The Efficacy of Misoprostol Vaginal Inserts for Induction of Labor in Women with Very Unfavorable Cervices.
cervical ripening
delivery
labor induction
perinatology
Journal
Journal of clinical medicine
ISSN: 2077-0383
Titre abrégé: J Clin Med
Pays: Switzerland
ID NLM: 101606588
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
17 Jun 2023
17 Jun 2023
Historique:
received:
20
04
2023
revised:
11
06
2023
accepted:
15
06
2023
medline:
28
6
2023
pubmed:
28
6
2023
entrez:
28
6
2023
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
The purpose of the present study was to evaluate the effectiveness of a misoprostol vaginal insert as an induction-of-labor (IOL) agent in women with an unfavorable cervix (Bishop score < 2) in achieving vaginal delivery (VD) within 48 h, depending on the gestational week, with particular emphasis on the cesarean section (CS) percentage, intrapartum analgesia application and possible side effects, such as tachysystole ratio. In this retrospective observational study involving 6000 screened pregnant patients, 190 women (3%) fulfilled the study inclusion criteria and underwent vaginal misoprostol IOL. The pregnant women were collected into three groups: patients who delivered at up to 37 weeks of gestation (<37 Group)-42 patients; patients who delivered between 37 and 41 weeks of gestation (37-41 Group)-76 patients; and patients who delivered after 41 weeks of gestation (41+ Group)-72 patients. The outcomes included time to delivery and mode of delivery, rate of tachysystole, need for intrapartum analgesia, and need for oxytocin augmentation. Most of the patients delivered vaginally (54.8% in <37 Group vs. 57.9% in 37-41 Group vs. 61.1% in 41+ Group). A total of 89.5% (170/190) of patients delivered within 48 h (<37 Group-78.6% vs. 37-41 Group-89.5% vs. 41+ Group-95.8%). Statistical significance was demonstrated for the increased rate of vaginal deliveries and shortened time to delivery in the 41+ weeks group ( The misoprostol vaginal regimen for IOL used in our study is effective in achieving vaginal delivery within 48 h. In post-term women, the use of this regimen is characterized by an increased rate of vaginal deliveries, a shorter time to delivery and a lower need for oxytocin.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
BACKGROUND
The purpose of the present study was to evaluate the effectiveness of a misoprostol vaginal insert as an induction-of-labor (IOL) agent in women with an unfavorable cervix (Bishop score < 2) in achieving vaginal delivery (VD) within 48 h, depending on the gestational week, with particular emphasis on the cesarean section (CS) percentage, intrapartum analgesia application and possible side effects, such as tachysystole ratio.
METHODS
METHODS
In this retrospective observational study involving 6000 screened pregnant patients, 190 women (3%) fulfilled the study inclusion criteria and underwent vaginal misoprostol IOL. The pregnant women were collected into three groups: patients who delivered at up to 37 weeks of gestation (<37 Group)-42 patients; patients who delivered between 37 and 41 weeks of gestation (37-41 Group)-76 patients; and patients who delivered after 41 weeks of gestation (41+ Group)-72 patients. The outcomes included time to delivery and mode of delivery, rate of tachysystole, need for intrapartum analgesia, and need for oxytocin augmentation.
RESULTS
RESULTS
Most of the patients delivered vaginally (54.8% in <37 Group vs. 57.9% in 37-41 Group vs. 61.1% in 41+ Group). A total of 89.5% (170/190) of patients delivered within 48 h (<37 Group-78.6% vs. 37-41 Group-89.5% vs. 41+ Group-95.8%). Statistical significance was demonstrated for the increased rate of vaginal deliveries and shortened time to delivery in the 41+ weeks group (
CONCLUSIONS
CONCLUSIONS
The misoprostol vaginal regimen for IOL used in our study is effective in achieving vaginal delivery within 48 h. In post-term women, the use of this regimen is characterized by an increased rate of vaginal deliveries, a shorter time to delivery and a lower need for oxytocin.
Identifiants
pubmed: 37373798
pii: jcm12124106
doi: 10.3390/jcm12124106
pmc: PMC10299393
pii:
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Références
Geburtshilfe Frauenheilkd. 2016 Jul;76(7):785-792
pubmed: 27582576
Am J Obstet Gynecol. 1975 Sep 1;123(1):67-103
pubmed: 170824
Birth. 1999 Dec;26(4):211-4
pubmed: 10655824
J Physiother. 2016 Jan;62(1):29-34
pubmed: 26701166
Ginekol Pol. 2021 Jun 09;:
pubmed: 34105752
Int J Gynaecol Obstet. 1997 Oct;59(1):19-24
pubmed: 9359441
Obstet Gynecol. 2009 Aug;114(2 Pt 1):386-397
pubmed: 19623003
Physiol Rev. 1999 Oct;79(4):1193-226
pubmed: 10508233
Obstet Gynecol. 2019 Jul;134(1):10-16
pubmed: 31188317
BMC Pregnancy Childbirth. 2017 Sep 8;17(1):298
pubmed: 28886702
Lancet. 2016 Apr 16;387(10028):1619-28
pubmed: 26850983
J Clin Diagn Res. 2016 Aug;10(8):QC18-21
pubmed: 27656511
Arch Gynecol Obstet. 2019 Jan;299(1):105-112
pubmed: 30374645
Best Pract Res Clin Obstet Gynaecol. 2021 Nov;77:53-63
pubmed: 34607746
Ginekol Pol. 2021;92(11):797-803
pubmed: 33914329
PLoS One. 2020 Jan 10;15(1):e0227245
pubmed: 31923193
Ginekol Pol. 2017;88(4):224-234
pubmed: 28509326
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2021 Jun 22;6:CD014484
pubmed: 34155622
BJOG. 2017 Apr;124(5):796-803
pubmed: 27307397
Am J Obstet Gynecol. 1999 Jun;180(6 Pt 1):1543-50
pubmed: 10368502
BMJ. 2015 Feb 05;350:h217
pubmed: 25656228
Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2018 Dec 09;15(12):
pubmed: 30544878
BJOG. 2022 Jul;129(8):e61-e65
pubmed: 35478481
Medicina (Kaunas). 2022 Jan 07;58(1):
pubmed: 35056395
Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2000 Sep;183(3):610-6
pubmed: 10992181
Complement Ther Med. 2014 Jun;22(3):523-40
pubmed: 24906592
Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol. 2005 Nov 1;123(1):56-61
pubmed: 15905017
N Engl J Med. 1992 Jun 11;326(24):1587-92
pubmed: 1584259
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2014 Jun 13;(6):CD001338
pubmed: 24924489
J Biol Chem. 2007 Apr 20;282(16):11613-7
pubmed: 17329241
Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2014 Jan;210(1):56.e1-6
pubmed: 23999422
Reprod Biol Endocrinol. 2004 Sep 27;2:70
pubmed: 15450119
Obstet Gynecol. 2013 Aug;122(2 Pt 1):201-209
pubmed: 23857539
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2010 Oct 06;(10):CD000941
pubmed: 20927722
AJP Rep. 2018 Oct;8(4):e307-e314
pubmed: 30377555
J Matern Fetal Neonatal Med. 2013 Jan;26(2):127-31
pubmed: 22712609
Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand. 2019 Oct;98(10):1268-1273
pubmed: 31140585
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2019 Oct 18;10:CD001233
pubmed: 31623014
BMJ. 2012 May 10;344:e2838
pubmed: 22577197
J Perinat Med. 1998;26(6):448-57
pubmed: 10224601
Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand. 2007;86(6):657-65
pubmed: 17520395
Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2010 Jun;202(6):624.e1-9
pubmed: 20430362
J Perinat Med. 2019 Feb 25;47(2):176-182
pubmed: 30179853
Am J Emerg Med. 2018 Apr;36(4):707-714
pubmed: 29321111
Arch Gynecol Obstet. 2017 Aug;296(2):167-179
pubmed: 28585102
Taiwan J Obstet Gynecol. 2011 Mar;50(1):15-9
pubmed: 21482368
BJOG. 2015 May;122(6):773-784
pubmed: 25716067
BMC Pregnancy Childbirth. 2014 Jul 16;14:233
pubmed: 25031035
SAGE Open Med. 2017 Mar 23;5:2050312117700809
pubmed: 28540049
Eur J Med Res. 2023 Jan 27;28(1):51
pubmed: 36707858
Arch Gynecol Obstet. 2007 Aug;276(2):119-24
pubmed: 17219155