Induction of Labor with Vaginal Dinoprostone (PGE
PGE2
induction of labor
trial of labor after cesarean (TOLAC)
Journal
Journal of clinical medicine
ISSN: 2077-0383
Titre abrégé: J Clin Med
Pays: Switzerland
ID NLM: 101606588
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
09 Nov 2021
09 Nov 2021
Historique:
received:
21
09
2021
revised:
01
11
2021
accepted:
07
11
2021
entrez:
27
11
2021
pubmed:
28
11
2021
medline:
28
11
2021
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
Vaginal dinoprostone (PGE To evaluate the efficacy and safety of PGE A prospective observational study was conducted in La Mancha Centro Hospital in Alcázar de San Juan, Spain, from 1 February 2019 to 30 August 2020. Obstetric and neonatal outcomes, following IOL with PGE A total of 424 women were included in this study. The percentage of cesarean sections in the TOLAC group was 44.7% (21), compared with 31.6% (119) in the group without a history of cesarean section (adjusted odds ratio: 1.4; 95% CI: 0.68-2.86). In the multivariate analysis, no statistically significant differences were observed between both groups for obstetric and neonatal outcomes ( The induction of labor with vaginal dinoprostone (PGE
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
BACKGROUND
Vaginal dinoprostone (PGE
OBJECTIVE
OBJECTIVE
To evaluate the efficacy and safety of PGE
MATERIALS AND METHODS
METHODS
A prospective observational study was conducted in La Mancha Centro Hospital in Alcázar de San Juan, Spain, from 1 February 2019 to 30 August 2020. Obstetric and neonatal outcomes, following IOL with PGE
RESULTS
RESULTS
A total of 424 women were included in this study. The percentage of cesarean sections in the TOLAC group was 44.7% (21), compared with 31.6% (119) in the group without a history of cesarean section (adjusted odds ratio: 1.4; 95% CI: 0.68-2.86). In the multivariate analysis, no statistically significant differences were observed between both groups for obstetric and neonatal outcomes (
CONCLUSIONS
CONCLUSIONS
The induction of labor with vaginal dinoprostone (PGE
Identifiants
pubmed: 34830502
pii: jcm10225221
doi: 10.3390/jcm10225221
pmc: PMC8622073
pii:
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Références
Obstet Gynecol. 1998 May;91(5 Pt 2):828-30
pubmed: 9572178
BMJ. 2004 Jul 3;329(7456):19-25
pubmed: 15231616
J Obstet Gynaecol Res. 1997 Apr;23(2):219-22
pubmed: 9158312
N Engl J Med. 2001 Jul 5;345(1):3-8
pubmed: 11439945
BJOG. 2010 Jun;117(7):809-20
pubmed: 20236103
Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2000 Nov;183(5):1176-9
pubmed: 11084562
Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2015 Mar;212(3):358.e1-6
pubmed: 25725658
Obstet Gynecol. 2017 Nov;130(5):e217-e233
pubmed: 29064970
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2019 Oct 18;10:CD001233
pubmed: 31623014
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2017 Jun 09;6:CD009792
pubmed: 28599068
N Engl J Med. 2004 Dec 16;351(25):2581-9
pubmed: 15598960
J Obstet Gynaecol Can. 2018 Mar;40(3):e195-e207
pubmed: 29525045
PLoS One. 2021 Jul 6;16(7):e0253957
pubmed: 34228760
J Matern Fetal Neonatal Med. 2006 Aug;19(8):471-5
pubmed: 16966111
Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol. 2004 Mar 15;113(1):45-8
pubmed: 15036710
Obstet Gynecol. 2009 Jul;114(1):136-138
pubmed: 19546770
NIH Consens State Sci Statements. 2010 Mar 10;27(3):1-42
pubmed: 20228855
Gynecol Obstet Invest. 1995;40(2):89-93
pubmed: 8575698
Am J Perinatol. 1994 Jul;11(4):309-12
pubmed: 7945629
J Matern Fetal Neonatal Med. 2014 Mar;27(5):445-8
pubmed: 23841832