Assessing the safety and efficacy of dinoprostone vaginal insert in pregnancy
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.18203/2320-1770.ijrcog20234088Keywords:
Cross-sectional study, Dinoprostone, Maternal outcomes, Misoprostol, Pregnancy inductionAbstract
Background: Induction of labor (IOL) is a procedure used to achieve vaginal birth when the hazards of extending the pregnancy for either the mother or the infant outweigh the dangers of delivery. It is often used in high-risk pregnancies, although it can also be useful in low-risk groups, as demonstrated by A Randomized Trial of Induction Versus Expectant Management (ARRIVE) study.
Methods: The cross-sectional study was conducted among 414 patients at Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology tertiary care hospital. The study was conducted for one-year duration in pregnant women with maternal age >18 years, gestational week >37 weeks, and Bishop score <7 was included in the study with no signs of labor. Demographic details such as age, pregnancy history, and mode of delivery were recorded for comparison. Patients with no induction of labor were administered misoprostol and/or dinoprostone based on clinical conditions with further evaluation of maternal complications, delivery time, birthweight of the fetus, and fetal heart rate. Data were analyzed based on percentages and a chi-square test was used (p-value <0.05).
Results: The mode of delivery did not significantly affect delivery outcomes (p=0.354), with assisted delivery being the most common (35.41%). Indication for induction was found to be significant (p=0.034), with non-progress of labor being the most common indication (55.2%). Maternal complications were not significantly associated with delivery outcomes (p=0.390), with 60 (14.49%) patients experiencing complications. The use of misoprostol reported a significant difference between modes of delivery with 74.93% of vaginal delivery, 19.47% with lower segment cesarean section (LSCS), and 5.60% with assisted delivery (p value <0.03).
Conclusions: In low-risk pregnant women, the dinoprostone or misoprostol vaginal inserts are both safe and effective for inducing labor. Nulliparous individuals and those who did not get epidural analgesia during labor had a higher chance of caesarean section.
Metrics
References
Atia H, Ellaithy M, Altraigey A, Kolkailah M, Alserehi A, Ashfaq S. Mechanical induction of labor and ecbolic-less vaginal birth after cesarean section: A cohort study. Taiwan J Obstet Gynecol. 2018;57(3):421-6.
de Vaan MD, Ten Eikelder ML, Jozwiak M, Palmer KR, Davies‐Tuck M, Bloemenkamp KW, et al. Mechanical methods for induction of labour. Cochr Data Syst Revi. 2019(10):CD001233
Lee HH, Huang BS, Cheng M, Yeh CC, Lin IC, Horng HC, Huang HY, Lee WL, Wang PH. Intracervical foley catheter plus intravaginal misoprostol vs intravaginal misoprostol alone for cervical ripening: a meta-analysis. Int J Environm Res Publ Heal. 2020;17(6):1825.
Society for Maternal-Fetal Medicine. SMFM statement on elective induction of labor in low-risk nulliparous women at term: the ARRIVE trial. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2019;221(1):B2-4.
Middleton P, Shepherd E, Crowther CA. Induction of labour for improving birth outcomes for women at or beyond term. Cochr Datab Syst Revi. 2018(5):CD004945.
Yang MT, Yu MH, Yeh CC, Tseng WC. Labor pain-induced chordae tendineae rupture. Taiwan J Obstet Gynecol. 2020;59(2):342-3.
Lo PF, Lin YL, Chang WH, Wang PH. Prophylactic cervical cerclage for cervical insufficiency. Taiwan J Obstet Gynecol. 2020;59(3):473-4.
Manly E, Hiersch L, Moloney A, Berndl A, Mei-Dan E, Zaltz A, et al. Comparing foley catheter to prostaglandins for cervical ripening in multiparous women. J Obstet Gynaecol Cana. 2020;42(7):853-60.
Ellis JA, Brown CM, Barger B, Carlson NS. Influence of maternal obesity on labor induction: a systematic review and meta‐analysis. J Midwife Women Heal. 2019;64(1):55-67.
Rugarn O, Tipping D, Powers B, Wing DA. Induction of labour with retrievable prostaglandin vaginal inserts: outcomes following retrieval due to an intrapartum adverse event. BJOG: Int J Obstet Gynaecol. 2017;124(5):796-803.
Pierce S, Bakker R, Myers DA, Edwards RK. Clinical insights for cervical ripening and labor induction using prostaglandins. AJP Rep. 2018;8(04):e307-14.
Hughes EG, Kelly AJ, Kavanagh J. Dinoprostone vaginal insert for cervical ripening and labor induction: a meta-analysis. Obstet Gynecol. 2001;97(5):847-55.
Grobman WA, Rice MM, Reddy UM, Tita ATN, Silver RM, Mallett G, et al. Labor Induction versus Expectant Management in Low-Risk Nulliparous Women. N Engl J Med. 2018;379(6):513-23.
Oğlak SC, Bademkıran MH, Obut M. Predictor variables in the success of slow-release dinoprostone used for cervical ripening in intrauterine growth restriction pregnancies. J Gynecol Obstet Human Reprod. 2020;49(6):101739.
Manly E, Hiersch L, Moloney A, Berndl A, Mei-Dan E, Zaltz A, et al. Comparing foley catheter to prostaglandins for cervical ripening in multiparous women. J Obstet Gynaecol Canada. 2020;42(7):853-60.
Tseng JY, Lin IC, Chang WH, Yeh CC, Horng HC, Wang PH. Using dinoprostone vaginal insert for induction of labor: A single institute experience. Taiwan J Obstet Gynecol. 2020;59(5):723-7.
Kansu-Celik H, Gun-Eryılmaz O, Dogan NU, Haktankaçmaz S, Cinar M, Yilmaz SS, et al. Prostaglandin E2 induction of labor and cervical ripening for term isolated oligohydramnios in pregnant women with Bishop score≤ 5. J Chin Medi Associat. 2017;80(3):169-72.
