Journal of perinatal medicine · 2007
Labor induction in preeclampsia: is misoprostol more effective than dinoprostone?
Сравнительное исследованиеСтатьяНазвание 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.
Lapaire Olav, Zanetti-Dällenbach Rosanna, Weber Patrizia, Hösli Irene, Holzgreve Wolfgang, Surbek Daniel
Аннотация
OBJECTIVE: To compare the efficacy of vaginal misoprostol versus dinoprostone for induction of labor (IOL) in patients with preeclampsia according to the WHO criteria.
STUDY DESIGN: Ninety-eight patients were retrospectively analyzed. A total of 47 patients received 3 mg dinoprostone suppositories every 6 h (max. 6 mg/24 h) whereas 51 patients in the misoprostol group received either 50 mug misoprostol vaginally every 12 h, or 25 mug every 6 h (max. 100 mug/24 h). Primary outcomes were vaginal delivery within 24 and 48 h, respectively.
RESULTS: The probability of delivering within 48 h was more than three-fold higher in the misoprostol than in the dinoprostone group: odds ratio (OR)=3.48; 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.24, 10.30, whereas no significant difference was observed within 24 h (P=0.34). No correlation was seen between a ripe cervix prior to IOL and delivery within 24/48 h (P=0.33 and P=1.0, respectively). More cesarean sections were performed in the dinoprostone group due to failed IOL (P=0.0009). No significant differences in adverse maternal outcome were observed between both study groups, whereas more neonates (12 vs. 6) of the dinoprostone group were admitted to the NICU (P=0.068).
CONCLUSION: This study suggests that misoprostol may have some advantages compared to dinoprostone, including improved efficacy and lower cost of the drug, even in cases of preeclampsia.
STUDY DESIGN: Ninety-eight patients were retrospectively analyzed. A total of 47 patients received 3 mg dinoprostone suppositories every 6 h (max. 6 mg/24 h) whereas 51 patients in the misoprostol group received either 50 mug misoprostol vaginally every 12 h, or 25 mug every 6 h (max. 100 mug/24 h). Primary outcomes were vaginal delivery within 24 and 48 h, respectively.
RESULTS: The probability of delivering within 48 h was more than three-fold higher in the misoprostol than in the dinoprostone group: odds ratio (OR)=3.48; 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.24, 10.30, whereas no significant difference was observed within 24 h (P=0.34). No correlation was seen between a ripe cervix prior to IOL and delivery within 24/48 h (P=0.33 and P=1.0, respectively). More cesarean sections were performed in the dinoprostone group due to failed IOL (P=0.0009). No significant differences in adverse maternal outcome were observed between both study groups, whereas more neonates (12 vs. 6) of the dinoprostone group were admitted to the NICU (P=0.068).
CONCLUSION: This study suggests that misoprostol may have some advantages compared to dinoprostone, including improved efficacy and lower cost of the drug, even in cases of preeclampsia.