Use of vaginal dinoprostone for women with term prelabor rupture of membranes and an unfavorable cervix within 6 h versus within 6-24 h.
Humans
Female
Pregnancy
Retrospective Studies
Labor, Induced
/ methods
Fetal Membranes, Premature Rupture
/ drug therapy
Adult
Dinoprostone
/ administration & dosage
Administration, Intravaginal
Oxytocics
/ administration & dosage
Time Factors
Cervix Uteri
Cesarean Section
/ statistics & numerical data
Cervical Ripening
/ drug effects
Cesarean section
Term prelabor rupture of membranes
Vaginal Dinoprostone
Journal
BMC pregnancy and childbirth
ISSN: 1471-2393
Titre abrégé: BMC Pregnancy Childbirth
Pays: England
ID NLM: 100967799
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
20 Aug 2024
20 Aug 2024
Historique:
received:
10
09
2023
accepted:
16
08
2024
medline:
21
8
2024
pubmed:
21
8
2024
entrez:
20
8
2024
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
Most guidelines propose inducing labor within 24 h following term (37 or more weeks of gestation) prelabor rupture of membranes (PROM). However, the exact timing for initiating induction within the 24 h period remains unknown. This study aims to comparatively assess the efficacy and safety of the use of vaginal dinoprostone within 6 h versus within 6-24 h for singleton pregnancies with PROM and an unfavorable cervix (Bishop score < 6). This was a retrospective cohort study including singleton pregnancies with PROM and an unfavorable cervix (Bishop score < 6) in which labor was induced using vaginal dinoprostone. Women were divided into two groups according to the timing of the use of induction (within 6 h versus within 6-24 h after PROM). Baseline maternal data, maternal and neonatal outcomes were recorded for statistical analysis. 450 women were included, 146 (32.4%) of whom were induced within 6 h of PROM and 304 (67.6%) were induced within 6-24 h. Cesarean delivery rate (15.8% versus 29.3%, p = 0.002) and nonreassuring fetal heart rate tracing (4.8% versus 10.5%, p = 0.043) in group with vaginal dinoprostone within 6 h were significantly lower than those in group with vaginal dinoprostone within 6-24 h. There was no significant differences in terms of duration from IOL to vaginal delivery. Induction of labor within 6 h with vaginal dinoprostone after PROM for singleton pregnancies with an unfavorable cervix (Bishop score < 6) significantly associated with less cesarean section, less nonreassuring fetal heart rate tracing, compared to induction of labor within 6-24 h after PROM.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
BACKGROUND
Most guidelines propose inducing labor within 24 h following term (37 or more weeks of gestation) prelabor rupture of membranes (PROM). However, the exact timing for initiating induction within the 24 h period remains unknown. This study aims to comparatively assess the efficacy and safety of the use of vaginal dinoprostone within 6 h versus within 6-24 h for singleton pregnancies with PROM and an unfavorable cervix (Bishop score < 6).
METHODS
METHODS
This was a retrospective cohort study including singleton pregnancies with PROM and an unfavorable cervix (Bishop score < 6) in which labor was induced using vaginal dinoprostone. Women were divided into two groups according to the timing of the use of induction (within 6 h versus within 6-24 h after PROM). Baseline maternal data, maternal and neonatal outcomes were recorded for statistical analysis.
RESULTS
RESULTS
450 women were included, 146 (32.4%) of whom were induced within 6 h of PROM and 304 (67.6%) were induced within 6-24 h. Cesarean delivery rate (15.8% versus 29.3%, p = 0.002) and nonreassuring fetal heart rate tracing (4.8% versus 10.5%, p = 0.043) in group with vaginal dinoprostone within 6 h were significantly lower than those in group with vaginal dinoprostone within 6-24 h. There was no significant differences in terms of duration from IOL to vaginal delivery.
CONCLUSION
CONCLUSIONS
Induction of labor within 6 h with vaginal dinoprostone after PROM for singleton pregnancies with an unfavorable cervix (Bishop score < 6) significantly associated with less cesarean section, less nonreassuring fetal heart rate tracing, compared to induction of labor within 6-24 h after PROM.
Identifiants
pubmed: 39164638
doi: 10.1186/s12884-024-06760-0
pii: 10.1186/s12884-024-06760-0
doi:
Substances chimiques
Dinoprostone
K7Q1JQR04M
Oxytocics
0
Types de publication
Journal Article
Comparative Study
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
548Informations de copyright
© 2024. The Author(s).
Références
Prelabor Rupture of Membranes. ACOG Practice Bulletin, Number 217. Obstet Gynecol. 2020;135(3):e80–97. https://doi.org/10.1097/aog.0000000000003700 .
doi: 10.1097/aog.0000000000003700
Middleton P, Shepherd E, Flenady V, et al. Planned early birth versus expectant management (waiting) for prelabour rupture of membranes at term (37 weeks or more). Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2017;1(1):Cd005302. https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.CD005302.pub3 .
doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD005302.pub3
pubmed: 28050900
Martin JA, Hamilton BE, Sutton PD, et al. Births: final data for 2003. Natl Vital Stat Rep. 2005;54(2):1–116.
pubmed: 16450552
Prevention of early-onset neonatal group B streptococcal disease: green-top guideline no. 36. Bjog 2017;124(12):e280-e305, https://doi.org/10.1111/1471-0528.14821 .
Bellussi F, Seidenari A, Juckett L, et al. Induction within or after 12 hours of ≥36 weeks’ prelabor rupture of membranes: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Am J Obstet Gynecol MFM. 2021;3(5):100425. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajogmf.2021.100425 .
doi: 10.1016/j.ajogmf.2021.100425
pubmed: 34153513
Bellussi F, Livi A, Diglio J, et al. Timing of induction for term prelabor rupture of membranes and intravenous antibiotics. Am J Obstet Gynecol MFM. 2021;3(1):100245. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajogmf.2020.100245 .
doi: 10.1016/j.ajogmf.2020.100245
pubmed: 33451610
Leduc D, Biringer A, Lee L, et al. Induction of labour. J Obstet Gynaecol Can. 2013;35(9):840–57. https://doi.org/10.1016/s1701-2163(15)30842-2 .
doi: 10.1016/s1701-2163(15)30842-2
pubmed: 24099451
ACOG practice bulletin no. 107: induction of labor. Obstet Gynecol. 2009;114(2 Pt 1):386–97. https://doi.org/10.1097/AOG.0b013e3181b48ef5 .
Tenore JL. Methods for cervical ripening and induction of labor. Am Fam Physician. 2003;67(10):2123–8.
pubmed: 12776961
Levine LD. Cervical ripening: Why we do what we do. Semin Perinatol. 2020;44(2):151216. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.semperi.2019.151216 .
doi: 10.1016/j.semperi.2019.151216
pubmed: 31813539
Anzeljc V, Mujezinović F. A randomised controlled trial comparing induction of labour with the propess vaginal system to the prostin vaginal tablet in premature rupture of membranes at term. J Clin Med 2022;12(1), https://doi.org/10.3390/jcm12010174 .
Sire F, Ponthier L, Eyraud JL, et al. Comparative study of dinoprostone and misoprostol for induction of labor in patients with premature rupture of membranes after 35 weeks. Sci Rep. 2022;12(1):14996. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-022-18948-5 .
doi: 10.1038/s41598-022-18948-5
pubmed: 36056056
pmcid: 9439998
Güngördük K, Asicioglu O, Besimoglu B, et al. Labor induction in term premature rupture of membranes: comparison between oxytocin and dinoprostone followed 6 hours later by oxytocin. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2012;206(1):60.e1-8. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajog.2011.07.035 .
doi: 10.1016/j.ajog.2011.07.035
pubmed: 21924396
López-Jiménez N, García-Sánchez F, Pailos RH, et al. Use of vaginal dinoprostone (PGE(2)) in patients with Premature Rupture of Membranes (PROM) undergoing induction of labor: a comparative study. J Clin Med 2022;11(8), https://doi.org/10.3390/jcm11082217 .
Wang X, Zhang X, Liu Y, Jiang T, Dai Y, Gong Y, et al. Effect of premature rupture of membranes on time to delivery and outcomes in full-term pregnancies with vaginal dinoprostone-induced labour. Arch Gynecol Obstet. 2020;301(2):369–74. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00404-019-05351-1 .
doi: 10.1007/s00404-019-05351-1
pubmed: 31776709
Huang F, Chen H, Wu X, Li J, Guo J, Zhang X, et al. A model to predict delivery time following induction of labor at term with a dinoprostone vaginal insert: a retrospective study. Ir J Med Sci. 2023. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11845-023-03568-3 .
Grace Ng YH, Aminuddin AA, Tan TL, et al. Multicentre randomised controlled trial comparing the safety in the first 12 h, efficacy and maternal satisfaction of a double balloon catheter and prostaglandin pessary for induction of labour. Arch Gynecol Obstet. 2022;305(1):11–8. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00404-021-06090-y .
doi: 10.1007/s00404-021-06090-y
pubmed: 33973051
Verani JR, McGee L, Schrag SJ. Prevention of perinatal group B streptococcal disease--revised guidelines from CDC, 2010. MMWR Recomm Rep. 2010;59(Rr-10):1–36.
pubmed: 21088663
Gulersen M, Zottola C, Li X, et al. Chorioamnionitis after premature rupture of membranes in nulliparas undergoing labor induction: prostaglandin E2 vs. oxytocin. J Perinat Med. 2021;49(9):1058–63. https://doi.org/10.1515/jpm-2021-0094 .
doi: 10.1515/jpm-2021-0094
pubmed: 34109770
Hannah ME, Ohlsson A, Farine D, et al. Induction of labor compared with expectant management for prelabor rupture of the membranes at term. TERMPROM study group. N Engl J Med. 1996;334(16):1005–10. https://doi.org/10.1056/nejm199604183341601 .
doi: 10.1056/nejm199604183341601
pubmed: 8598837
ACOG practice bulletin no. 188: prelabor rupture of membranes. Obstet Gynecol. 2018;131(1):e1–14. https://doi.org/10.1097/aog.0000000000002455 .
doi: 10.1097/aog.0000000000002455
Chua S, Arulkumaran S, Yap C, et al. Premature rupture of membranes in nulliparas at term with unfavorable cervices: a double-blind randomized trial of prostaglandin and placebo. Obstet Gynecol. 1995;86(4 Pt 1):550–4. https://doi.org/10.1016/0029-7844(95)00214-c .
doi: 10.1016/0029-7844(95)00214-c
pubmed: 7675378
Mahmood TA, Dick MJ. A randomized trial of management of pre-labor rupture of membranes at term in multiparous women using vaginal prostaglandin gel. Obstet Gynecol. 1995;85(1):71–4. https://doi.org/10.1016/0029-7844(94)00316-6 .
doi: 10.1016/0029-7844(94)00316-6
pubmed: 7800329
Shah K, Doshi H. Premature rupture of membrane at term: early induction versus expectant management. J Obstet Gynaecol India. 2012;62(2):172–5. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13224-012-0172-6 .
doi: 10.1007/s13224-012-0172-6
pubmed: 23543046
pmcid: 3425678
Larrañaga-Azcárate C, Campo-Molina G, Pérez-Rodríguez AF, et al. Dinoprostone vaginal slow-release system (Propess) compared to expectant management in the active treatment of premature rupture of the membranes at term: impact on maternal and fetal outcomes. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand. 2008;87(2):195–200. https://doi.org/10.1080/00016340701837421 .
doi: 10.1080/00016340701837421
pubmed: 18231888
Kulhan NG, Kulhan M. Labor induction in term nulliparous women with premature rupture of membranes: oxytocin versus dinoprostone. Arch Med Sci. 2019;15(4):896–901. https://doi.org/10.5114/aoms.2018.76115 .
doi: 10.5114/aoms.2018.76115
pubmed: 31360185
Sibiude J. Term prelabor rupture of membranes: CNGOF Guidelines for clinical practice - timing of labor induction. Gynecol Obstet Fertil Senol. 2020;48(1):35–47. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gofs.2019.10.015 .
doi: 10.1016/j.gofs.2019.10.015
pubmed: 31669525