  • Prostaglandins

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Pediatrics, Perinatology, and Child Health
  • Obstetrics and Gynecology

Cite this

Randomized controlled trial of vaginal misoprostol versus dinoprostone vaginal insert for labor induction. / Garry, D.; Figueroa, R.; Kalish, R. B.; Catalano, C. J.; Maulik, D.

In: Journal of Maternal-Fetal and Neonatal Medicine, Vol. 13, No. 4, 01.04.2003, p. 254-259.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Garry, D. ; Figueroa, R. ; Kalish, R. B. ; Catalano, C. J. ; Maulik, D. / Randomized controlled trial of vaginal misoprostol versus dinoprostone vaginal insert for labor induction. In: Journal of Maternal-Fetal and Neonatal Medicine. 2003 ; Vol. 13, No. 4. pp. 254-259.
@article{a59f13457bda49d4ae88629a6aa77463,
title = "Randomized controlled trial of vaginal misoprostol versus dinoprostone vaginal insert for labor induction",
abstract = "Objective: To compare the safety and efficacy of vaginal misoprostol versus dinoprostone vaginal inserts for cervical ripening and labor induction. Methods: Two hundred singleton gestations with an indication for cervical ripening and induction of labor were randomized to receive either 50 μg of misoprostol intravaginally every 3 h or a 10-mg dinoprostone vaginal insert every 12 h for a maximum of 24 h. Statistical analysis included Student's t test, the Mann-Whitney U test, χ2 analysis and Fisher's exact test. Results: Ninety-seven women received vaginal misoprostol while 89 women received the dinoprostone vaginal insert. Fourteen women were removed from the study after randomization. The interval from start of induction to vaginal delivery (794.5 ± 408 min vs. 1005.3 ± 523 min; p < 0.02) was significantly shorter in the misoprostol group. Women receiving misoprostol were more likely to deliver vaginally both in < 12 h (44{\%} vs. 12{\%}; p < 0.0001) and < 24 h (68{\%} vs. 38{\%}; p < 0.001). A non-reassuring fetal heart rate tracing was the indication for 71.4{\%} (20/28) of Cesarean deliveries in the misoprostol group compared to 40{\%} (14/35) in the dinoprostone group (p = 0.03). There were no significant differences in neonatal outcomes. Conclusion: Intravaginal misoprostol and dinoprostone are safe and effective medications for use in cervical ripening before labor induction. Misoprostol results in a shorter interval from induction to delivery. However, Cesarean delivery for a non-reassuring fetal heart rate tracing was more common with misoprostol.",
keywords = "Dinoprostone vaginal insert, Labor induction, Misoprostol, Prostaglandins",
author = "D. Garry and R. Figueroa and Kalish, {R. B.} and Catalano, {C. J.} and D. Maulik",
year = "2003",
month = "4",
day = "1",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "13",
pages = "254--259",
journal = "Journal of Maternal-Fetal and Neonatal Medicine",
issn = "1476-7058",
publisher = "Informa Healthcare",
number = "4",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Randomized controlled trial of vaginal misoprostol versus dinoprostone vaginal insert for labor induction

AU - Garry, D.

AU - Figueroa, R.

AU - Kalish, R. B.

AU - Catalano, C. J.

AU - Maulik, D.

PY - 2003/4/1

Y1 - 2003/4/1

N2 - Objective: To compare the safety and efficacy of vaginal misoprostol versus dinoprostone vaginal inserts for cervical ripening and labor induction. Methods: Two hundred singleton gestations with an indication for cervical ripening and induction of labor were randomized to receive either 50 μg of misoprostol intravaginally every 3 h or a 10-mg dinoprostone vaginal insert every 12 h for a maximum of 24 h. Statistical analysis included Student's t test, the Mann-Whitney U test, χ2 analysis and Fisher's exact test. Results: Ninety-seven women received vaginal misoprostol while 89 women received the dinoprostone vaginal insert. Fourteen women were removed from the study after randomization. The interval from start of induction to vaginal delivery (794.5 ± 408 min vs. 1005.3 ± 523 min; p < 0.02) was significantly shorter in the misoprostol group. Women receiving misoprostol were more likely to deliver vaginally both in < 12 h (44% vs. 12%; p < 0.0001) and < 24 h (68% vs. 38%; p < 0.001). A non-reassuring fetal heart rate tracing was the indication for 71.4% (20/28) of Cesarean deliveries in the misoprostol group compared to 40% (14/35) in the dinoprostone group (p = 0.03). There were no significant differences in neonatal outcomes. Conclusion: Intravaginal misoprostol and dinoprostone are safe and effective medications for use in cervical ripening before labor induction. Misoprostol results in a shorter interval from induction to delivery. However, Cesarean delivery for a non-reassuring fetal heart rate tracing was more common with misoprostol.

AB - Objective: To compare the safety and efficacy of vaginal misoprostol versus dinoprostone vaginal inserts for cervical ripening and labor induction. Methods: Two hundred singleton gestations with an indication for cervical ripening and induction of labor were randomized to receive either 50 μg of misoprostol intravaginally every 3 h or a 10-mg dinoprostone vaginal insert every 12 h for a maximum of 24 h. Statistical analysis included Student's t test, the Mann-Whitney U test, χ2 analysis and Fisher's exact test. Results: Ninety-seven women received vaginal misoprostol while 89 women received the dinoprostone vaginal insert. Fourteen women were removed from the study after randomization. The interval from start of induction to vaginal delivery (794.5 ± 408 min vs. 1005.3 ± 523 min; p < 0.02) was significantly shorter in the misoprostol group. Women receiving misoprostol were more likely to deliver vaginally both in < 12 h (44% vs. 12%; p < 0.0001) and < 24 h (68% vs. 38%; p < 0.001). A non-reassuring fetal heart rate tracing was the indication for 71.4% (20/28) of Cesarean deliveries in the misoprostol group compared to 40% (14/35) in the dinoprostone group (p = 0.03). There were no significant differences in neonatal outcomes. Conclusion: Intravaginal misoprostol and dinoprostone are safe and effective medications for use in cervical ripening before labor induction. Misoprostol results in a shorter interval from induction to delivery. However, Cesarean delivery for a non-reassuring fetal heart rate tracing was more common with misoprostol.

KW - Dinoprostone vaginal insert

KW - Labor induction

KW - Misoprostol

KW - Prostaglandins

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=0037392350&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=0037392350&partnerID=8YFLogxK

M3 - Article

VL - 13

SP - 254

EP - 259

JO - Journal of Maternal-Fetal and Neonatal Medicine

JF - Journal of Maternal-Fetal and Neonatal Medicine

SN - 1476-7058

IS - 4

ER -