Comparison of the Dinoprostone Vaginal Insert and Dinoprostone Tablet for the Induction of Labor in Primipara : A Retrospective Cohort Study
This retrospective study aimed to compare the safety and efficacy of Prostin E2 and Propess for the induction of labor (IOL) in nulliparous women between January 2018 and October 2021. The inclusion criteria were nulliparous, singleton, >37 weeks’ gestation, cephalic presentation with an unfavorable cervix (Bishop score ≤ 6), no signs of labor, and use of one form of dinoprostone (Prostin E2 or Propess) for IOL. The cesarean section (C/S) rate and induction-to-birth interval were the main outcome measures. In total, 120 women were recruited. Sixty (50%) patients received Propess and 60 (50%) received repeated doses of Prostin E2. The Prostin E2 and Propess groups had similar patient characteristics, but the Bishop score was significantly higher in the Propess group than in the Prostin E2 group; therefore, multivariate analysis was conducted, and the Bishop score was not associated with the induction-to-birth interval. The C/S rate was not significantly different between the two groups, but the Propess group achieved a shorter induction-to-birth interval, a higher rate of vaginal delivery in 24 h, and a lower number of vaginal examinations than the Prostin E2 group. Propess was effective and safe in IOL and could be an option for cervical ripening in nulliparous pregnancy.
| Medienart: |
E-Artikel |
|---|
| Erscheinungsjahr: |
2022 |
|---|---|
| Erschienen: |
2022 |
| Enthalten in: |
Zur Gesamtaufnahme - volume:11 |
|---|---|
| Enthalten in: |
Journal of clinical medicine - 11(2022), 12 vom: 19. Juni |
| Sprache: |
Englisch |
|---|
| Beteiligte Personen: |
Ting, Ning-Shiuan [VerfasserIn] |
|---|
| Links: |
|---|
| Themen: |
Cervical ripening |
|---|
| Anmerkungen: |
Date Revised 08.03.2023 published: Electronic Citation Status PubMed-not-MEDLINE |
|---|
| doi: |
10.3390/jcm11123519 |
|---|
| funding: |
|
|---|---|
| Förderinstitution / Projekttitel: |
|
| PPN (Katalog-ID): |
NLM342646737 |
|---|
| LEADER | 01000naa a22002652 4500 | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| 001 | NLM342646737 | ||
| 003 | DE-627 | ||
| 005 | 20231226014612.0 | ||
| 007 | cr uuu---uuuuu | ||
| 008 | 231226s2022 xx |||||o 00| ||eng c | ||
| 024 | 7 | |a 10.3390/jcm11123519 |2 doi | |
| 028 | 5 | 2 | |a pubmed24n1142.xml |
| 035 | |a (DE-627)NLM342646737 | ||
| 035 | |a (NLM)35743589 | ||
| 035 | |a (PII)3519 | ||
| 040 | |a DE-627 |b ger |c DE-627 |e rakwb | ||
| 041 | |a eng | ||
| 100 | 1 | |a Ting, Ning-Shiuan |e verfasserin |4 aut | |
| 245 | 1 | 0 | |a Comparison of the Dinoprostone Vaginal Insert and Dinoprostone Tablet for the Induction of Labor in Primipara |b A Retrospective Cohort Study |
| 264 | 1 | |c 2022 | |
| 336 | |a Text |b txt |2 rdacontent | ||
| 337 | |a ƒaComputermedien |b c |2 rdamedia | ||
| 338 | |a ƒa Online-Ressource |b cr |2 rdacarrier | ||
| 500 | |a Date Revised 08.03.2023 | ||
| 500 | |a published: Electronic | ||
| 500 | |a Citation Status PubMed-not-MEDLINE | ||
| 520 | |a This retrospective study aimed to compare the safety and efficacy of Prostin E2 and Propess for the induction of labor (IOL) in nulliparous women between January 2018 and October 2021. The inclusion criteria were nulliparous, singleton, >37 weeks’ gestation, cephalic presentation with an unfavorable cervix (Bishop score ≤ 6), no signs of labor, and use of one form of dinoprostone (Prostin E2 or Propess) for IOL. The cesarean section (C/S) rate and induction-to-birth interval were the main outcome measures. In total, 120 women were recruited. Sixty (50%) patients received Propess and 60 (50%) received repeated doses of Prostin E2. The Prostin E2 and Propess groups had similar patient characteristics, but the Bishop score was significantly higher in the Propess group than in the Prostin E2 group; therefore, multivariate analysis was conducted, and the Bishop score was not associated with the induction-to-birth interval. The C/S rate was not significantly different between the two groups, but the Propess group achieved a shorter induction-to-birth interval, a higher rate of vaginal delivery in 24 h, and a lower number of vaginal examinations than the Prostin E2 group. Propess was effective and safe in IOL and could be an option for cervical ripening in nulliparous pregnancy | ||
| 650 | 4 | |a Journal Article | |
| 650 | 4 | |a cervical ripening | |
| 650 | 4 | |a induction of labor | |
| 650 | 4 | |a primipara | |
| 650 | 4 | |a prostaglandin | |
| 650 | 4 | |a slow release | |
| 700 | 1 | |a Ding, Dah-Ching |e verfasserin |4 aut | |
| 700 | 1 | |a Wei, Yu-Chi |e verfasserin |4 aut | |
| 773 | 0 | 8 | |i Enthalten in |t Journal of clinical medicine |d 2012 |g 11(2022), 12 vom: 19. Juni |w (DE-627)NLM230666310 |x 2077-0383 |7 nnns |
| 773 | 1 | 8 | |g volume:11 |g year:2022 |g number:12 |g day:19 |g month:06 |
| 856 | 4 | 0 | |u http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/jcm11123519 |3 Volltext |
| 912 | |a GBV_USEFLAG_A | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_NLM | ||
| 951 | |a AR | ||
| 952 | |d 11 |j 2022 |e 12 |b 19 |c 06 | ||