Observational Study of Neonatal Safety for Outpatient Labour Induction Priming with Dinoprostone Vaginal Insert
Abstract Objectives To evaluate the safety of outpatient induction with dinoprostone insert in low-risk labour inductions for premature rupture of membranes or postdates gestation. Methods This retrospective cohort study compared outpatient labour induction priming with inpatient induction in terms...
Gespeichert in:
Veröffentlicht in: | Journal of obstetrics and gynaecology Canada 2017-05, Vol.39 (5), p.354-360 |
---|---|
Hauptverfasser: | , , , |
Format: | Artikel |
Sprache: | eng |
Schlagworte: | |
Online-Zugang: | Volltext |
Tags: |
Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
|
container_end_page | 360 |
---|---|
container_issue | 5 |
container_start_page | 354 |
container_title | Journal of obstetrics and gynaecology Canada |
container_volume | 39 |
creator | Cundiff, Geoffrey W., MD Simpson, Mary Lynn, MD Koenig, Nicole, BS Lee, Terry, PhD |
description | Abstract Objectives To evaluate the safety of outpatient induction with dinoprostone insert in low-risk labour inductions for premature rupture of membranes or postdates gestation. Methods This retrospective cohort study compared outpatient labour induction priming with inpatient induction in terms of neonatal safety, mode of delivery, and obstetrical parameters. The sample included all inductions for premature rupture of membranes or postdate gestation. The analysis used logistic regression. The statistical power of the sample was 80% to detect a difference of 5.6% for the composite neonatal safety outcome (5-minute Apgar score 12 hours or transfer to a level III nursery). Results Compared with the inpatient cohort (n = 568), the outpatient cohort (n = 611) included more postdate gestations (93% vs. 67%) with less cervical dilatation (0.5 cm vs. 1.0 cm) and larger infants (3705 g vs. 3551 g). There were no differences in measures of neonatal safety or mode of delivery. The outpatient cohort required more dinoprostone inserts (1.59 vs. 1.23) and were less likely to deliver within 24 hours (OR 0.24, 95% CI 0.17 to 0.34) but were also less likely to deliver by CS (OR 0.71, 95% CI 0.54 to 0.95), after adjusting for obstetrical parameters. Conclusion An outpatient model of labour induction using dinoprostone inserts is feasible and safe. |
doi_str_mv | 10.1016/j.jogc.2017.01.003 |
format | Article |
fullrecord | <record><control><sourceid>proquest_cross</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_1883183028</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><els_id>S1701216316398061</els_id><sourcerecordid>1883183028</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c411t-6a56ed53866d400453c4043235403b5967493703761351417b358053c63ca9e03</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNp9kUFv1DAQhX0A0bL0D3BAPnLZMM4kTiIhJFQorLRikVq4Wo4zWRyy8WI7Rfvv62gLBw5Ilixb772Z-YaxlwIyAUK-GbLB7U2Wg6gyEBkAPmGXogKxzoXEC_Y8hAGgrLBqnrGLvEaJEuQlc7s2kL_X0bpJj_w2zt2Ju55_ofSOy4_uKZ547zzfzfGYhDRFvtWtmz3fTN1sFiv_6u3BTnv-28Yf_IOd3NG7EN1E_Lve2yV6M6VC8QV72usx0NXjvWLfbj7eXX9eb3efNtfvt2tTCBHXUpeSuhJrKbsCoCjRFFBgjmUB2JaNrIoGK8BKCixFIaoWyxqSSqLRDQGu2Otzburj10whqoMNhsZRT-TmoERdo6gREokVy89Sk1oOnnp1TMNof1IC1AJXDWqBqxa4CoRKcJPp1WP-3B6o-2v5QzYJ3p4FlKa8t-RVMAmdoc56MlF1zv4__90_djPayRo9_qQThSHRT1DTHCrkCtTtsupl0-k0NSQqDzbpoNs</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Aggregation Database</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>1883183028</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>Observational Study of Neonatal Safety for Outpatient Labour Induction Priming with Dinoprostone Vaginal Insert</title><source>Alma/SFX Local Collection</source><creator>Cundiff, Geoffrey W., MD ; Simpson, Mary Lynn, MD ; Koenig, Nicole, BS ; Lee, Terry, PhD</creator><creatorcontrib>Cundiff, Geoffrey W., MD ; Simpson, Mary Lynn, MD ; Koenig, Nicole, BS ; Lee, Terry, PhD</creatorcontrib><description>Abstract Objectives To evaluate the safety of outpatient induction with dinoprostone insert in low-risk labour inductions for premature rupture of membranes or postdates gestation. Methods This retrospective cohort study compared outpatient labour induction priming with inpatient induction in terms of neonatal safety, mode of delivery, and obstetrical parameters. The sample included all inductions for premature rupture of membranes or postdate gestation. The analysis used logistic regression. The statistical power of the sample was 80% to detect a difference of 5.6% for the composite neonatal safety outcome (5-minute Apgar score <7 and NICU admission for >12 hours or transfer to a level III nursery). Results Compared with the inpatient cohort (n = 568), the outpatient cohort (n = 611) included more postdate gestations (93% vs. 67%) with less cervical dilatation (0.5 cm vs. 1.0 cm) and larger infants (3705 g vs. 3551 g). There were no differences in measures of neonatal safety or mode of delivery. The outpatient cohort required more dinoprostone inserts (1.59 vs. 1.23) and were less likely to deliver within 24 hours (OR 0.24, 95% CI 0.17 to 0.34) but were also less likely to deliver by CS (OR 0.71, 95% CI 0.54 to 0.95), after adjusting for obstetrical parameters. Conclusion An outpatient model of labour induction using dinoprostone inserts is feasible and safe.</description><identifier>ISSN: 1701-2163</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1016/j.jogc.2017.01.003</identifier><identifier>PMID: 28363606</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>Netherlands: Elsevier Inc</publisher><subject>dinoprostone vaginal insert ; Labour induction ; Obstetrics and Gynecology ; prostaglandins</subject><ispartof>Journal of obstetrics and gynaecology Canada, 2017-05, Vol.39 (5), p.354-360</ispartof><rights>Society of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists of Canada</rights><rights>2017 The Society of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists of Canada/La Société des obstétriciens et gynécologues du Canada</rights><rights>Copyright © 2017 The Society of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists of Canada/La Société des obstétriciens et gynécologues du Canada. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-c411t-6a56ed53866d400453c4043235403b5967493703761351417b358053c63ca9e03</citedby><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-c411t-6a56ed53866d400453c4043235403b5967493703761351417b358053c63ca9e03</cites><orcidid>0000-0003-3668-6545 ; 0000-0002-5777-7836 ; 0000-0002-9578-5191</orcidid></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><link.rule.ids>314,776,780,27901,27902</link.rule.ids><backlink>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/28363606$$D View this record in MEDLINE/PubMed$$Hfree_for_read</backlink></links><search><creatorcontrib>Cundiff, Geoffrey W., MD</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Simpson, Mary Lynn, MD</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Koenig, Nicole, BS</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Lee, Terry, PhD</creatorcontrib><title>Observational Study of Neonatal Safety for Outpatient Labour Induction Priming with Dinoprostone Vaginal Insert</title><title>Journal of obstetrics and gynaecology Canada</title><addtitle>J Obstet Gynaecol Can</addtitle><description>Abstract Objectives To evaluate the safety of outpatient induction with dinoprostone insert in low-risk labour inductions for premature rupture of membranes or postdates gestation. Methods This retrospective cohort study compared outpatient labour induction priming with inpatient induction in terms of neonatal safety, mode of delivery, and obstetrical parameters. The sample included all inductions for premature rupture of membranes or postdate gestation. The analysis used logistic regression. The statistical power of the sample was 80% to detect a difference of 5.6% for the composite neonatal safety outcome (5-minute Apgar score <7 and NICU admission for >12 hours or transfer to a level III nursery). Results Compared with the inpatient cohort (n = 568), the outpatient cohort (n = 611) included more postdate gestations (93% vs. 67%) with less cervical dilatation (0.5 cm vs. 1.0 cm) and larger infants (3705 g vs. 3551 g). There were no differences in measures of neonatal safety or mode of delivery. The outpatient cohort required more dinoprostone inserts (1.59 vs. 1.23) and were less likely to deliver within 24 hours (OR 0.24, 95% CI 0.17 to 0.34) but were also less likely to deliver by CS (OR 0.71, 95% CI 0.54 to 0.95), after adjusting for obstetrical parameters. Conclusion An outpatient model of labour induction using dinoprostone inserts is feasible and safe.</description><subject>dinoprostone vaginal insert</subject><subject>Labour induction</subject><subject>Obstetrics and Gynecology</subject><subject>prostaglandins</subject><issn>1701-2163</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2017</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><recordid>eNp9kUFv1DAQhX0A0bL0D3BAPnLZMM4kTiIhJFQorLRikVq4Wo4zWRyy8WI7Rfvv62gLBw5Ilixb772Z-YaxlwIyAUK-GbLB7U2Wg6gyEBkAPmGXogKxzoXEC_Y8hAGgrLBqnrGLvEaJEuQlc7s2kL_X0bpJj_w2zt2Ju55_ofSOy4_uKZ547zzfzfGYhDRFvtWtmz3fTN1sFiv_6u3BTnv-28Yf_IOd3NG7EN1E_Lve2yV6M6VC8QV72usx0NXjvWLfbj7eXX9eb3efNtfvt2tTCBHXUpeSuhJrKbsCoCjRFFBgjmUB2JaNrIoGK8BKCixFIaoWyxqSSqLRDQGu2Otzburj10whqoMNhsZRT-TmoERdo6gREokVy89Sk1oOnnp1TMNof1IC1AJXDWqBqxa4CoRKcJPp1WP-3B6o-2v5QzYJ3p4FlKa8t-RVMAmdoc56MlF1zv4__90_djPayRo9_qQThSHRT1DTHCrkCtTtsupl0-k0NSQqDzbpoNs</recordid><startdate>20170501</startdate><enddate>20170501</enddate><creator>Cundiff, Geoffrey W., MD</creator><creator>Simpson, Mary Lynn, MD</creator><creator>Koenig, Nicole, BS</creator><creator>Lee, Terry, PhD</creator><general>Elsevier Inc</general><scope>NPM</scope><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>7X8</scope><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0003-3668-6545</orcidid><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0002-5777-7836</orcidid><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0002-9578-5191</orcidid></search><sort><creationdate>20170501</creationdate><title>Observational Study of Neonatal Safety for Outpatient Labour Induction Priming with Dinoprostone Vaginal Insert</title><author>Cundiff, Geoffrey W., MD ; Simpson, Mary Lynn, MD ; Koenig, Nicole, BS ; Lee, Terry, PhD</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c411t-6a56ed53866d400453c4043235403b5967493703761351417b358053c63ca9e03</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2017</creationdate><topic>dinoprostone vaginal insert</topic><topic>Labour induction</topic><topic>Obstetrics and Gynecology</topic><topic>prostaglandins</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Cundiff, Geoffrey W., MD</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Simpson, Mary Lynn, MD</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Koenig, Nicole, BS</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Lee, Terry, PhD</creatorcontrib><collection>PubMed</collection><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>MEDLINE - Academic</collection><jtitle>Journal of obstetrics and gynaecology Canada</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Cundiff, Geoffrey W., MD</au><au>Simpson, Mary Lynn, MD</au><au>Koenig, Nicole, BS</au><au>Lee, Terry, PhD</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>Observational Study of Neonatal Safety for Outpatient Labour Induction Priming with Dinoprostone Vaginal Insert</atitle><jtitle>Journal of obstetrics and gynaecology Canada</jtitle><addtitle>J Obstet Gynaecol Can</addtitle><date>2017-05-01</date><risdate>2017</risdate><volume>39</volume><issue>5</issue><spage>354</spage><epage>360</epage><pages>354-360</pages><issn>1701-2163</issn><abstract>Abstract Objectives To evaluate the safety of outpatient induction with dinoprostone insert in low-risk labour inductions for premature rupture of membranes or postdates gestation. Methods This retrospective cohort study compared outpatient labour induction priming with inpatient induction in terms of neonatal safety, mode of delivery, and obstetrical parameters. The sample included all inductions for premature rupture of membranes or postdate gestation. The analysis used logistic regression. The statistical power of the sample was 80% to detect a difference of 5.6% for the composite neonatal safety outcome (5-minute Apgar score <7 and NICU admission for >12 hours or transfer to a level III nursery). Results Compared with the inpatient cohort (n = 568), the outpatient cohort (n = 611) included more postdate gestations (93% vs. 67%) with less cervical dilatation (0.5 cm vs. 1.0 cm) and larger infants (3705 g vs. 3551 g). There were no differences in measures of neonatal safety or mode of delivery. The outpatient cohort required more dinoprostone inserts (1.59 vs. 1.23) and were less likely to deliver within 24 hours (OR 0.24, 95% CI 0.17 to 0.34) but were also less likely to deliver by CS (OR 0.71, 95% CI 0.54 to 0.95), after adjusting for obstetrical parameters. Conclusion An outpatient model of labour induction using dinoprostone inserts is feasible and safe.</abstract><cop>Netherlands</cop><pub>Elsevier Inc</pub><pmid>28363606</pmid><doi>10.1016/j.jogc.2017.01.003</doi><tpages>7</tpages><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0003-3668-6545</orcidid><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0002-5777-7836</orcidid><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0002-9578-5191</orcidid></addata></record> |
fulltext | fulltext |
identifier | ISSN: 1701-2163 |
ispartof | Journal of obstetrics and gynaecology Canada, 2017-05, Vol.39 (5), p.354-360 |
issn | 1701-2163 |
language | eng |
recordid | cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_1883183028 |
source | Alma/SFX Local Collection |
subjects | dinoprostone vaginal insert Labour induction Obstetrics and Gynecology prostaglandins |
title | Observational Study of Neonatal Safety for Outpatient Labour Induction Priming with Dinoprostone Vaginal Insert |
url | https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2025-01-31T16%3A11%3A24IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-proquest_cross&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Observational%20Study%20of%20Neonatal%20Safety%20for%20Outpatient%20Labour%20Induction%20Priming%20with%20Dinoprostone%20Vaginal%20Insert&rft.jtitle=Journal%20of%20obstetrics%20and%20gynaecology%20Canada&rft.au=Cundiff,%20Geoffrey%20W.,%20MD&rft.date=2017-05-01&rft.volume=39&rft.issue=5&rft.spage=354&rft.epage=360&rft.pages=354-360&rft.issn=1701-2163&rft_id=info:doi/10.1016/j.jogc.2017.01.003&rft_dat=%3Cproquest_cross%3E1883183028%3C/proquest_cross%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=1883183028&rft_id=info:pmid/28363606&rft_els_id=S1701216316398061&rfr_iscdi=true |