ROLE OF DINOPROSTONE AND MISOPROSTOL FOR LABOR INDUCTION IN PATIENTS OF PROM
Main Article Content
Keywords
Misoprostol, Dinoprostone, Prostaglandin, Gynaecology, PROM
Abstract
Background: Some studies found that Misoprostol took 10.75 hours and prostaglandin 9.37 hours to induce labour. The groups had similar caesarean section rates (7.61% vs. 15.30%), while other indicate 50% of misoprostol-treated women and 33.3% of Dinoprostone treated women had births within 12 hours. The purpose of this research was to determine if vaginal prostaglandin E1 or prostaglandin E2 pills were more effective in inducing labor in women who presented with prelabour rupture of fetal membranes.
Materials and Methods: The current retrospective and comparative research design was conducted in Department of obstetrics & Gynaecology, HMC Peshawar. The sample of 150 was divided in 2 groups i.e., vaginal administration of misoprostol 25µg (Group A) and administration of dinoprostone 3mg (Group B). The research included all pregnant women who were 15–45 years old, whose gestational age was between 34 and 41 weeks as determined by LMP, regardless of parity, and who presented with PROM within 72 hours. SPSS version 20.0 was used for data collection and analysis.
Results: The results indicated that both Dinoprostone and Misoprostol are effective for labor induction in patients with prelabor rupture of membranes (PROM). However, Misoprostol demonstrated a significantly shorter interval from induction to the onset of labor and a reduced labor duration compared to Dinoprostone. The results indicated a significant difference in the time taken from the induction to the onset of labor, with Misoprostol having a shorter interval (450.2 minutes) compared to Dinoprostone (720.5 minutes), while the duration of labor was also significantly shorter in the Misoprostol group (330.7 minutes) compared to the Dinoprostone group (380.4 minutes).
Conclusion: The study condluded that a more rapid and effective method of labour induction might be provided by misoprostol. Regarding patient demographics and manner of delivery, both approaches had comparable results. More research is advised to verify these conclusions and investigate long-term effects.
References
2. Amini M. Labor induction strategies with misoprostol-Evaluating oral, sequential and outpatient protocols for improved outcomes. 2023.
3. Anzeljc V, Mujezinović F. A Randomised Controlled Trial Comparing Induction of Labour with the Propess Vaginal System to the Prostin Vaginal Tablet in Premature Rupture of Membranes at Term. Journal of Clinical Medicine. 2022;12(1):174.
4. Coste-Mazeau P, Gallot D, Siegerth F, et al. Results of the RE-DINO multicenter randomized trial on the repeated use of vaginal dinoprostone (Propess®) for labor induction in patients at term. American Journal of Obstetrics & Gynecology MFM. 2023;6(11):101510.
5. Liu H, Yin H, Zhang H, Zhu H, Hu R, Gu W. Dinoprostone pessary for labor induction in Chinese patients with premature rupture of membranes at term: A retrospective cohort. Journal of Obstetrics and Gynaecology Research. 2021;47(7):2356-2362.
6. Mlodawski J, Mlodawska M, Armanska J, Swiercz G, Gluszek S. Misoprostol vs dinoprostone vaginal insert in labour induction: comparison of obstetrical outcome. Scientific reports. 2021;11(1):9077.
7. Monica R, Dharini M. Safety and efficacy of sublingual misoprostol and intracervical dinoprostone gel as cervical ripening agent in term prelabour rupture of membranes: a comparative study. Global Journal of Public Health Medicine. 2023;5(1):781-791.
8. Rahimi M, Haghighi L, Baradaran HR, et al. Comparison of the effect of oral and vaginal misoprostol on labor induction: updating a systematic review and meta-analysis of interventional studies. European journal of medical research. 2023;28(1):51.
9. Sfregola G, Sfregola P, Ruta F, et al. Effect of maternal age and body mass index on induction of labor with oral misoprostol for premature rupture of membrane at term: A retrospective cross-sectional study. Open Medicine. 2023;18(1):20230747.
10. Sire F, Ponthier L, Eyraud J-L, Catalan C, Aubard Y, Coste Mazeau P. Comparative study of dinoprostone and misoprostol for induction of labor in patients with premature rupture of membranes after 35 weeks. Scientific Reports. 2022;12(1):14996.
11. Anzeljc V, Mujezinović F. Caesarean sections and outcomes of labor induction after the introduction of a new intravaginal device: retrospective analysis. 2021.
12. Bouwknegt A, Jongen S, Kamphorst K, van Pampus MG, van der Linden PJ, Zwart JJ. Foley Balloon Catheter versus Oral Misoprostol for Induction of Labour after Prelabour Rupture of Membranes: A Retrospective Data Analysis. Open Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology. 2022;12(7):579-589.
13. Jahangir J, Kehkashan A, Siddiqui Y, Yousuf S, Shaheera S. comparison between misoprostol and dinoprostone in inducing labour. Int J Acad Med Pharm. 2023;5(6):1388-1391.
14. Kumar N, Haas DM, Weeks AD. Misoprostol for labour induction. Best Practice & Research Clinical Obstetrics & Gynaecology. 2021;77:53-63.
15. Modi KA, Gupta S, Mistry K, Sreevathsa D. Prediction of Induction to Delivery Interval in Vaginal Dinoprosotne Induced Labour. European Journal of Cardiovascular Medicine. 2023;13(3)
16. Patil S, Shukla S. Low Dose Oral Misoprostol Versus per Vaginal Misoprostol for Induction of Labor—Comparative Study. Advancements in Science and Technology for Healthcare, Agriculture, and Environmental Sustainability, 2022.
17. Valvi SS, Airao BB. A comparative study of induction of labour with intravaginal misoprostol and intracervical dinoprostone gel and its fetomaternal outcome in a tertiary care hospital 2021.
18. Wang X, Zhang C, Li X, Qi H, Liu Q, Lei J. Safety and efficacy of titrated oral misoprostol solution versus vaginal dinoprostone for induction of labor: a single‐center randomized control trial. International Journal of Gynaecology and Obstetrics. 2021;154(3):436.
Article Sidebar
Article Details
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License.
All articles published in JPTCP are licensed under Copyright Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License.
Mehwish Syed
MBBS, FCPS, Assistant Professor in Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, Nowshera Medical College, Qazi Hussain Medical Complex Nowshera KPK ,Pakistan
Saeeda Safi
MBBS, FCPS, Obstetrics and Gynaecology, Assistant Professor, Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, Nowshera Medical College ,Qazi Hussain Medical Complex Nowshera KPK , Pakistan
Syed Hasnain Ali Shah
BDS, MPhil Pharmacology, Associate Professor, Department of Pharmacology, Kabir Medical
College ,Gandhara University, Peshawar, KPK, Pakistan
Saif Ullah Khan Khalil
MBBS, MPhil, Associate Professor Department of Pharmacology, Kabir Medical College , Gandhara University, KPK, Pakistan
Aneela Mumtaz
MBBS, FCPS, Assistant Professor Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, Bannu medical College, Bannu. KPK, Pakistan.
Zainab Abbas Mirza
MBBS, MCPS, FCPS, CHPE, Assistant Professor Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, CMH Nowsehra, KPK, Pakistan
