Labor Induction for Premature Rupture of Membranes Using Vaginal Misoprostol versus Dinoprostone Vaginal Insert

Abstract

Objective To compare labor induction outcomes using vaginal misoprostol versus dinoprostone insert in women with premature rupture of membranes (PROM) and an unfavorable cervix.

Study Design Charts of singleton gestations beyond 34 weeks with PROM and an unfavorable cervix from 2008 to 2011 were reviewed. Group assignment was determined by initial induction agent used. Dinoprostone was administered as a 10-mg vaginal insert left for up to 12 hours. Misoprostol was administered vaginally as a 25-μg tablet every 4 hours for up to six doses. Times to active labor, complete dilatation, and delivery and incidence of adverse outcomes (intrapartum fever, tachysystole, fetal heart rate abnormalities) were compared.

Results Ninety-eight women were included. Baseline characteristics between groups were not different. Median times to active labor (7 versus 11 hours, p < 0.001) and complete dilatation (13.5 versus 19 hours, p < 0.001) were shorter in the misoprostol group. In the misoprostol group, 41.7 and 88.4% of patients delivered vaginally within 12 and 24 hours, respectively, compared with 20.8 and 58.0% in the dinoprostone group (p < 0.001). There was no difference in incidence of adverse outcomes.

Conclusion Vaginal misoprostol is more effective than dinoprostone insert for induction secondary to PROM without increasing the incidence of adverse outcomes.

Keywords

prostaglandin - unfavorable cervix - cervical ripening - PROM

• References

• 1 Hannah ME, Ohlsson A, Farine D , et al; TERMPROM Study Group. Induction of labor compared with expectant management for prelabor rupture of the membranes at term. N Engl J Med 1996; 334: 1005-1010
• 2 Duff P, Huff RW, Gibbs RS. Management of premature rupture of membranes and unfavorable cervix in term pregnancy. Obstet Gynecol 1984; 63: 697-702
• 3 Mozurkewich E. Prelabor rupture of membranes at term: induction techniques. Clin Obstet Gynecol 2006; 49: 672-683
• 4 Sanchez-Ramos L, Chen AH, Kaunitz AM, Gaudier FL, Delke I. Labor induction with intravaginal misoprostol in term premature rupture of membranes: a randomized study. Obstet Gynecol 1997; 89: 909-912
• 5 Frohn WE, Simmons S, Carlan SJ. Prostaglandin E2 gel versus misoprostol for cervical ripening in patients with premature rupture of membranes after 34 weeks. Obstet Gynecol 2002; 99: 206-210
• 6 Practice Bulletin No ACOG; ACOG Practice Bulletin No. 107: Induction of labor. Obstet Gynecol 2009; 114 (2 Pt 1) 386-397
• 7 Seaward PG, Hannah ME, Myhr TL , et al. International Multicentre Term Prelabor Rupture of Membranes Study: evaluation of predictors of clinical chorioamnionitis and postpartum fever in patients with prelabor rupture of membranes at term. Am J Obstet Gynecol 1997; 177: 1024-1029
• 8 Peleg D, Hannah ME, Hodnett ED, Foster GA, Willan AR, Farine D. Predictors of cesarean delivery after prelabor rupture of membranes at term. Obstet Gynecol 1999; 93: 1031-1035
• 9 Wing DA, Ortiz-Omphroy G, Paul RH. A comparison of intermittent vaginal administration of misoprostol with continuous dinoprostone for cervical ripening and labor induction. Am J Obstet Gynecol 1997; 177: 612-618
• 10 Harms K, Nguyen C, Toy EC, Baker B. Intravaginal misoprostol versus cervidil for cervical ripening in term pregnancies. Obstet Gynecol 2001; 97 (Suppl. 01) S36
• 11 Bolnick JM, Velazquez MD, Gonzalez JL, Rappaport VJ, McIlwain-Dunivan G, Rayburn WF. Randomized trial between two active labor management protocols in the presence of an unfavorable cervix. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2004; 190: 124-128