Minerva ginecologica · 2008
[''Prepidil versus Propess'': pharmacological induction of labour with dinoprostone].
Сравнительное исследованиеАннотация на английскомСтатьяНазвание 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.
Arduini M, Giri C, Giannone L, Giannone E
Аннотация
AIM: The aim of the study was to evaluate the effectiveness and safety of the two different pharmaceutical preparations of dinoprostone: ''Prepidil vs Propess'', in patients with medical and/or obstetrical indications to pharmaceutical induction of labour.
METHODS: A retrospective analysis was carried out on 144 patients (82 with Propess vs 62 with Prepidil).
INDICATIONS: post-term pregnancy, premature rupture of membranes (PROM), gestational diabetes, gestational-chronic hypertension, intrauterine growth restriction (IUGR),others (fetal macrosomia, oligohydramnios).
RESULTS: The groups were homogenous regarding: age, parity, weeks of amenorrhea, Bishop score and indication to induction. Both pharmaceutical preparations of dinoprostone (Prepidil vs Propess) are effective and safe; there are some differences not statistically significant (P>0.01) regarding the percentage of spontaneous deliveries: 61.5% vs 63%, interval from induction to delivery 24.53 vs 20.45 h, number of inductions 1.35 vs 1.15 and neonatal outcome (Apgar scores at 1 and 5 min). A case of serious hyperstimulation with hysterectomy post-delivery after induction with Prepidi was observed.
CONCLUSION: A greater use of Propess, especially in patients with PROM, is suggested; Propess has determined a higher percentage of spontaneous deliveries, a shorter interval from induction to delivery and less risks for the mother. It is in fact possible to remove the device easily and safely in case of complication.
METHODS: A retrospective analysis was carried out on 144 patients (82 with Propess vs 62 with Prepidil).
INDICATIONS: post-term pregnancy, premature rupture of membranes (PROM), gestational diabetes, gestational-chronic hypertension, intrauterine growth restriction (IUGR),others (fetal macrosomia, oligohydramnios).
RESULTS: The groups were homogenous regarding: age, parity, weeks of amenorrhea, Bishop score and indication to induction. Both pharmaceutical preparations of dinoprostone (Prepidil vs Propess) are effective and safe; there are some differences not statistically significant (P>0.01) regarding the percentage of spontaneous deliveries: 61.5% vs 63%, interval from induction to delivery 24.53 vs 20.45 h, number of inductions 1.35 vs 1.15 and neonatal outcome (Apgar scores at 1 and 5 min). A case of serious hyperstimulation with hysterectomy post-delivery after induction with Prepidi was observed.
CONCLUSION: A greater use of Propess, especially in patients with PROM, is suggested; Propess has determined a higher percentage of spontaneous deliveries, a shorter interval from induction to delivery and less risks for the mother. It is in fact possible to remove the device easily and safely in case of complication.