Papanikolaou Evangelos G, Plachouras Nikos, Drougia Aikaterini, Andronikou Styliani, Vlachou Christina, Stefos Theodoros, Paraskevaidis Evangelos, Zikopoulos Konstantinos
Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, University Hospital of Ioannina, Medical School of Ioannina, Ioannina, Greece.
Reprod Biol Endocrinol. 2004 Sep 27;2:70. doi: 10.1186/1477-7827-2-70.
The objective of this randomized prospective study was to compare the efficacy of 50 mcg vaginal misoprostol and 3 mg dinoprostone, administered every nine hours for a maximum of three doses, for elective induction of labor in a specific cohort of nulliparous women with an unfavorable cervix and more than 40 weeks of gestation.
One hundred and sixty-three pregnant women with more than 285 days of gestation were recruited and analyzed. The main outcome measures were time from induction to delivery and incidence of vaginal delivery within 12 and 24 hours. Admission rate to the neonatal intensive care unit within 24 hours post delivery was a secondary outcome.
The induction-delivery interval was significantly lower in the misoprostol group than in the dinoprostone group (11.9 h vs. 15.5 h, p < 0.001). With misoprostol, more women delivered within 12 hours (57.5% vs. 32.5%, p < 0.01) and 24 hours (98.7% vs. 91.4%, p < 0.05), spontaneous rupture of the membranes occurred more frequently (38.8% vs. 20.5%, p < 0.05), there was less need for oxytocin augmentation (65.8% vs. 81.5%, p < 0.05) and fewer additional doses were required (7.5% vs. 22%, p < 0.05). Although not statistically significant, a lower Caesarean section (CS) rate was observed with misoprostol (7.5% vs. 13.3%, p > 0.05) but with the disadvantage of higher abnormal fetal heart rate (FHR) tracings (22.5% vs. 12%, p > 0.05). From the misoprostol group more neonates were admitted to the intensive neonatal unit, than from the dinoprostone group (13.5% vs. 4.8%, p > 0.05). One woman had an unexplained stillbirth following the administration of one dose of dinoprostone.
Vaginal misoprostol, compared with dinoprostone in the regimens used, is more effective in elective inductions of labor beyond 40 weeks of gestation. Nevertheless, this is at the expense of more abnormal FHR tracings and more admissions to the neonatal unit, indicating that the faster approach is not necessarily the better approach to childbirth.
这项随机前瞻性研究的目的是比较米索前列醇阴道制剂50微克与地诺前列酮3毫克,每9小时给药一次,最多给药三剂,用于特定队列中宫颈条件不佳且妊娠超过40周的初产妇进行择期引产的疗效。
招募并分析了163名妊娠超过285天的孕妇。主要观察指标为引产至分娩的时间以及12小时和24小时内阴道分娩的发生率。分娩后24小时内新生儿重症监护病房的收治率为次要观察指标。
米索前列醇组的引产至分娩间隔显著低于地诺前列酮组(11.9小时对15.5小时,p<0.001)。使用米索前列醇时,更多女性在12小时内分娩(57.5%对32.5%,p<0.01)和24小时内分娩(98.7%对91.4%,p<0.05),胎膜自然破裂更频繁(38.8%对20.5%,p<0.05),催产素加强使用的需求更少(65.8%对81.5%,p<0.05)且所需额外剂量更少(7.5%对22%,p<0.05)。虽然无统计学意义,但米索前列醇组的剖宫产率较低(7.5%对13.3%,p>0.05),但缺点是胎儿心率异常(FHR)描记更高(22.5%对12%,p>0.05)。米索前列醇组进入新生儿重症监护病房的新生儿比地诺前列酮组更多(13.5%对4.8%,p>0.05)。一名女性在使用一剂地诺前列酮后出现不明原因死产。
与所用方案中的地诺前列酮相比,米索前列醇阴道制剂在妊娠40周后择期引产中更有效。然而,这是以更多胎儿心率异常描记和更多新生儿进入重症监护病房为代价的,表明更快的分娩方式不一定是更好的分娩方式。