American journal of obstetrics and gynecology · 2004
A randomized trial that compared intravaginal misoprostol and dinoprostone vaginal insert in pregnancies at high risk of fetal distress.
Клиническое исследованиеСравнительное исследованиеСтатьяРандомизированное исследованиеНазвание и аннотация: Перевод в очереди
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Rozenberg Patrick, Chevret Sylvie, Sénat Marie-Victoire, Bretelle Florence, Paule Bonnal Anne, Ville Yves
Аннотация
OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to compare the safety and efficacy of misoprostol and dinoprostone in pregnancies at high risk of fetal distress.
STUDY DESIGN: Medical indications for the induction of labor with postdate pregnancy or intrauterine growth restriction were randomized. A sequential design that was based on the triangular test was used.
RESULTS: At the fourth interim analysis, which included 140 patients, the trial was stopped because no significant difference was found in neonatal safety between misoprostol and dinoprostone, which was assessed on arterial cord pH <7.20 (14.3% vs 10.0%, respectively; P=.60). Neonatal tolerance was similar in the 2 groups, with no difference in the cesarean delivery rate for fetal distress or in the incidence of meconium-stained amniotic fluid. Time to vaginal delivery was shortened by misoprostol (P=.03).
CONCLUSION: Misoprostol and dinoprostone are equally safe for the induction of labor in pregnancies that are at high risk of fetal distress; however, misoprostol allowed the earlier induction of labor than did dinoprostone.
STUDY DESIGN: Medical indications for the induction of labor with postdate pregnancy or intrauterine growth restriction were randomized. A sequential design that was based on the triangular test was used.
RESULTS: At the fourth interim analysis, which included 140 patients, the trial was stopped because no significant difference was found in neonatal safety between misoprostol and dinoprostone, which was assessed on arterial cord pH <7.20 (14.3% vs 10.0%, respectively; P=.60). Neonatal tolerance was similar in the 2 groups, with no difference in the cesarean delivery rate for fetal distress or in the incidence of meconium-stained amniotic fluid. Time to vaginal delivery was shortened by misoprostol (P=.03).
CONCLUSION: Misoprostol and dinoprostone are equally safe for the induction of labor in pregnancies that are at high risk of fetal distress; however, misoprostol allowed the earlier induction of labor than did dinoprostone.