Do we need a 200 μg misoprostol vaginal insert? A retrospective cohort study comparing the misoprostol vaginal insert to oral misoprostol

Aim The misoprostol vaginal insert (MVI) was reported to be more effective than dinoprostone but discussed critically because of high rates of fetal heart rate changes due to uterine tachysystole. The aim of this study was to investigate the outcome of induced labor using the MVI compared to off‐lab...

Ausführliche Beschreibung

Gespeichert in:
Bibliographische Detailangaben
Veröffentlicht in:The journal of obstetrics and gynaecology research 2020-06, Vol.46 (6), p.851-857
Hauptverfasser: Wegener, Silke, Koenigbauer, Josefine T., Laesser, Claudia, Metz, Melanie, Pech, Luisa, Kummer, Julia, Daut, Julia, Jarchau, Ute, Wegener, Viktor, Hellmeyer, Lars
Format: Artikel
Sprache:eng
Schlagworte:
Online-Zugang:Volltext
Tags: Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
Beschreibung
Zusammenfassung:Aim The misoprostol vaginal insert (MVI) was reported to be more effective than dinoprostone but discussed critically because of high rates of fetal heart rate changes due to uterine tachysystole. The aim of this study was to investigate the outcome of induced labor using the MVI compared to off‐label orally‐administered misoprostol (OM). Methods Retrospective study including a total of 401 patients with singleton pregnancies in whom labor was induced at ≥36 0/7 gestational weeks with MVI (203) or OM (198). Primary outcomes were the time from induction to delivery, vaginal delivery in 24 h and the mode of delivery and the neonatal outcome. Results Median time until any delivery was 833 min (645–1278) for MVI and 1076.5 min (698–1686.3) for OM group; 83.7% of the patients in the MVI group gave birth within 24 h versus 63.6% in the OM group. The MVI group needed significantly less pre‐delivery oxytocin (29%). Tachysystole (6.4%) and pathological CTG (30.5%) occurred at a significantly higher frequency in the MVI group. The cesarean section rate was significantly higher in the MVI group amounting to 21.7% versus 14.6% in the OM group (P
ISSN:1341-8076
1447-0756
DOI:10.1111/jog.14230