Oral misoprostol, low dose vaginal misoprostol, and vaginal dinoprostone for labor induction: Randomized controlled trial
Autoři:
David C. Young aff001; Tina Delaney aff001; B. Anthony Armson aff001; Cora Fanning aff001
Působiště autorů:
Department of Obstetrics & Gynaecology, Dalhousie University, Halifax, Nova Scotia, Canada
aff001; Department of Obstetrics & Gynaecology, IWK Health Centre, Halifax, Nova Scotia, Canada
aff002; Department of Obstetrics & Gynaecology, Memorial University of Newfoundland, St. John’s, Newfoundland and Labrador, Canada
aff003
Vyšlo v časopise:
PLoS ONE 15(1)
Kategorie:
Research Article
doi:
https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0227245
Souhrn
Objective
To compare effectiveness and safety of oral misoprostol (50 μg every four hours as needed), low dose vaginal misoprostol (25 to 50 μg every six hours as needed), and our established dinoprostone vaginal gel (one to two mg every six hours as needed) induction.
Materials and methods
Consenting women with a live term single cephalic fetus for indicated labor induction were randomized (3N = 511). Prior uterine surgery or non-reassuring fetal surveillance were exclusions. Concealed computer generated randomization was stratified and blocked. Newborns were assessed by a team unaware of group assignment. The primary outcome was time from induction at randomization to vaginal birth for initial parametric analysis. Sample size was based on mean difference of 240 minutes with α2 = 0.05 and power 95%. Non-parametric analysis was also pre-specified ranking cesareans as longest vaginal births.
Results
Enrollment was from April 1999 to December 2000. Demographics were similar across groups. Analysis was by intent to treat, with no loss to follow up. Mean time (±SD) to vaginal birth was 1356 (±1033) minutes for oral misoprostol, 1530 (±3249) minutes for vaginal misoprostol, and 1208 (±613) minutes for vaginal dinoprostone (P = 0.46, ANOVA). Median times to vaginal birth were 1571, 1339, and 1451 minutes respectively (P = 0.46, Kruskal-Wallis). Vaginal births occurred within 24 hours in 44.9, 53.5 and 47.7% respectively (P = 0.27, χ2). There were no significant differences in Kaplan Meier survival analyses, cesareans, adverse effects, or maternal satisfaction. The newborn who met birth asphyxia criteria received vaginal misoprostol, as did. all three other newborns with cord artery pH<7.0 (P = 0.04, Fisher Exact).
Conclusion
There was no significant difference in effectiveness of the three groups. Profound newborn acidemia, though infrequent, occurred only with low dose vaginal misoprostol.
Klíčová slova:
Birth – Hypertensive disorders in pregnancy – Labor and delivery – Neonates – Oral administration – Oxytocin – Randomized controlled trials – Parametric analysis
Zdroje
1. ACOG Practice Bulletin No. 107. American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists. Induction of labor. Obstet Gynecol 2009;114:386–97. doi: 10.1097/AOG.0b013e3181b48ef5 19623003
2. Society of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists of Canada. SOGC Clinical Practice Guideline No 296. Induction of Labour, 2013. J Obstet Gynaecol Can 2013;35:840–57. doi: 10.1016/S1701-2163(15)30842-2 24099451
3. Alfirevic Z, Keeney E, Dowswell T, Welton NJ, Dias S, Jones LV, et al. Labour induction with prostaglandins: a systematic review and network meta-analysis. BMJ 2015;350:h217. doi: 10.1136/bmj.h217 25656228
4. Grobman WA, Rice MM, Reddy UM, Tita AT, Silver RM, Mallett G et al. Labour induction versus expectant management in low-risk nulliparous women. N Engl J Med 2018;379:513–23. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa1800566 30089070
5. Kelly A, Malik S, Smith L, Kavanagh J, Thomas J. Vaginal prostaglandin (PGE2 and PGF2α) for induction of labour at term. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2009;4:CD003101. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/14651858,cd003101.pub2
6. Boulvain M, Kelly A, Irion O. Intracervical prostaglandins for induction of labour. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2008;1:CD006971. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/14651858.cd006971
7. Rayburn WF, Wapner RJ, Barss VA, Spitzberg E, Molina RD, Mandsager N, et al. An intravaginal controlled-release prostaglandin E2 pessary for cervical ripening and initiation of labor at term. Obstet Gynecol 1992;79:374–9. doi: 10.1097/00006250-199203000-00009 1738517
8. French L. Oral prostaglandin E2 for induction of labour. Cochrane Database of Systemic Reviews: John Wiley & Sons, Ltd; 2001.
9. Garris RE, Kirkwood CF. Misoprostol: A prostaglandin E1 analogue. Clin Pharm 1989;8:627–44. 2507215
10. Sanchez-Ramos L, Kaunitz AM, Del Valle GO, Delke I, Schroeder PA, Briones DK. Labor induction with the prostaglandin E1 methyl analogue misoprostol versus oxytocin: A randomized trial. Obstet Gynecol 1993;81:332–6. 8437780
11. Fletcher HM, Mitchell S, Simeon D, Frederick J, Brown D. Intravaginal misoprostol as a cervical ripening agent. Br J Obstet Gynaecol 1993;100:641–4. doi: 10.1111/j.1471-0528.1993.tb14230.x 8369246
12. Wing DA, Jones MM, Rahall A, Goodwin TM, Paul RH. A comparison of misoprostol and prostaglandin E2 gel for preinduction cervical ripening and labor induction. Am J Obstet Gynecol 1995;172:1804–10. doi: 10.1016/0002-9378(95)91415-3 7778636
13. Mundle WR, Young DC. Vaginal misoprostol for induction of labour: A randomized controlled trial. Obstet Gynaecol 1996;88:521–5.
14. WHO recommendations for induction of labour. Geneva: World Health Organisation; 2011. ISBN 9789241501156/en. www.who.int/reproductivehealth/publications/maternal_health
15. Windrim R, Bennett K, Mundle W, Young DC. Oral administration of misoprostol for labour induction: a randomized controlled trial. Obstet Gynaecol 1997;89:392–7.
16. Bennett KA, Butt K, Crane JMG, Hutchens D, Young DC. A masked randomized comparison of oral and vaginal administration of misoprostol for labor induction. Obstet Gynecol 1998;92:481–6. doi: 10.1016/s0029-7844(98)00226-9 9764615
17. Alfirevic Z, Aflaifel N, Weeks A. Oral misoprostol for induction of labour. The Cochrane database of systematic reviews. 2014;(6):Cd001338. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD001338.pub3 CD001338.pub3 24924489
18. Muzonzini G, Hofmeyr GJ. Buccal or sublingual misoprostol for cervical ripening and induction of labour. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2004;4:CD004221. http://dx.doi.org/10.0002/14651858.cd004221.pub2
19. Hofmeyr GJ, Gulmezoglu AM, Pileggi C. Vaginal misoprostol for cervical ripening and induction of labour. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2010;10:CD000941. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/14651858.cd000941.pub2
20. Jozwiak M, Bloemenkamp KW, Kelly AJ, Mol BW, Irion O, Boulvain M. Mechanical methods for induction of labour. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2012;3:CD001233. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/14651858.cd001233.pub2
21. Jozwiak M, Oude Rengerink K, Benthem M, van Beek E, Dijksterhuis MGK, de Graaf IM, et al. Foley catheter versus vaginal prostaglandin E2 gel for induction of labour at term (PROBAAT trial): an open-label, randomized controlled trial. Lancet 2011;378:2095–103. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(11)61484-0 22030144
22. Ten Eikelder MLG, Oude Rengerink K, Jozwiak M, de Leeuw JW, de Graaf IM, van Pampus MG, et al. Induction of labour at term with oral misoprostol versus Foley catheter (PROBAAT-II): a multicenter randomized controlled non-inferiority trial. Lancet 2016;387:1619–28. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(16)00084-2 26850983
23. Alfirevic Z, Keeney E, Dowswell T, Welton NJ, Medley N, Dias S, et al. Methods to induce labour: a systematic review, network meta-analysis and cost-effectiveness analysis. BJOG 2016;123:1462–70. doi: 10.1111/1471-0528.13981 27001034
24. Alfirevic Z, Keeney E, Dowswell T, Welton NJ, Medley N, Dias S, et al. Which method is best for the induction of labour? A systematic review, network meta-analysis and cost-effectiveness analysis. Health Technol Assess 2016;20(65). doi: 10.3310/hta20650 27587290
25. Weeks AD, Navaratnam K, Alfirevic Z. Simplifying oral misoprostol protocols for the induction of labour. BJOG 2017;124,1642–5. doi: 10.1111/1471-0528.14657 28342186
26. Thornton J. Feedback 2014;2:326–7 in Alfirevic Z, Aflaifel N, Weeks A. Oral misoprostol for induction of labour. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2014;6:CD001338.
27. Meinert CL. Sample Size, Number of Treatment Groups. In: Clinical Trials–Design, Conduct, and Analysis. Oxford University Press, 1986, pg.74.
28. ACOG Committee Opinion. Fetal distress and birth asphyxia. 137 April 1994. The American college of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, Washington, DC.
29. Curtis P, Evans S, Resnick J. Uterine hyperstimulation: The need for standard terminology. J Reprod Med 1987;32:91–5. 3560084
30. Hofmeyr GJ, Alfirevic Z, Kelly AJ, Kavanagh J, Thomas J, Neilson JP, et al. Methods for cervical ripening and labour induction in late pregnancy; generic protocol. Cochrane Database of Systematic Review 2009, Issue 3. Art. No.: CD002074. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD002074.pub2
31. Hodnett ED, Simmons-Tropea DA. The labor agentry scale; psychometric properties of an instrument measuring control during childbirth. Res Nurs Health 1987;10:301–10. doi: 10.1002/nur.4770100503 3671777
32. Norman GR, Streiner DL. Biostatistics: the bare essentials. Fourth edition. Shelton CT; People’s Medical Publishing House. 2014.
33. Tukey J. Comparing individual means in analysis of variance. Biometrics 1949;5(2):99–114. 18151955
34. Dunn OJ. Multiple comparisons using rank sums. Technometrics 1964; 5:241–252.
35. Lauzon L, Fahey J, Ezurike H. Temporal trends in maternal characteristics in Nova Scotia. Abstract # P-OBS-RN-119. J Obstet Gynaecol Can 2019;41:723
36. Nova Scotia Atlee perinatal database report of indicators 2005–14 available at http://rcp.nshealth.ca
37. Nova Scotia Atlee perinatal database report of indicators 2000–09 available at http://rcp.nshealth.ca
38. Schoen C, Navathe R. Failed induction of labor. Semin Perinatol 2015;39:483–7. http://dx.doi.org/10.1053/j.semperi.2015.07.013. O146-0005/©Elsevier Inc. 26341068
39. Lehmann EL. Parametric versus nonparametrics: two alternative methodologies. J Nonpara Stat 2009;21:397–405 doi: 10.1080/10485250902842727
40. Zieman M, Fong SK, Benowitz NL, Banskter D, Darney PD. Absorption kinetics of misoprostol with oral or vaginal administration. Obstet Gynecol 1997;90:88–92. doi: 10.1016/S0029-7844(97)00111-7 9207820
41. Tang OS, Schweer H, Seyberth HW, Lee SWH, HO PC. Pharmacokinetics of different routes of administration of misoprostol. Human Reproduction 2002;17:332–6. doi: 10.1093/humrep/17.2.332 11821273
42. Cicinelli E, De Ziegler D, Bulletti C, Matteo MG, Schonauer LM, Galantino P. Direct transport of progesterone from vagina to uterus. Obstet Gynecol 2000;95:403–6. doi: 10.1016/s0029-7844(99)00542-6 10711552
43. Gemzell-Danielsson KG, Marions L, Rodriguez A, Spur BW, Wong PYK, Bygdeman M. Comparison between oral and vaginal administration of misoprostol on uterine contractility. Obstet Gynecol 1999;93:275–80. doi: 10.1016/s0029-7844(98)00436-0 9932569
44. Mundle S, Bracken H, Khedikar V, Mulik J, Faragher B, Easterling T, et al. Foley catheterisation versus oral misoprostol for induction of labour in hypertensive women in India (INFORM): a multicenter, open-label, randomized controlled trial. Lancet 2017;390:669–80. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(17)31367-3 28668289
45. Stephenson ML, Wing DA. A novel misoprostol delivery system for induction of labor: clinical utility and patient considerations. Drug Des Devel Ther 2015; 9: 2321–27. doi: 10.2147/DDDT.S64227 25960635
46. Wing DA, Brown R, Plante LA, Miller H. Rugarn O, Powers BL. Misoprostol vaginal insert and time to vaginal delivery: a randomized controlled trial. Obstet Gynecol 2013;122:201–9. doi: 10.1097/AOG.0b013e31829a2dd6 23857539
47. 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 2017;124:796–803. doi: 10.1111/1471-0528.14147 27307397
48. Rouse DJ. The misoprostol vaginal insert: Déjà vu all over again. Obstet Gynecol 2013;122:193–4 doi: 10.1097/AOG.0b013e31829c5abd 23969783
49. Robinson JN. Induction of labour: many choices, but still in search of the perfect protocol. BJOG 2017;124:803. doi: 10.1111/1471-0528.14186 27347665
Článek vyšel v časopise
PLOS One
2020 Číslo 1
- Tisícileté topoly, mokří psi, stárnoucí kočky a ospalé octomilky – „jednohubky“ z výzkumu 2024/41
- Jaké jsou aktuální trendy v léčbě karcinomu slinivky?
- Může hubnutí souviset s vyšším rizikem nádorových onemocnění?
- Menstruační krev má značný diagnostický potenciál, mimo jiné u diabetu
- Metamizol jako analgetikum první volby: kdy, pro koho, jak a proč?
Nejčtenější v tomto čísle
- Severity of misophonia symptoms is associated with worse cognitive control when exposed to misophonia trigger sounds
- Chemical analysis of snus products from the United States and northern Europe
- Calcium dobesilate reduces VEGF signaling by interfering with heparan sulfate binding site and protects from vascular complications in diabetic mice
- Effect of Lactobacillus acidophilus D2/CSL (CECT 4529) supplementation in drinking water on chicken crop and caeca microbiome
Zvyšte si kvalifikaci online z pohodlí domova
Všechny kurzy