Abstract
Objective
The purpose of this study was to compare the efficacy of two protocols for active
management of labor at term in the presence of an unfavorable cervix.
Study design
Pregnancies that underwent labor induction at ≥37 weeks of gestation with an unfavorable
cervix (Bishop score, ≤6) were randomly assigned to receive vaginally either a single
dose of sustained-release dinoprostone (Cervidil) with concurrent low-dose oxytocin
or multidosing of misoprostol (25 μg every 4 hours) followed by high-dose oxytocin.
The primary outcome was the time interval from induction to vaginal delivery. Other
parameters included excess uterine activity and cesarean delivery rates.
Results
A total of 151 patients (dinoprostone, 74 patients; misoprostol, 77 patients) were
enrolled. The mean time from the initiation of induction to vaginal delivery was the
same in the dinoprostone and misoprostol groups (15.7 hours; 95% CI, 13.7-17.7 hours
vs 16.0 hours; 95% CI, 14.1-17.8 hours; P = .34), regardless of parity. The dinoprostone and misoprostol groups did not differ
statistically in the percent of patients who were delivered vaginally by 12 hours
(36.2% vs 29.7%), 18 hours (63.8% vs 56.3%), and 24 hours (81.0% vs 81.3%). Excess
uterine activity was not more common in either group, and hyperstimulation syndrome
was absent in all cases. Primary cesarean delivery rates were similar (dinoprostone,
21.6%; misoprostol, 16.9%; relative risk, 1.3; 95% CI, 0.7-2.5), with a failed induction
that occurred in one case in each group.
Conclusion
Sustained-release dinoprostone with concurrent low-dose oxytocin and intermittent
misoprostol with delayed high-dose oxytocin are effective alternatives for active
management of labor with an unfavorable cervix.
Keywords
To read this article in full you will need to make a payment
Purchase one-time access:
Academic & Personal: 24 hour online accessCorporate R&D Professionals: 24 hour online accessOne-time access price info
- For academic or personal research use, select 'Academic and Personal'
- For corporate R&D use, select 'Corporate R&D Professionals'
Subscribe:
Subscribe to American Journal of Obstetrics & GynecologyAlready a print subscriber? Claim online access
Already an online subscriber? Sign in
Register: Create an account
Institutional Access: Sign in to ScienceDirect
References
- Induction of labor.The College, Washington (DC)1999 (Practice bulletin No.: 10)
- A controlled trial of a program for the active management of labor.N Engl J Med. 1992; 326: 450-454
- Active management of labor 1963–1993.Am J Obstet Gynecol. 1993; 168: 295-300
- A clinical trial of active management of labor.N Engl J Med. 1995; 333: 745-750
- Pre-induction cervical ripening: basis and method of current practice.Obstet Gynecol Surv. 2002; 57: 683-692
- An intravaginal controlled-release prostaglandin E2 pessary for cervical ripening and initiation of labor at term.Obstet Gynecol. 1992; 79: 374-379
- Vaginal misoprostol for cervical ripening and labor induction in late pregnancy.Cochrane Library. 1999; 2: 1-18
- Randomized trial of concurrent oxytocin and sustained-release dinoprostone vaginal insert for labor induction at term.Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2002; 186: 61-65
- Physician's desk reference. 56th ed. Medical Economics, Montvale (NJ)2002: 1369-1370
- Physician's desk reference. 55th ed. Medical Economics, Montvale (NJ)2001: 2291-2293
- Response to Searle's drug warning on misoprostol.The College, Washington (DC)2000 (Committee opinion No.: 248)
- Labor induction with prostaglandin E1 misoprostol compared with dinoprostone vaginal insert: a randomized trial.Obstet Gynecol. 1998; 91: 401-405
- A comparison of intermittent vaginal administration of misoprostol with continuous dinoprostone for cervical ripening and labor induction.Am J Obstet Gynecol. 1997; 177: 612-618
- A comparison of differing dosing regimens of vaginally administered misoprostol for cervical ripening and labor induction.Am J Obstet Gynecol. 1996; 175: 158-164
Article info
Publication history
Accepted:
July 24,
2003
Received in revised form:
July 17,
2003
Received:
February 28,
2003
Footnotes
☆Supported by Forest Laboratories, St Louis, Mo.
Identification
Copyright
© 2004 Elsevier Inc. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
