Induction of Labor in Primigravid Term Pregnancy with Misoprostol or Dinoprostone: A Comparative Study
- PMID: 31723500
- PMCID: PMC6825450
- DOI: 10.7759/cureus.5739
Induction of Labor in Primigravid Term Pregnancy with Misoprostol or Dinoprostone: A Comparative Study
Abstract
Objective The objective of this study was to compare the effectiveness of vaginally administered misoprostol to that of vaginally administered dinoprostone at six-hour intervals in a well-homogenized cohort of full-term, nulliparous women with an unfavorable cervix and without any pregnancy complications. Materials and methods A cohort of 100 nulliparous women at more than 40 weeks of gestation was included in this study. The primary outcomes to be measured were induction to delivery interval and incidence of vaginal births within 12 and 24 hours. Neonatal intensive care unit admissions for poor neonatal outcomes and obstetrical complications were secondary outcomes. Results A significant reduction in the induction to delivery interval was observed in the misoprostol group as compared to the dinoprostone group (10.2 ± 0.8 vs. 16.5 ± 0.7, p < 0.001). More women in the misoprostol group delivered within 12 hours as compared to the dinoprostone group (30 [60%] vs. 17 [34%], p < 0.001) and within 24 hours (48 [96%] vs. 39 [78%], p < 0.05). In the misoprostol group, spontaneous rupture of the membranes occurred more frequently (46 [92%] vs. 35 [70%], p < 0.05) with less need for oxytocin augmentation during labor (14% vs. 30%, p < 0.05). A significant reduction in additional dose requirement (7.5% vs. 22%, p < 0.05) and a lower rate of Caesarean section was observed in the misoprostol group (6% vs. 24%, p < 0.04). A statistically insignificant low Apgar score was noted in the dinoprostone group compared to the misoprostol group. Conclusion Vaginally administered misoprostol is more effective than vaginally administered dinoprostone at six-hour intervals in nulliparous women beyond 40 weeks of gestation without pregnancy complications.
Keywords: dinoprostone; full term pregnancy; labor induction; misoprostol; primigravida.
Copyright © 2019, Arif et al.
Conflict of interest statement
The authors have declared that no competing interests exist.
Similar articles
-
Comparison of misoprostol and dinoprostone for elective induction of labour in nulliparous women at full term: a randomized prospective study.Reprod Biol Endocrinol. 2004 Sep 27;2:70. doi: 10.1186/1477-7827-2-70. Reprod Biol Endocrinol. 2004. PMID: 15450119 Free PMC article. Clinical Trial.
-
Induction of labor with misoprostol for premature rupture of membranes beyond thirty-six weeks' gestation.Am J Obstet Gynecol. 1998 Jul;179(1):94-9. doi: 10.1016/s0002-9378(98)70256-x. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 1998. PMID: 9704771 Clinical Trial.
-
Misoprostol for induction of labour at term: a more effective agent than dinoprostone vaginal gel.Br J Obstet Gynaecol. 1999 Aug;106(8):793-7. doi: 10.1111/j.1471-0528.1999.tb08399.x. Br J Obstet Gynaecol. 1999. PMID: 10453828 Clinical Trial.
-
Mechanical methods for induction of labour.Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2023 Mar 30;3(3):CD001233. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD001233.pub4. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2023. PMID: 36996264 Free PMC article. Review.
-
Low-dose oral misoprostol for induction of labor: a systematic review.Obstet Gynecol. 2009 Feb;113(2 Pt 1):374-83. doi: 10.1097/AOG.0b013e3181945859. Obstet Gynecol. 2009. PMID: 19155909
Cited by
-
Investigating the Effect of Hyoscine and Dexamethasone on Cervical Preparation in Primigravid Women with Term Pregnancy: A Double-blind Randomized Clinical Trial.J Res Pharm Pract. 2024 Aug 8;12(4):130-134. doi: 10.4103/jrpp.jrpp_41_24. eCollection 2023 Oct-Dec. J Res Pharm Pract. 2024. PMID: 39262410 Free PMC article.
-
Expression deregulation of matrix metalloproteinases and vasoconstriction related genes in Pakistani females with abnormal uterine bleeding.BMC Womens Health. 2022 Dec 23;22(1):543. doi: 10.1186/s12905-022-02132-y. BMC Womens Health. 2022. PMID: 36564776 Free PMC article.
-
Maternal and fetal outcomes in women undergoing induction of labor with low dose vaginal misoprostol.Pak J Med Sci. 2023 Sep-Oct;39(5):1307-1311. doi: 10.12669/pjms.39.5.7072. Pak J Med Sci. 2023. PMID: 37680840 Free PMC article.
References
-
- U.S. national trends in labor induction, 1989-1998. Zhang J, Yancey MK, Henderson CE. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11883350. J Reprod Med. 2002;47:120–124. - PubMed
-
- Rising rates of labor induction: present concerns and future strategies. Rayburn WF, Zhang J. Obstet Gynecol. 2002;100:164–167. - PubMed
-
- Induction of labour at term. SOGC Clinical Practice Guideline. Crane J, Leduc L, Farine D, Hodges S, Reid GJ, Van Aerde J. https://www.jogc.com/article/S0849-5831(16)31465-3/pdf J Obstet Gynaecol Can. 2001;23:717–741.
-
- Labor induction with misoprostol. Wing DA. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 1999;181:339–345. - PubMed
-
- Temporal changes in rates and reasons for medical induction of term labor, 1980-1996. Yahn BP, Wollan P, McKeon K, Field CS. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2001;184:611–619. - PubMed
LinkOut - more resources
Full Text Sources