European journal of obstetrics, gynecology, and reproductive biology · 2023
Safety of misoprostol vs dinoprostone for induction of labor: A systematic review and meta-analysis.
МетаанализСистематический обзорСтатьяНазвание 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.
Taliento Cristina, Manservigi Margherita, Tormen Mara, Cappadona Rosaria, Piccolotti Irene, Salvioli Stefano, Scutiero Gennaro, Greco Pantaleo
Аннотация
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.
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.