-
International Journal of Gynaecology... Feb 2024The comparison between prostaglandin E2 (PGE2) and oxytocin and for induction of labor (IOL) remains controversial. (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
The comparison between prostaglandin E2 (PGE2) and oxytocin and for induction of labor (IOL) remains controversial.
OBJECTIVE
The present study aimed to determine the safety and efficacy of these two agents in IOL.
SEARCH STRATEGY
PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, Cochrane Library, and ClinicalTrials.gov. from the establishment of the database to April 23, 2023.
SELECTION CRITERIA
A search was conducted with keywords "labor, induction, prostaglandin E2/PGE2/dinoprostone, and oxytocin". Only randomized clinical trials comparing oxytocin and vaginal dinoprostone in women who were at least late preterm (gestational age [GA] ≥34 weeks), singleton pregnant, and had intact membranes were enrolled for further meta-analysis.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
We conducted both a descriptive analysis and a meta-analysis. In the meta-analysis, we utilized the Mantel-Haenszel random effects model to analyze dichotomous data, employing the relative risk (RR) as the effect measure along with 95% confidence intervals (CIs). The study quality was evaluated using Cochrane Collaboration's risk of bias assessment tool (RoB 2). A random-effects model was applied for the meta-analysis.
MAIN RESULTS
After screening 3303 articles from five databases, a total of nine randomized controlled studies composed of 1071 patients were included. Our analysis included 534 patients in the PGE2 group and 537 patients in the oxytocin group. The pooled estimate of vaginal deliveries following PGE2 induction stood at 84.2%, while after oxytocin induction, it was 79.8%. The meta-analysis showed no statistical difference between the two groups in terms of the rate of vaginal delivery (pooled RR, 1.05; 95% CI: 0.95-1.16; P value for Q, 0.001; I , 71.14%), cesarean section (pooled RR, 0.84; 95% CI: 0.52-1.35; P value for Q, 0.007; I , 61.69%) and induction-delivery interval (pooled standard mean difference, 0.09; 95% CI: -0.67 to 0.85; P value for Q, 0.000; I , 96.45%). Since the results for fetal distress and uterine hyperstimulation were consistent across all enrolled studies, no further meta-analysis was conducted.
CONCLUSIONS
When amalgamating the available literature, it implies that oxytocin was found to have similar effects as PGE2 on delivery outcomes and safety concerns in pregnant women with GA ≥36 weeks. Although the uterine cervix was unfavorable, both low and high doses of oxytocin were feasible for IOL.
PubMed: 38404054
DOI: 10.1002/ijgo.15443 -
Annals of Biomedical Engineering Dec 2023Low-level Laser Therapy (LLLT) was widely used in clinical practice for tendon disorders. However, the underlying mechanisms and effectiveness of LLLT in treating tendon... (Review)
Review
Low-level Laser Therapy (LLLT) was widely used in clinical practice for tendon disorders. However, the underlying mechanisms and effectiveness of LLLT in treating tendon injury remain unclear. Therefore, the present study was conducted aiming to summarize the evidence regarding the histological, physiological, and biomechanical effects of LLLT on tendon healing in animal and human models. Four databases were searched for relevant literature. Four independent reviewers screened abstracts and full-text articles, extracted relevant data, evaluated the risk of bias, and quantified the quality of evidence. Database searches yielded 1400 non-duplicated citations. Fifty-five studies were included (50 animal and five human studies). Animal studies revealed that LT had stimulating effects on collagen organization, collagen I and collagen II formation, matrix metalloproteinase (MMP)-8, transforming growth factor β1, vascular endothelial growth factor, hydroxyproline, maximum load, maximum elongation before breaking, and tendon stiffness. However, LLLT had inhibitory effects on the number of inflammatory cells, histological scores, relative amount of collagen III, cyclooxygenase-2, prostaglandin E2 (PGE2), interleukin-6, tumor necrosis factor-α, MMP-1, and MMP-3. Although one human study found that LLLT reduced the concentration of PGE2 in peritendinous tissue of the Achilles tendon, other human studies revealed that the effects of LLLT on the physiology and biomechanics of human tendons remained uncertain. LLLT facilitates tendon healing through various histological, physiological, and biomechanical effects in animal models. Only post-LLLT anti-inflammatory effects were found in human studies.
Topics: Humans; Rats; Animals; Low-Level Light Therapy; Rats, Wistar; Tendinopathy; Dinoprostone; Vascular Endothelial Growth Factor A; Collagen; Achilles Tendon
PubMed: 37899380
DOI: 10.1007/s10439-023-03364-1 -
Safety of misoprostol vs dinoprostone for induction of labor: A systematic review and meta-analysis.European Journal of Obstetrics,... Oct 2023Pharmacological agents such as prostaglandins (dinoprostone and misoprostol) are commonly used to reduce the duration of labor and promote vaginal delivery. However, key... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
OBJECTIVE
Pharmacological agents such as prostaglandins (dinoprostone and misoprostol) are commonly used to reduce the duration of labor and promote vaginal delivery. However, key safety considerations with its use include an increased risk of uterine rupture, tachysystole and hyperstimulation of pregnant women, which could potentially lead to a non-reassuring fetal heart rate and to fetal hypoxemia. The aim of this systematic review was to assess maternal and fetal outcomes between misoprostol group (PGE1) and dinoprostone group (PGE2) STUDY DESIGN: We search on MEDLINE (PubMed), CINHAL (EBSCOhost), EMBASE, Scopus (Ovid), CENTRAL (January 1, 1998, to December 31, 2022). Patients were eligible if they presented at greater than 36 weeks gestation with an indication for induction of labor and a single live cephalic fetus. We conducted a meta-analysis of data for both primary (cesarean section rate, instrumental deliveries rate, tachysystole, uterine rupture, post-partum haemorrage; chorionamiositis) and secondary outcomes (Apgar at 5 min <7, meconium-stained liquor, NICU admission, infant death) using odds-ratio (OR) as a measure of effect-size. Risk of bias assessment was performed with RoB-I. We performed statistical analyses using Cochrane RevMan version 5.4 software.
RESULTS
We found 39 RCTs comparing the outcomes of interest between misoprostol and dinoprostone. The pooled effect showed no statistically significant difference between the two groups in terms of cesarean section rate [OR: 0.94; 95% CI 0.84-1.05], instrumental deliveries rate [OR: 1.04; 95% CI: 0.90-1.19; p = 0.62], tachysystole [OR: 1.21; 95% CI: 0.91-1.60; p = 0.19], post-partum hemorrhage [OR: 0.85; 95% CI: 0.62-1.15p = 0.30], chorioamnionitis [OR: 0.94; 95% CI: 0.76-1.17p = 0.59], Apgar at 5 min < 7 [OR: 0.83; 95% CI: 0.61-1.12, p = 0.21], meconium-stained liquor [OR: 1.11; 95% CI: 0.97-1.27p = 0.59], NICU admission group [OR: 0.91; 95% CI: 0.77-1.09], infant death [OR: 0.57; 95% CI: 0.22-1.44]. After performing a sub-group analysis based on the type of prostaglandins administrations (oral, vaginal gel, vaginal pessary), results did not change substantially.
CONCLUSIONS
This systematic review and meta-analysis demonstrate that misoprostol and dinoprostone appear to have a similar safety profile.
Topics: Infant; Humans; Female; Pregnancy; Dinoprostone; Misoprostol; Cesarean Section; Uterine Rupture; Prostaglandins; Oxytocics; Abortifacient Agents, Nonsteroidal; Infant Death; Labor, Induced
PubMed: 37660506
DOI: 10.1016/j.ejogrb.2023.08.382 -
American Journal of Perinatology May 2024This study aimed to conduct a systematic review and meta-analysis of all randomized and nonrandomized controlled trials (RCTs and NCTs, respectively) that explored... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
OBJECTIVE
This study aimed to conduct a systematic review and meta-analysis of all randomized and nonrandomized controlled trials (RCTs and NCTs, respectively) that explored the maternal-neonatal outcomes of cervical osmotic dilators versus dinoprostone in promoting cervical ripening during labor induction.
STUDY DESIGN
Six major databases were screened until August 27, 2022. The quality of included studies was evaluated. The data were summarized as mean difference or risk ratio (RR) with 95% confidence interval (CI) in a random-effects model.
RESULTS
Overall, 14 studies with 15 arms were analyzed ( = 2,380 patients). Ten and four studies were RCTs and NCTs, respectively. The overall quality for RCTs varied (low risk = 2, unclear risk = 7, and high risk = 1), whereas all NCTs had good quality ( = 4). For the primary endpoints, there was no significant difference between both groups regarding the rate of normal vaginal delivery (RR = 1.04, 95% CI: 0.95-1.14, = 0.41) and rate of cesarean delivery (RR = 1.04, 95% CI: 0.93-1.17, = 0.51). Additionally, there was no significant difference between both groups regarding the mean change in Bishop score and mean time from intervention to delivery. The rate of uterine hyperstimulation was significantly lower in the cervical osmotic dilator group. For the neonatal outcomes, during cervical ripening, the rate of fetal distress was significantly lower in the cervical osmotic dilator group. There was no significant difference between both groups regarding the mean Apgar scores, rate of meconium-stained amniotic fluid, rate of umbilical cord metabolic acidosis, rate of neonatal infection, and rate of neonatal intensive care unit admission.
CONCLUSION
During labor induction, cervical ripening with cervical osmotic dilators and dinoprostone had comparable maternal-neonatal outcomes. Cervical osmotic dilators had low risk of uterine hyperstimulation compared with dinoprostone. Overall, cervical osmotic dilators might be more preferred over dinoprostone in view of their analogous cervical ripening effects, comparable maternal-neonatal outcomes, and lack of drug-related adverse events.
KEY POINTS
· This is the first analysis of cervical osmotic dilators versus PGE2 for cervical ripening during labor.. · There was no difference between both arms regarding the rates of normal vaginal/cesarean deliveries.. · There was no difference between both arms regarding the rates of neonatal adverse events.. · Cervical osmotic dilators had significant lower risk of uterine hyperstimulation compared with PGE2.. · Cervical osmotic dilators may be superior to PGE2 in view of their similar efficacy and better safety..
Topics: Humans; Labor, Induced; Cervical Ripening; Pregnancy; Female; Dinoprostone; Oxytocics; Cesarean Section; Infant, Newborn; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Cervix Uteri; Delivery, Obstetric
PubMed: 37336231
DOI: 10.1055/s-0043-1770161 -
European Journal of Obstetrics,... Aug 2023A systematic review to determine the efficacy and safety of prostaglandins (PG) and Foley catheter (FC) for cervical priming in the outpatient setting. Various methods... (Review)
Review
Efficacy of pharmacological and mechanical cervical priming methods for induction of labour and their applicability for outpatient management: A systematic review of randomised controlled trials.
BACKGROUND
A systematic review to determine the efficacy and safety of prostaglandins (PG) and Foley catheter (FC) for cervical priming in the outpatient setting. Various methods are available to achieve cervical ripening prior to induction of labour (IOL). In this systematic review, we will report the literature to date, and investigate the efficacy and safety of using the Foley catheter balloon or prostaglandins for cervical ripening, comparing both methods with each other, and discuss the implications of these findings for midwifery led units.
METHODS
English peer-reviewed journals were systematically searched in the databases PubMed, MEDLINE, EMCARE, EMBASE and CINAHL, for studies investigating cervical ripening using the FC or PGs. Additional randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and non-RCTs were identified by a manual search. Search terms included: cervix dilatation effacement, cervix ripening, outpatient, ambulatory care, obstetric patients, pharmacological preparations, and Foley catheter. Only RCTs of FC versus PG or either intervention versus placebo or intervention in the in-patient Vs. outpatient setting were included. 15 RCTs were included.
RESULTS
The results of this review show that both FC and PG analogues are equally effective cervical ripening agents. When compared to FC, PGs lead to a reduced requirement for oxytocin augmentation and a shorter intervention to delivery interval. However, PG use is also associated with an increased risk of hyperstimulation, cardiotocographic monitoring abnormalities and negative neonatal outcomes.
CONCLUSIONS
FC cervical ripening is an effective method of outpatient cervical priming, which is safe, acceptable, and cost-effective and thus has a potential role in both resource-rich and resource-poor countries. With appropriate dosing, some PG analogues also appear to offer similar outcomes.
Topics: Pregnancy; Female; Infant, Newborn; Humans; Dinoprostone; Outpatients; Cervix Uteri; Oxytocics; Labor, Induced; Prostaglandins; Abortifacient Agents, Nonsteroidal; Cervical Ripening
PubMed: 37300982
DOI: 10.1016/j.ejogrb.2023.05.037 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Mar 2023Mechanical methods were the first methods developed to ripen the cervix and induce labour. During recent decades they have been substituted by pharmacological methods.... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
Mechanical methods were the first methods developed to ripen the cervix and induce labour. During recent decades they have been substituted by pharmacological methods. Potential advantages of mechanical methods, compared with pharmacological methods may include reduction in side effects that could improve neonatal outcomes. This is an update of a review first published in 2001, last updated in 2012.
OBJECTIVES
To determine the effectiveness and safety of mechanical methods for third trimester (> 24 weeks' gestation) induction of labour in comparison with prostaglandin E2 (PGE2) (vaginal and intracervical), low-dose misoprostol (oral and vaginal), amniotomy or oxytocin.
SEARCH METHODS
For this update, we searched Cochrane Pregnancy and Childbirth's Trials Register, ClinicalTrials.gov, the WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP), and reference lists of retrieved studies (9 January 2018). We updated the search in March 2019 and added the search results to the awaiting classification section of the review.
SELECTION CRITERIA
Clinical trials comparing mechanical methods used for third trimester cervical ripening or labour induction with pharmacological methods. Mechanical methods include: (1) the introduction of a catheter through the cervix into the extra-amniotic space with balloon insufflation; (2) introduction of laminaria tents, or their synthetic equivalent (Dilapan), into the cervical canal; (3) use of a catheter to inject fluid into the extra-amniotic space (EASI). This review includes the following comparisons: (1) specific mechanical methods (balloon catheter, laminaria tents or EASI) compared with prostaglandins (different types, different routes) or with oxytocin; (2) single balloon compared to a double balloon; (3) addition of prostaglandins or oxytocin to mechanical methods compared with prostaglandins or oxytocin alone.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Two review authors independently assessed trials for inclusion and assessed risk of bias. Two review authors independently extracted data and assessed the quality of the evidence using the GRADE approach.
MAIN RESULTS
This review includes a total of 112 trials, with 104 studies contributing data (22,055 women; 21 comparisons). Risk of bias of trials varied. Overall, the evidence was graded from very-low to moderate quality. All evidence was downgraded for lack of blinding and, for many comparisons, the effect estimates were too imprecise to make a valid judgement. Balloon versus vaginal PGE2: there may be little or no difference in vaginal deliveries not achieved within 24 hours (risk ratio (RR) 1.01, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.82 to 1.26; 7 studies; 1685 women; low-quality evidence) and there probably is little or no difference in caesarean sections (RR 1.00, 95% CI 0.92 to 1.09; 28 studies; 6619 women; moderate-quality evidence) between induction of labour with a balloon catheter and vaginal PGE2. A balloon catheter probably reduces the risk of uterine hyperstimulation with fetal heart rate (FHR) changes (RR 0.35, 95% CI 0.18 to 0.67; 6 studies; 1966 women; moderate-quality evidence), serious neonatal morbidity or perinatal death (RR 0.48, 95% CI 0.25 to 0.93; 8 studies; 2757 women; moderate-quality evidence) and may slightly reduce the risk of aneonatal intensive care unit (NICU) admission (RR 0.82, 95% CI 0.65 to 1.04; 3647 women; 12 studies; low-quality evidence). It is uncertain whether there is a difference in serious maternal morbidity or death (RR 0.20, 95% CI 0.01 to 4.12; 4 studies; 1481 women) or five-minute Apgar score < 7 (RR 0.74, 95% CI 0.49 to 1.14; 4271 women; 14 studies) because the quality of the evidence was found to be very low and low, respectively. Balloon versus low-dose vaginal misoprostol: it is uncertain whether there is a difference in vaginal deliveries not achieved within 24 hours between induction of labour with a balloon catheter and vaginal misoprostol (RR 1.09, 95% CI 0.85 to 1.39; 340 women; 2 studies; low-quality evidence). A balloon catheter probably reduces the risk of uterine hyperstimulation with FHR changes (RR 0.39, 95% CI 0.18 to 0.85; 1322 women; 8 studies; moderate-quality evidence) but may increase the risk of a caesarean section (RR 1.28, 95% CI 1.02 to 1.60; 1756 women; 12 studies; low-quality evidence). It is uncertain whether there is a difference in serious neonatal morbidity or perinatal death (RR 0.58, 95% CI 0.12 to 2.66; 381 women; 3 studies), serious maternal morbidity or death (no events; 4 studies, 464 women), both very low-quality evidence, and five-minute Apgar score < 7 (RR 1.00, 95% CI 0.50 to 1.97; 941 women; 7 studies) and NICU admissions (RR 1.00, 95% CI 0.61 to 1.63; 1302 women; 9 studies) both low-quality evidence. Balloon versus low-dose oral misoprostol: a balloon catheter probably increases the risk of a vaginal delivery not achieved within 24 hours (RR 1.28, 95% CI 1.13 to 1.46; 782 women, 2 studies, and probably slightly increases the risk of a caesarean section (RR 1.17, 95% CI 1.04 to 1.32; 3178 women; 7 studies; both moderate-quality evidence) when compared to oral misoprostol. It is uncertain whether there is a difference in uterine hyperstimulation with FHR changes (RR 0.81, 95% CI 0.48 to 1.38; 2033 women; 2 studies), serious neonatal morbidity or perinatal death (RR 1.11, 95% CI 0.60 to 2.06; 2627 women; 3 studies), both low-quality evidence, serious maternal morbidity or death (RR 0.50, 95% CI 0.05 to 5.52; 2627 women; 3 studies), very low-quality evidence, five-minute Apgar scores < 7 (RR 0.71, 95% CI 0.38 to 1.32; 2693 women; 4 studies) and NICU admissions (RR 0.82, 95% CI 0.58 to 1.17; 2873 women; 5 studies) both low-quality evidence.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
Low- to moderate-quality evidence shows mechanical induction with a balloon is probably as effective as induction of labour with vaginal PGE2. However, a balloon seems to have a more favourable safety profile. More research on this comparison does not seem warranted. Moderate-quality evidence shows a balloon catheter may be slightly less effective as oral misoprostol, but it remains unclear if there is a difference in safety outcomes for the neonate. When compared to low-dose vaginal misoprostol, low-quality evidence shows a balloon may be less effective, but probably has a better safety profile. Future research could be focused more on safety aspects for the neonate and maternal satisfaction.
Topics: Female; Humans; Infant, Newborn; Pregnancy; Cesarean Section; Dinoprostone; Labor, Induced; Misoprostol; Oxytocin; Perinatal Death
PubMed: 36996264
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD001233.pub4 -
Birth (Berkeley, Calif.) Sep 2023Outpatient induction of labor (IOL) is an alternative choice offered to pregnant women requiring cervical ripening. Outpatient IOL can provide solutions in terms of... (Review)
Review
Outpatient versus inpatient cervical ripening with a slow-release dinoprostone vaginal insert in term pregnancies on maternal, neonatal, and birth outcomes: A systematic review.
BACKGROUNDS
Outpatient induction of labor (IOL) is an alternative choice offered to pregnant women requiring cervical ripening. Outpatient IOL can provide solutions in terms of women empowerment, but most importantly promotes as normal labor as possible, within the medical context of the IOL. The objectives of this systematic review were to assess safety and effectiveness of cervical ripening performed with a slow-release dinoprostone vaginal insert in term pregnancies in two settings: the outpatient (home) versus the inpatient (hospital).
METHODS
The electronic databases Cinahl, Embase, Medline and Maternity and Infant Care were searched to detect studies that met the inclusion criteria. Both reviewers collected the data and assessed the quality of the studies and assessed the pooled odds ratio using a 95% confidence interval and a random-effects model. Primary outcomes were linked to maternal and neonatal morbidity. Secondary outcomes were related to birth outcomes.
RESULTS
No statistical difference was seen between the outpatient and inpatient setting in terms of maternal complications, neonatal morbidity, cesarean section, and labor onset <24 h. Women in the outpatient setting were significantly less likely to experience uterine hyperstimulation, and they were also significantly more likely to require oxytocin to augment or induce their labor than the women in the inpatient setting. Women in the outpatient setting were more satisfied with the cervical ripening experience.
CONCLUSIONS
Cervical ripening with a slow-release dinoprostone vaginal insert in term pregnancies in the outpatient setting appears as safe as the inpatient setting in terms of maternal, neonatal, and birth outcomes.
Topics: Infant, Newborn; Female; Pregnancy; Humans; Dinoprostone; Oxytocics; Cesarean Section; Cervical Ripening; Outpatients; Inpatients; Labor, Induced
PubMed: 36332128
DOI: 10.1111/birt.12687 -
Reproductive Sciences (Thousand Oaks,... Feb 2023The objective of this study was to conduct a systematic review and meta-analysis of all randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that evaluated isosorbide mononitrate (ISMN)... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
The objective of this study was to conduct a systematic review and meta-analysis of all randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that evaluated isosorbide mononitrate (ISMN) versus dinoprostone, a prostaglandin E2 (PGE2) analogue, in promoting cervical ripening during labor induction. We searched five major databases from inception till 02 May 2021. We assessed the risk of bias of included studies. We meta-analyzed various endpoints (n=12) and pooled the endpoints as mean difference (MD) or risk ratio (RR) with 95% confidence interval (CI). Overall, 4 RCTs met the inclusion criteria, comprising 818 patients; equally 409 patients were allocated to ISMN and PGE2 groups. Overall, the RCTs had a low risk of bias. The mean change in Bishop score at 24 h was significantly lower in disfavor of the ISMN group. The mean time from drug administration to delivery was significantly longer in disfavor of the ISMN group. The rate of oxytocin need was significantly higher in disfavor of the ISMN group. The rate of vaginal delivery at 24 h was significantly lower in disfavor of the ISMN group. The rates of headache and palpitations were significantly higher in disfavor of the ISMN group. The rate of abnormal fetal heart rate was significantly lower in favor of the ISMN group. There was no significant difference between both groups with regard to rates of cesarean delivery, postpartum hemorrhage, uterine hyperstimulation, and NICU admission. Compared with PGE2, ISMN appeared less effective for cervical ripening prior to labor induction and correlated with higher drug-related maternal toxicities.
Topics: Pregnancy; Female; Humans; Dinoprostone; Oxytocics; Cervical Ripening; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Labor, Induced
PubMed: 35441336
DOI: 10.1007/s43032-022-00909-y -
PloS One 2021As uterine rupture may affect as many as 11/1000 women with 1 prior cesarean birth and 5/10.000 women with unscarred uterus undergoing labor induction, we intended to... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
Prevalence of uterine rupture among women with one prior low transverse cesarean and women with unscarred uterus undergoing labor induction with PGE2: A systematic review and meta-analysis.
BACKGROUND
As uterine rupture may affect as many as 11/1000 women with 1 prior cesarean birth and 5/10.000 women with unscarred uterus undergoing labor induction, we intended to estimate the prevalence of such rare outcome when PGE2 is used for cervical ripening and labor induction.
METHODS
We searched MEDLINE, ClinicalTrials.gov and the Cochrane library up to September 1st 2020. Retrospective and prospective cohort studies, as well as randomized controlled trials (RCTs) on singleton viable pregnancies receiving PGE2 for cervical ripening and labor induction were reviewed. Prevalence of uterine rupture was meta-analyzed with Freeman-Tukey double arcsine transformation among women with 1 prior low transverse cesarean section and women with unscarred uterus.
RESULTS
We reviewed 956 full text articles to include 69 studies. The pooled prevalence rate of uterine rupture is estimated to range between 2 and 9 out of 1000 women with 1 prior low transverse cesarean (5/1000; 95%CI 2-9/1000, 122/9000). The prevalence of uterine rupture among women with unscarred uterus is extremely low, reaching at most 0.7/100.000 (<1/100.000.000; 95%CI <1/100.000.000-0.7/100.000, 8/17.684).
CONCLUSIONS
Uterine rupture is a rare event during cervical ripening and labor induction with PGE2.
Topics: Adult; Cesarean Section; Dinoprostone; Female; Humans; Labor, Induced; Pregnancy; Prevalence; Publication Bias; Uterine Rupture; Uterus
PubMed: 34228760
DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0253957 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Jun 2021Misoprostol given orally is a commonly used labour induction method. Our Cochrane Review is restricted to studies with low-dose misoprostol (initially ≤ 50 µg), as... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
Misoprostol given orally is a commonly used labour induction method. Our Cochrane Review is restricted to studies with low-dose misoprostol (initially ≤ 50 µg), as higher doses pose unacceptably high risks of uterine hyperstimulation.
OBJECTIVES
To assess the efficacy and safety of low-dose oral misoprostol for labour induction in women with a viable fetus in the third trimester of pregnancy.
SEARCH METHODS
We searched Cochrane Pregnancy and Childbirth's Trials Register, ClinicalTrials.gov, the WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (14 February 2021) and reference lists of retrieved studies.
SELECTION CRITERIA
Randomised trials comparing low-dose oral misoprostol (initial dose ≤ 50 µg) versus placebo, vaginal dinoprostone, vaginal misoprostol, oxytocin, or mechanical methods; or comparing oral misoprostol protocols (one- to two-hourly versus four- to six-hourly; 20 µg to 25 µg versus 50 µg; or 20 µg hourly titrated versus 25 µg two-hourly static).
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Using Covidence, two review authors independently screened reports, extracted trial data, and performed quality assessments. Our primary outcomes were vaginal birth within 24 hours, caesarean section, and hyperstimulation with foetal heart changes.
MAIN RESULTS
We included 61 trials involving 20,026 women. GRADE assessments ranged from moderate- to very low-certainty evidence, with downgrading decisions based on imprecision, inconsistency, and study limitations. Oral misoprostol versus placebo/no treatment (four trials; 594 women) Oral misoprostol may make little to no difference in the rate of caesarean section (risk ratio (RR) 0.81, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.59 to 1.11; 4 trials; 594 women; moderate-certainty evidence), while its effect on uterine hyperstimulation with foetal heart rate changes is uncertain (RR 5.15, 95% CI 0.25 to 105.31; 3 trials; 495 women; very low-certainty evidence). Vaginal births within 24 hours was not reported. In all trials, oxytocin could be commenced after 12 to 24 hours and all women had pre-labour ruptured membranes. Oral misoprostol versus vaginal dinoprostone (13 trials; 9676 women) Oral misoprostol probably results in fewer caesarean sections (RR 0.84, 95% CI 0.78 to 0.90; 13 trials, 9676 women; moderate-certainty evidence). Subgroup analysis indicated that 10 µg to 25 µg (RR 0.80, 95% CI 0.74 to 0.87; 9 trials; 8652 women) may differ from 50 µg (RR 1.10, 95% CI 0.91 to 1.34; 4 trials; 1024 women) for caesarean section. Oral misoprostol may decrease vaginal births within 24 hours (RR 0.93, 95% CI 0.87 to 1.00; 10 trials; 8983 women; low-certainty evidence) and hyperstimulation with foetal heart rate changes (RR 0.49, 95% CI 0.40 to 0.59; 11 trials; 9084 women; low-certainty evidence). Oral misoprostol versus vaginal misoprostol (33 trials; 6110 women) Oral use may result in fewer vaginal births within 24 hours (average RR 0.81, 95% CI 0.68 to 0.95; 16 trials, 3451 women; low-certainty evidence), and less hyperstimulation with foetal heart rate changes (RR 0.69, 95% CI 0.53 to 0.92, 25 trials, 4857 women, low-certainty evidence), with subgroup analysis suggesting that 10 µg to 25 µg orally (RR 0.28, 95% CI 0.14 to 0.57; 6 trials, 957 women) may be superior to 50 µg orally (RR 0.82, 95% CI 0.61 to 1.11; 19 trials; 3900 women). Oral misoprostol probably does not increase caesarean sections overall (average RR 1.00, 95% CI 0.86 to 1.16; 32 trials; 5914 women; low-certainty evidence) but likely results in fewer caesareans for foetal distress (RR 0.74, 95% CI 0.55 to 0.99; 24 trials, 4775 women). Oral misoprostol versus intravenous oxytocin (6 trials; 737 women, 200 with ruptured membranes) Misoprostol may make little or no difference to vaginal births within 24 hours (RR 1.12, 95% CI 0.95 to 1.33; 3 trials; 466 women; low-certainty evidence), but probably results in fewer caesarean sections (RR 0.67, 95% CI 0.50 to 0.90; 6 trials; 737 women; moderate-certainty evidence). The effect on hyperstimulation with foetal heart rate changes is uncertain (RR 0.66, 95% CI 0.19 to 2.26; 3 trials, 331 women; very low-certainty evidence). Oral misoprostol versus mechanical methods (6 trials; 2993 women) Six trials compared oral misoprostol to transcervical Foley catheter. Misoprostol may increase vaginal birth within 24 hours (RR 1.32, 95% CI 0.98 to 1.79; 4 trials; 1044 women; low-certainty evidence), and probably reduces the risk of caesarean section (RR 0.84, 95% CI 0.75 to 0.95; 6 trials; 2993 women; moderate-certainty evidence). There may be little or no difference in hyperstimulation with foetal heart rate changes (RR 1.31, 95% CI 0.78 to 2.21; 4 trials; 2828 women; low-certainty evidence). Oral misoprostol one- to two-hourly versus four- to six-hourly (1 trial; 64 women) The evidence on hourly titration was very uncertain due to the low numbers reported. Oral misoprostol 20 µg hourly titrated versus 25 µg two-hourly static (2 trials; 296 women) The difference in regimen may have little or no effect on the rate of vaginal births in 24 hours (RR 0.97, 95% CI 0.80 to 1.16; low-certainty evidence). The evidence is of very low certainty for all other reported outcomes.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
Low-dose oral misoprostol is probably associated with fewer caesarean sections (and therefore more vaginal births) than vaginal dinoprostone, and lower rates of hyperstimulation with foetal heart rate changes. However, time to birth may be increased, as seen by a reduced number of vaginal births within 24 hours. Compared to transcervical Foley catheter, low-dose oral misoprostol is associated with fewer caesarean sections, but equivalent rates of hyperstimulation. Low-dose misoprostol given orally rather than vaginally is probably associated with similar rates of vaginal birth, although rates may be lower within the first 24 hours. However, there is likely less hyperstimulation with foetal heart changes, and fewer caesarean sections performed due to foetal distress. The best available evidence suggests that low-dose oral misoprostol probably has many benefits over other methods for labour induction. This review supports the use of low-dose oral misoprostol for induction of labour, and demonstrates the lower risks of hyperstimulation than when misoprostol is given vaginally. More trials are needed to establish the optimum oral misoprostol regimen, but these findings suggest that a starting dose of 25 µg may offer a good balance of efficacy and safety.
Topics: Administration, Intravaginal; Administration, Oral; Apgar Score; Cesarean Section; Dinoprostone; Drug Administration Schedule; Female; Heart Rate, Fetal; Humans; Intensive Care, Neonatal; Labor, Induced; Misoprostol; Oxytocics; Oxytocin; Parturition; Placebos; Pregnancy; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Time Factors; Uterus
PubMed: 34155622
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD014484