Do we need a 200 μg misoprostol vaginal insert? A retrospective cohort study comparing the misoprostol vaginal insert to oral misoprostol.
Cytotec
Misodel
induction of labor
misoprostol vaginal insert
oral misoprostol
prostaglandins
Journal
The journal of obstetrics and gynaecology research
ISSN: 1447-0756
Titre abrégé: J Obstet Gynaecol Res
Pays: Australia
ID NLM: 9612761
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
Jun 2020
Jun 2020
Historique:
received:
28
10
2019
revised:
07
02
2020
accepted:
24
02
2020
pubmed:
5
5
2020
medline:
2
3
2021
entrez:
5
5
2020
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
The misoprostol vaginal insert (MVI) was reported to be more effective than dinoprostone but discussed critically because of high rates of fetal heart rate changes due to uterine tachysystole. The aim of this study was to investigate the outcome of induced labor using the MVI compared to off-label orally-administered misoprostol (OM). Retrospective study including a total of 401 patients with singleton pregnancies in whom labor was induced at ≥36 0/7 gestational weeks with MVI (203) or OM (198). Primary outcomes were the time from induction to delivery, vaginal delivery in 24 h and the mode of delivery and the neonatal outcome. Median time until any delivery was 833 min (645-1278) for MVI and 1076.5 min (698-1686.3) for OM group; 83.7% of the patients in the MVI group gave birth within 24 h versus 63.6% in the OM group. The MVI group needed significantly less pre-delivery oxytocin (29%). Tachysystole (6.4%) and pathological CTG (30.5%) occurred at a significantly higher frequency in the MVI group. The cesarean section rate was significantly higher in the MVI group amounting to 21.7% versus 14.6% in the OM group (P < 0.05). Neonatal outcome did not differ between the groups. The MVI might be an option if you are in need for an approved and faster method to induce labor. Although we observed a significantly higher rate of fetal heart rate changes and cesarean sections in the MVI group this did not affect the neonatal outcome.
Substances chimiques
Misoprostol
0E43V0BB57
Types de publication
Comparative Study
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
851-857Informations de copyright
© 2020 Japan Society of Obstetrics and Gynecology.
Références
Practice Bulletin No ACOG. 107: Induction of labor. Obstet Gynecol 2009; 114: 386-397.
Induction of labour Induction of labour. 2008.
Voigt F, Goecke TW, Najjari L, Pecks U, Maass N, Rath W. Off-label use of misoprostol for labor induction in Germany: A national survey. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol. 2015; 187: 85-89.
Liu DTYFD. Labour Ward Manual. Nottingham, UK: Elsevier, 2007.
Caughey AB, Sundaram V, Kaimal AJ et al. Systematic review: Elective induction of labor versus expectant management of pregnancy. Ann Intern Med 2009; 151: 252-263.
Jonsson M, Cnattingius S, Wikström A-K. Elective induction of labor and the risk of cesarean section in low-risk parous women: A cohort study. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand 2013; 92: 198-203.
Bernardes TP, Broekhuijsen K, Koopmans CM et al. Caesarean section rates and adverse neonatal outcomes after induction of labour versus expectant management in women with an unripe cervix: A secondary analysis of the HYPITAT and DIGITAT trials. BJOG 2016; 123: 1501-1508.
Darney BG, Snowden JM, Cheng YW et al. Elective induction of labor at term compared with expectant management: Maternal and neonatal outcomes. Obstet Gynecol 2013; 122: 761-769.
Alfirevic Z, Keeney E, Dowswell T et al. Labour induction with prostaglandins: A systematic review and network meta-analysis. BMJ 2015; 350: h217.
Alfirevic Z, Aflaifel N, Weeks A. Oral misoprostol for induction of labour. Coch database Systemat Rev 2014; 6: Cd001338.
Wing DA, Brown R, Plante LA, Miller H, Rugarn O, Powers BL. Misoprostol vaginal insert and time to vaginal delivery: A randomized controlled trial. Obstet Gynecol. 2013; 122: 201-209.
Bartusevicius A, Barcaite E, Nadisauskiene R. Oral, vaginal and sublingual misoprostol for induction of labor. Int J Gynecol Obstet 2005; 91: 2-9.
Bishop EH. Pelvic scoring for elective induction. Obstet Gynecol 1964; 24: 266-268.
Laughon SK, Zhang J, Troendle J, Sun L, Reddy UM. Using a simplified Bishop score to predict vaginal delivery. Obstet Gynecol 2011; 117: 805-811.
No PB. 116: Management of Intrapartum Fetal Heart Rate Tracings. Obstet Gynecol 2010; 116: 1232-1240.
American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists. ACOG Practice Bulletin No. 106: Intrapartum fetal heart rate monitoring: Nomenclature, interpretation, and general management principles. Obstet Gynecol 2009; 114: 192-202.
Powers BL, Wing DA, Carr D, Ewert K, Spirito MD. Pharmacokinetic profiles of controlled-release hydrogel polymer vaginal inserts containing misoprostol. J Clin Pharmacol 2008; 48: 26-34.
Wing DA, Powers BL, Rayburn WF. Determining dose and endpoints of a controlled-release misoprostol vaginal insert for a phase III trial. J Reprod Med 2008; 53: 695-696.
Hofmeyr GJ, Gulmezoglu AM, Pileggi C. Vaginal misoprostol for cervical ripening and induction of labour. The Cochrane database of systematic reviews. 2010; 10: Cd000941.
Wing DA, Miller H, Parker L, Powers BL, Rayburn WF. Misoprostol vaginal insert for successful labor induction: A randomized controlled trial. Obstet Gynecol 2011; 117: 533-541.
Dobert M, Brandstetter A, Henrich W et al. The misoprostol vaginal insert compared with oral misoprostol for labor induction in term pregnancies: A pair-matched case-control study. J Perinat Med 2017; 46: 309-316.
Kelly AJ, Malik S, Smith L, Kavanagh J, Thomas J. Vaginal prostaglandin (PGE2 and PGF2a) for induction of labour at term. The Cochrane database of systematic reviews. 2009; 4: Cd003101.
Morris M, Bolnga JW, Verave O, Aipit J, Rero A, Laman M. Safety and effectiveness of oral misoprostol for induction of labour in a resource-limited setting: A dose escalation study. BMC Pregnancy Childbirth 2017; 17: 298.
Reinhard J, Rosler R, Yuan J et al. Prostaglandin E2 labour induction with intravaginal (Minprostin) versus intracervical (Prepidil) administration at term: Randomized study of maternal and neonatal outcome and patient's perception using the osgood semantic differential scales. Biomed Res Int 2014; 2014: 682919.
Mayer RB, Oppelt P, Shebl O, Pomer J, Allerstorfer C, Weiss C. Initial clinical experience with a misoprostol vaginal insert in comparison with a dinoprostone insert for inducing labor. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol 2016; 200: 89-93.
Stephenson ML, Powers BL, Wing DA. Fetal heart rate and cardiotocographic abnormalities with varying dose misoprostol vaginal inserts. J Matern Fetal Neonatal Med 2013; 26: 127-131.
Ewert K, Powers B, Robertson S, Alfirevic Z. Controlled-release misoprostol vaginal insert in parous women for labor induction: A randomized controlled trial. Obstet Gynecol 2006; 108: 1130-1137.
Castaneda CS, Izquierdo Puente JC, Leon Ochoa RA, Plasse TF, Powers BL, Rayburn WF. Misoprostol dose selection in a controlled-release vaginal insert for induction of labor in nulliparous women. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2005; 193: 1071-1075.
Rouse DJ. The misoprostol vaginal insert: deja vu all over again. Obstet Gynecol 2013; 122: 193-194.
Draycott T, van der Nelson H, Montouchet C, Ruff L, Andersson F. Reduction in resource use with the misoprostol vaginal insert vs the dinoprostone vaginal insert for labour induction: A model-based analysis from a United Kingdom healthcare perspective. BMC Health Serv Res 2016; 16: 49.
Kehl S, Weiss C, Dammer U et al. Effect of premature rupture of membranes on induction of labor: A historical cohort study. Geburtshilfe Frauenheilkd 2017; 77: 1174-1181.