The journal of maternal-fetal & neonatal medicine : the official journal of the European Association of Perinatal Medicine, the Federation of Asia and Oceania Perinatal Societies, the International Society of Perinatal Obstetricians · 2024
Efficacy and safety of oral and vaginal administration of misoprostol for induction of labor in high-risk obese pregnant women with hypertension or diabetes mellitus.
СтатьяНазвание 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.
Tian Shi, Wang Li, Han Yi-Wei, Liu Yan-Nan, Li Feng-Qiu, Jin Xiao-Hua
Аннотация
OBJECTIVE: This study aims to compare the safety and efficacy of misoprostol administered orally and vaginally in obese pregnant women at term with either gestational hypertension or diabetes.
METHODS: A total of 264 pregnant women were enrolled and categorized into two groups based on their primary condition: hypertension (134 cases) or diabetes mellitus (130 cases) and were further divided into subgroups for misoprostol administration: orally (Oral group) or vaginally (Vaginal group). The primary outcomes measured were changes in the Bishop score following treatment, induction of labor (IOL) success rates, requirement for oxytocin augmentation, duration of labor, mode of delivery, and cesarean section rates.
RESULTS: Significant enhancements in Bishop scores, decreased cesarean section rates and increased success rates of IOL were noted in both administration groups. The incidence of vaginal delivery within 24 h was significantly higher in the Vaginal group compared to the Oral group. Adverse effects, including nausea, uterine overcontraction, hyperfrequency of uterine contraction and uterine hyperstimulation without fetal heart rate deceleration, were significantly more prevalent in the Vaginal group than in the Oral group.
CONCLUSION: Misoprostol administration, both orally and vaginally, proves effective for labor induction in obese pregnant women with hypertension or diabetes. However, the oral route presents a lower risk of adverse maternal and neonatal outcomes, suggesting its preference for safer labor induction in this demographic.
METHODS: A total of 264 pregnant women were enrolled and categorized into two groups based on their primary condition: hypertension (134 cases) or diabetes mellitus (130 cases) and were further divided into subgroups for misoprostol administration: orally (Oral group) or vaginally (Vaginal group). The primary outcomes measured were changes in the Bishop score following treatment, induction of labor (IOL) success rates, requirement for oxytocin augmentation, duration of labor, mode of delivery, and cesarean section rates.
RESULTS: Significant enhancements in Bishop scores, decreased cesarean section rates and increased success rates of IOL were noted in both administration groups. The incidence of vaginal delivery within 24 h was significantly higher in the Vaginal group compared to the Oral group. Adverse effects, including nausea, uterine overcontraction, hyperfrequency of uterine contraction and uterine hyperstimulation without fetal heart rate deceleration, were significantly more prevalent in the Vaginal group than in the Oral group.
CONCLUSION: Misoprostol administration, both orally and vaginally, proves effective for labor induction in obese pregnant women with hypertension or diabetes. However, the oral route presents a lower risk of adverse maternal and neonatal outcomes, suggesting its preference for safer labor induction in this demographic.