Department of Gynecology and Obstetrics, Vivantes Klinikum im Friedrichshain, Berlin, Germany.
Department of Gynecology and Obstetrics, Charité University Hospital, Berlin, Germany.
J Perinat Med. 2022 Aug 9;50(9):1180-1188. doi: 10.1515/jpm-2022-0196. Print 2022 Nov 25.
With an increasing incidence of labor induction the socioeconomic costs are increasing and the burden on hospital capacities is rising. In addition, the worldwide SARS-CoV-2 pandemic asks for improvements in patient care during pregnancy and delivery while decreasing the patient-staff contact. Here, we are retrospectively analyzing and comparing a mechanical ripening device that is utilized as an outpatient procedure to misoprostol and dinoprostone as inpatient induction methods in a low risk cohort.
This is a retrospective comparative analysis of obstetric data on patients who presented for cervical ripening and labor induction. Ninety-six patients received a mechanical ripening agent as an outpatient procedure. As a control group, we used 99 patients with oral misoprostol (PGE1) and 42 patients with vaginal dinoprostone (PGE2) for cervical ripening in an inpatient setting. Data from 2016 until 2020 were analysed.
Baseline characteristics showed no significant differences. Delivery modes were similar in all groups. The time period from patient admission to onset of labor was significantly shorter in the outpatient group (p<0.001): 10.9 h/0.5 days (±13.6/0.6) for osmotic dilator vs. 17.9 h/0.7 days (±13.1/0.5) for oral misoprostol vs. 21.8 h/0.8 days (±15.9/0.7) for vaginal dinoprostone. With 20.4 h/0.8 days (±14.3/0.6) the osmotic dilator group displayed significantly the shortest inpatient stay from admission to delivery (p=0.027). The patient subgroup of misoprostol had 25.7 h/1.1 days (±14.9/0.6) of inpatient stay from admission to delivery and the patient group of dinoprostone 27.5 h/1.1 days (±16.0/0.7). There were fewer hospital days in the outpatient group: 84.9 h/3.5 days vs. 88.9 h/3.7 days vs. 93.6 h/3.9 days (outpatient osmotic dilator vs. inpatient misoprostol and dinoprostone, respectively).
New approaches are required to decrease individual contacts between patients and staff while maintaining a high quality patient care in obstetrics. This analysis reveals that outpatient mechanical cervical ripening can be as safe and effective as inpatient cervical ripening with PGE1/PGE2, while lowering patient-staff contact and total hospital stays and therefore decreasing the socioeconomic costs.
随着引产发生率的增加,社会经济成本不断增加,医院容量负担也在增加。此外,全球 SARS-CoV-2 大流行要求在妊娠和分娩期间改善患者护理,同时减少患者与医务人员的接触。在这里,我们回顾性分析并比较了一种机械促熟装置,该装置作为门诊程序用于低危人群中的米索前列醇和地诺前列酮作为住院引产方法。
这是一项对接受宫颈成熟和引产的患者进行产科数据的回顾性比较分析。96 名患者接受机械促熟剂作为门诊程序。作为对照组,我们使用 99 名口服米索前列醇(PGE1)和 42 名阴道地诺前列酮(PGE2)的患者在住院环境中进行宫颈成熟。分析了 2016 年至 2020 年的数据。
基线特征无显著差异。所有组的分娩方式相似。门诊组患者入院至开始分娩的时间明显缩短(p<0.001):渗透扩张器为 10.9 小时/0.5 天(±13.6/0.6),口服米索前列醇为 17.9 小时/0.7 天(±13.1/0.5),阴道地诺前列酮为 21.8 小时/0.8 天(±15.9/0.7)。渗透扩张器组的住院时间最短,为 20.4 小时/0.8 天(±14.3/0.6)(p=0.027)。米索前列醇组的亚组患者入院至分娩的住院时间为 25.7 小时/1.1 天(±14.9/0.6),地诺前列酮组患者为 27.5 小时/1.1 天(±16.0/0.7)。门诊组住院天数较少:84.9 小时/3.5 天 vs. 88.9 小时/3.7 天 vs. 93.6 小时/3.9 天(门诊渗透扩张器 vs. 住院米索前列醇和地诺前列酮)。
需要新的方法来减少患者与医务人员之间的个体接触,同时保持妇产科高质量的患者护理。这项分析表明,门诊机械宫颈成熟与 PGE1/PGE2 相比,可与住院宫颈成熟一样安全有效,同时降低患者与医务人员的接触和总住院时间,从而降低社会经济成本。