Prostaglandin E2 vaginal suppository for induction of labour: an efficient, safe and popular method (original) (raw)
Related papers
Induction of labour: The effect of vaginal prostaglandin or i.v. oxytocin — a matter of time only?
European Journal of Obstetrics & Gynecology and Reproductive Biology, 1990
Ninety-one pregnant women with unfavourable cervix (Bishop score no higher than 6) were randomly allocated to induction of labour with either prostaglandin E, suppositories 2.5 mg l-2 a day or i.v. oxytocin 4-32 mU/min. The induction procedure was carried on for 2 days. For statistical comparison of efficacy, life table analysis and the logrank test were used with vaginal delivery as the aimed 'event'. Prostaglandin suppositories were more efficient after 12 h (p < 0.025) and 24 h (p < 0.005) whereas no difference in efficacy was observed after 48 h. Vaginal delivery was obtained within 48 h in 74% of the women in the prostaglandin group and in 70% in the oxytocin group. No difference was observed in methods of delivery or neonatal Apgar scores, though, in neonates delivered vaginally within 2 days, lowered umbilical artery blood pH values were found after prostaglandin E, suppositories (p -C 0.05). The patients attitude toward the method of induction was highly in favour of the prostaglandin suppositories. Prostaglandin E, suppositories are considered excellent for induction of labour if delivery has to be within 24 h, whereas the two methods are equally effective after 48 h.
Outcome of induction of labor with prostaglandin E1 25 mg vaginal tablet – A retrospective study
Tropical Journal of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, 2019
Context: Labor induction with prostaglandin E1 (PGE1) vaginal tablet results in shorter induction delivery interval and decreased rate of failed induction of labor and reduced caesarean section rate. However, higher doses may be associated with uterine hyper stimulation. It is therefore necessary to determine the safe dose of PGE1 for labor induction. Aims: To assess the maternal and neonatal outcome with use of 25 mg vaginal misoprostol for induction of labor. Settings and Design: A retrospective analysis conducted in an obstetric department of a tertiary care teaching institute. Materials and Methods: The sample consists of women with singleton term pregnancy, with Bishop's score <6 compared with women with spontaneous onset of labor. Statistical Analysis Used: Statistical significance was assessed at 5% level of significance. Chi-square test, with correction for continuity where applicable, was carried out to compare proportions across subgroups or between induction and spontaneous onset groups. Results: The rate of vaginal delivery was higher among spontaneous onset group compared with induction group ( 2 (1) = 30.3, P < 0.001). The induction delivery interval of vaginal delivery was less than 24 h in 91.85% of women. Neonatal intensive care unit admission frequency was similar among both groups ( 2 (1) = 0.14, P = 0.704). The induction group was with less frequency of meconium staining than the control group ( 2 (1) = 8.05, P = 0.0046). Conclusion: Our study showed a higher rate of vaginal delivery with induction delivery interval less than 24 h in a majority of women with better neonatal and maternal outcomes.
Induction of labor by prostaglandin E2: intracervical gel or vaginal pessaries?
European Journal of Obstetrics & Gynecology and Reproductive Biology, 1991
To investigate the best route of prostaglandin medication for induction of labor, 125 pregnant women with unfavorable cervices (Bishop scores < 6) were randomized to induction of labor with either PGE, (0.5 mg) in a viscous intracervical gel once daily or PGE, pessaries (2.5 mg) 1-2 a day. As estimated by life table analysis, the pessaries were significantly more effective inducing vaginal delivery compared to intracervical gel (24 h: P < 0.025, 48 h: P < 0.01, logrank test) and vaginal delivery was obtained within 24 h/48 h in 50%/72% of the women in the pessary group and in 29%/55% of the women in the intracervical group. Cervical ripening was found within 3 h (P < 0.001) and in the subsequent 3 to 24 h period (P < 0.0051 after both treatments, no difference being found between the groups. The pessaries were much more effective inducing regular contractions compared to the intracervical gel (P < 0.005, logrank test), so the latter seems preferable if cervical ripening rather than induction is intended. No difference was found analyzing the active labor period. No difference was found in methods of delivery, neonatal parameters (Apgar scores, umbilical artery blood pH and standard base excess), and the patients' attitude towards both methods of induction were equally favorable.
The effect of vaginal prostaglandin E2 pessaries on induction of labor
American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology, 1984
In a prospective randomized study, patients with a valid obstetric indication for induction of labor received either 3 mg prostaglandin E2 vaginal pessaries immediately prior to oxytocin (prostaglandin group, n = 99), or oxytocin alone (oxytocin group, n = 103). At the conclusion of the second day of induction, a significant reduction was noted in the incidence of failed induction in the prostaglandin group (4%) as compared to the oxytocin group (13%) (p < 0.05). Twenty percent of patients in the prostaglandin group experienced successful induction with prostaglandin pessaries only. When oxytocin was required in the prostaglandin group, the maximal concentration of oxytocin infused and the duration at this concentration were significantly less than in the oxytocin group. No perinatal complications were attributed to the use of prostaglandin. Three minor matemal complications that were attributed to vaginal prostaglandin E2 did not require treatment. Our conclusion is that patients who require an induction of labor, when artificial rupture of the membranes is not feasible, benefit from the use of prostaglandin pessaries before the administration of oxytocin. (AM.
Bjog-an International Journal of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, 1982
In a randomized controlled study of 100 women of low parity and favourable induction features, induction of labour by means of a single vaginal tablet containing 3 mg of prostaglandin E, (PGE,) was compared with the conventional method of amniotomy and intravenous oxytocin. Four of the patients (8%) who received the prostaglandin tablet required additional intravenous oxytocin to achieve delivery. The prostaglandin group had a longer mean overall induction-delivery interval but a shorter amniotomy-delivery interval than the oxytocin group. One patient in the PGE, group and two in the oxytocin group required caesarean section. The PGE, treated patients expressed a higher level of satisfaction with their method of induction, they required less analgesia, had less blood loss at delivery and their babies had a lower incidence of neonatal jaundice.
International Journal of Reproduction, Contraception, Obstetrics and Gynecology
Background: Induction of labour is significant when continuing pregnancy possess adverse effect on health of mother and her unborn baby. Different methods have been used for induction of labour. At present there is very less literature regarding simultaneous use of Foleys catheter and PGs. The present study was done to compare the efficacy of using intracervical Foleys catheter and PGE2 gel simultaneously versus PGE2 gel alone for induction of labour.Methods: Prospective study, conducted in department of obstetrics and gynaecology for duration of 6 months. 100 women requiring induction of labour were included in the study and were randomly divided into two groups. 50 women were included in group A (simultaneous use of intracervical Foley catheter with PGE2 gel) and 50 women were included in Group B (intravaginal insertion of PGE2 gel only).Results: Maternal age, gestation age, parity, indication of induction and primary Bishops score were comparable in both the groups. Mean inducti...
International Journal of Reproduction, Contraception, Obstetrics and Gynecology, 2020
Background: Induction of labor (IOL) is a process where labor is initiated artificially before its spontaneous onset for the delivery of feto placental unit by mechanical or pharmacologic methods.Methods: The present Hospital based prospective randomized comparative study was conducted in the department of obstetrics and gynecology, KLES Dr. Prabhakar Kore Charitable Hospital, Belagavi during the period of January 2015 to December 2015.The selected women were randomized into two groups by simple randomization using an opaque sealed envelope, into either without vaginal estradiol Group A: Group PGE2 - Prostaglandin E2 gel intracervical alone group or Group B: PGE2 + E (Estradiol) - combined Prostaglandin E2 gel intracervical and 50 µg of estradiol tablet intravaginal group.Results: In the present study 65% of the women in group PGE2 required three doses of prostaglandins compared to 23.33% in group PGE2 and estradiol for the cervix to become favorable. In this study there is signific...
Oral versus vaginal prostaglandin for labor induction
Objective: To compare the efficacy and safety of oral prostaglandin (PG) in solution versus vaginal PG gel for labor induction. Design: A retrospective study. Methods: Data from original obstetric records at a university hospital in Sweden 2012–2013. Results: In all women, oral PG resulted in vaginal birth (VB)524h in 66% compared to 80% with vaginal PG (p=0.001), and cesarean section (CS) in 19% versus 32% (p=0.02). In primiparous women, oral PG was followed by VB 524h in 54% compared to 71% (p¼0.01), and CS in 25% versus 41% (p=0.03). In women with an unripe cervix, oral PG lead to VB 524h in 66% compared to 79% (p=0.01), and CS in 21% versus 33% (p=0.04). Despite a longer induction to vaginal delivery interval with oral PG, the rates of obstetric bleeding, chorioamnionitis, and neonatal asphyxia were not increased. Conclusions: Oral PG in solution was less effective than vaginal PG gel in achieving VB 524h. However, oral PG was safer, since it resulted in fewer CSs without increasing maternal morbidity or neonatal asphyxia. J Matern Fetal Neonatal Med, Early Online: 1–4 http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/14767058.2016.1190823