Comparison of the safety and efficacy of intravaginal misoprostol (prostaglandin E1) with those of dinoprostone (prostaglandin E2) for cervical ripening and induction of labor in a community hospital.

OBJECTIVE

This clinical trial evaluated the efficacy of intravaginal misoprostol (prostaglandin E1) and compared it with that of dinoprostone (prostaglandin E2) for cervical ripening and induction of labor in a community hospital.

STUDY DESIGN

This study involved a retrospective analysis of 81 patients undergoing cervical ripening and induction of labor with prostaglandin E2 from May 1, 1996, to May 1, 1997. A comparison prospective analysis of 145 patients undergoing the same procedure with prostaglandin E1 from May 1, 1997 to May 1, 1998, was performed.

RESULTS

The mean time to delivery was significantly shorter with misoprostol (19.8 +/- 10.4 hours) than with prostaglandin E2 (31.3 +/- 13.0 hours, P <.001). Delivery within 24 hours of induction was significantly more frequent with misoprostol (71.9% of subjects vs 31.3%, P <.001). There was no difference in the cesarean delivery rate with misoprostol (25.6% vs 22.2%, P <.67). The incidence of uterine hyperstimulation was higher with prostaglandin E2 (7.4% vs 0.7%, P <.007). There were no uterine ruptures with prostaglandin E2. There were 2 uterine ruptures and 1 dehiscence with prostaglandin E1 in 3 patients with previous cesarean deliveries and 1 rupture in a patient without a history of uterine scarring. There was no difference in neonatal outcome, with the exception of a fetal death related to uterine rupture in the misoprostol group.

CONCLUSIONS

Compared with prostaglandin E2, misoprostol is more effective in cervical ripening and induction of labor, is as safe for patients who do not have a history of cesarean birth, may carry a higher incidence of uterine rupture, and should not be used for patients attempting vaginal birth after previous cesarean delivery.