Olav Lapaire, Rosanna Zanetti-Dllenbach, Patrizia Weber, Irene Hsli, Wolfgang Holzgreve, Daniel Surbek
Labor induction in preeclampsia: Is misoprostol more effective than dinoprostone?
Objective: To compare the efficacy of vaginal misoprostol versus dinoprostone for induction of labor (IOL) in patients with preeclampsia according to the WHO criteria.
Study design: Ninety-eight patients were retrospectively analyzed. A total of 47 patients received 3 mg dinoprostone suppositories every 6 h (max. 6 mg/24 h) whereas 51 patients in the misoprostol group received either 50 μg misoprostol vaginally every 12 h, or 25 μg every 6 h (max. 100 μg/24 h). Primary outcomes were vaginal delivery within 24 and 48 h, respectively.
Results: The probability of delivering within 48 h was more than three-fold higher in the misoprostol than in the dinoprostone group: odds ratio (OR)=3.48; 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.24, 10.30, whereas no significant difference was observed within 24 h (P=0.34). No correlation was seen between a ripe cervix prior to IOL and delivery within 24/48 h (P=0.33 and P=1.0, respectively). More cesarean sections were performed in the dinoprostone group due to failed IOL (P=0.0009). No significant differences in adverse maternal outcome were observed between both study groups, whereas more neonates (12 vs. 6) of the dinoprostone group were admitted to the NICU (P=0.068).
Conclusion: This study suggests that misoprostol may have some advantages compared to dinoprostone, including improved efficacy and lower cost of the drug, even in cases of preeclampsia.
Journal of Perinatal Medicine, Walter de Gruyter
Print ISSN: 1619-3997
Volume: 35, 06/2007
Pages: 195 - 199
Show full article (external site)
Show all available items of this journal
Search
