European journal of obstetrics, gynecology, and reproductive biology · 2023
Mode of delivery after labor induction with vaginal dinoprostone versus oral misoprostol for women with unfavorable cervix at term.
Наблюдательное исследованиеСтатьяНазвание и аннотация: Перевод пока не подготовлен
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.
Jolivet Solène, Delavallade Mélanie, Giraud Antoine, Chauleur Céline, Raia-Barjat Tiphaine
Аннотация
OBJECTIVE: To compare the delivery mode after labor induction with 10 mg vaginal dinoprostone insert versus oral misoprostol 50 µg/4 h for women with an unfavorable cervix.
MATERIAL AND METHODS: This is a retrospective observational study comparing the before/after introduction of oral misoprostol for labor induction, conducted at the Saint-Étienne University Hospital on a cohort of 396 women with a Bishop score <6. One hundred and twelve women (28.3%) were treated with a 10 mg vaginal dinoprostone insert versus 284 (71.7%) with oral misoprostol 50 µg/4 h. The primary outcome was the cesarean section rate.
RESULTS: Labor induction with vaginal dinoprostone was independently associated with an increased rate of cesarean sections compared to oral misoprostol (aOR = 2.44; CI95% from 1.35 to 4.40; p = 0.003). The use of vaginal dinoprostone increased the induction rate during more than 48 h (18.8% versus 9.9%; p = 0.02), and the occurrence of fetal heart rate changes (34.8% versus 21.1%; p = 0.005). The maternofetal morbidity was similar.
CONCLUSION: Labor induction with vaginal dinoprostone was independently associated with an increased rate of cesarean sections compared to oral misoprostol in women with an unfavorable cervix.
MATERIAL AND METHODS: This is a retrospective observational study comparing the before/after introduction of oral misoprostol for labor induction, conducted at the Saint-Étienne University Hospital on a cohort of 396 women with a Bishop score <6. One hundred and twelve women (28.3%) were treated with a 10 mg vaginal dinoprostone insert versus 284 (71.7%) with oral misoprostol 50 µg/4 h. The primary outcome was the cesarean section rate.
RESULTS: Labor induction with vaginal dinoprostone was independently associated with an increased rate of cesarean sections compared to oral misoprostol (aOR = 2.44; CI95% from 1.35 to 4.40; p = 0.003). The use of vaginal dinoprostone increased the induction rate during more than 48 h (18.8% versus 9.9%; p = 0.02), and the occurrence of fetal heart rate changes (34.8% versus 21.1%; p = 0.005). The maternofetal morbidity was similar.
CONCLUSION: Labor induction with vaginal dinoprostone was independently associated with an increased rate of cesarean sections compared to oral misoprostol in women with an unfavorable cervix.