Safety of misoprostol vs dinoprostone for induction of labor: A systematic review and meta-analysis
- PMID: 37660506
- DOI: 10.1016/j.ejogrb.2023.08.382
Safety of misoprostol vs dinoprostone for induction of labor: A systematic review and meta-analysis
Abstract
Objective: Pharmacological agents such as prostaglandins (dinoprostone and misoprostol) are commonly used to reduce the duration of labor and promote vaginal delivery. However, key safety considerations with its use include an increased risk of uterine rupture, tachysystole and hyperstimulation of pregnant women, which could potentially lead to a non-reassuring fetal heart rate and to fetal hypoxemia. The aim of this systematic review was to assess maternal and fetal outcomes between misoprostol group (PGE1) and dinoprostone group (PGE2) STUDY DESIGN: We search on MEDLINE (PubMed), CINHAL (EBSCOhost), EMBASE, Scopus (Ovid), CENTRAL (January 1, 1998, to December 31, 2022). Patients were eligible if they presented at greater than 36 weeks gestation with an indication for induction of labor and a single live cephalic fetus. We conducted a meta-analysis of data for both primary (cesarean section rate, instrumental deliveries rate, tachysystole, uterine rupture, post-partum haemorrage; chorionamiositis) and secondary outcomes (Apgar at 5 min <7, meconium-stained liquor, NICU admission, infant death) using odds-ratio (OR) as a measure of effect-size. Risk of bias assessment was performed with RoB-I. We performed statistical analyses using Cochrane RevMan version 5.4 software.
Results: We found 39 RCTs comparing the outcomes of interest between misoprostol and dinoprostone. The pooled effect showed no statistically significant difference between the two groups in terms of cesarean section rate [OR: 0.94; 95% CI 0.84-1.05], instrumental deliveries rate [OR: 1.04; 95% CI: 0.90-1.19; p = 0.62], tachysystole [OR: 1.21; 95% CI: 0.91-1.60; p = 0.19], post-partum hemorrhage [OR: 0.85; 95% CI: 0.62-1.15p = 0.30], chorioamnionitis [OR: 0.94; 95% CI: 0.76-1.17p = 0.59], Apgar at 5 min < 7 [OR: 0.83; 95% CI: 0.61-1.12, p = 0.21], meconium-stained liquor [OR: 1.11; 95% CI: 0.97-1.27p = 0.59], NICU admission group [OR: 0.91; 95% CI: 0.77-1.09], infant death [OR: 0.57; 95% CI: 0.22-1.44]. After performing a sub-group analysis based on the type of prostaglandins administrations (oral, vaginal gel, vaginal pessary), results did not change substantially.
Conclusions: This systematic review and meta-analysis demonstrate that misoprostol and dinoprostone appear to have a similar safety profile.
Keywords: Cesarean section; Dinoprostone; IOL; Induction of labor; Maternal complications; Misoprostol; NICU admission; Prostaglandins; Tachysystole.
Copyright © 2023 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
Conflict of interest statement
Declaration of Competing Interest The authors declare that they have no known competing financial interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence the work reported in this paper.
Similar articles
-
Methods of term labour induction for women with a previous caesarean section.Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2017 Jun 9;6(6):CD009792. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD009792.pub3. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2017. PMID: 28599068 Free PMC article.
-
Nitric oxide donors for cervical ripening and induction of labour.Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2016 Dec 5;12(12):CD006901. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD006901.pub3. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2016. PMID: 27918616 Free PMC article.
-
Pharmacological and mechanical interventions for labour induction in outpatient settings.Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2017 Sep 13;9(9):CD007701. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD007701.pub3. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2017. PMID: 28901007 Free PMC article.
-
The efficacy and safety of 25 μg or 50 μg oral misoprostol versus 25 μg vaginal misoprostol given at 4- or 6-hourly intervals for induction of labour in women at or beyond term with live singleton pregnancies: A systematic review and meta-analysis.Int J Gynaecol Obstet. 2024 Feb;164(2):482-498. doi: 10.1002/ijgo.14970. Epub 2023 Jul 3. Int J Gynaecol Obstet. 2024. PMID: 37401143
-
Acupuncture or acupressure for induction of labour.Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2017 Oct 17;10(10):CD002962. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD002962.pub4. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2017. PMID: 29036756 Free PMC article.
Cited by
-
Predictive Factors for the Success of Vaginal Dinoprostone for the Induction of Labour.Int J Womens Health. 2024 Jun 13;16:1093-1101. doi: 10.2147/IJWH.S461094. eCollection 2024. Int J Womens Health. 2024. PMID: 38887592 Free PMC article.
-
Safety of the use of dinoprostone gel and vaginal insert for induction of labor: A multicenter retrospective cohort study.Int J Gynaecol Obstet. 2025 Mar;168(3):1039-1046. doi: 10.1002/ijgo.15952. Epub 2024 Oct 14. Int J Gynaecol Obstet. 2025. PMID: 39400318 Free PMC article.
-
Induction of labor with dinoprostone in hypertensive disorders of pregnancy: comparative analysis with normotensive pregnant women.Colomb Med (Cali). 2025 Mar 30;56(1):e2016719. doi: 10.25100/cm.v56i1.6719. eCollection 2025 Jan-Mar. Colomb Med (Cali). 2025. PMID: 40585477 Free PMC article.
-
Vaginal dinoprostone insert compared with two different oral misoprostol regimens for labor induction in nulliparous and multiparous women.Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand. 2024 Nov;103(11):2306-2313. doi: 10.1111/aogs.14956. Epub 2024 Sep 2. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand. 2024. PMID: 39223038 Free PMC article.
-
Comparison of the Safety and Effectiveness of Labor Induction With 25 μg Versus 50 μg of Oral Misoprostol in Women With Premature Rupture of Membranes: A Randomized Controlled Trial.Health Sci Rep. 2025 May 5;8(5):e70817. doi: 10.1002/hsr2.70817. eCollection 2025 May. Health Sci Rep. 2025. PMID: 40330768 Free PMC article.
Publication types
MeSH terms
Substances
LinkOut - more resources
Full Text Sources