Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Vaginal Dinoprostone Versus Intravenous Oxytocin for Labor Induction in Patients Not Responsive to a First Dose of Dinoprostone: A Randomized Prospective Study

  • Original Article
  • Published:
Reproductive Sciences Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Objective

To evaluate the efficacy of 2 different regimens for labor induction in patients with unfavorable cervix not responsive to a first dose of dinoprostone vaginal insert.

Methods

Between November, 2011 and June, 2014, 338 patients underwent induction of labor. After standard 24 hours treatment, 94 singleton term pregnancies remained with a Bishop score ≤6 and were randomized into 2 different regimens: repeated vaginal dinoprostone (group A, n = 47) or intravenous oxytocin (group B, n = 47). Primary outcome was vaginal delivery, and the secondary outcomes were interval between labor induction and delivery and operative delivery rates.

Results

Vaginal deliveries were significantly higher (group A: 26/47 (55.3%) and group B 16/47 (34.0%), P < .05), and cesarean sections were significantly lower (group A 21/47 (44.7%) and group B 31/47 (66%), P < .05) in patients who received a double dose of dinoprostone. The intervals between labor induction and onset of labor and between labor induction and delivery were lower in the group treated with oxytocin. Neonatal outcomes were similar in the 2 groups.

Conclusion

A second dinoprostone vaginal insert is an effective and safe choice for patients with unfavorable cervix not responsive to a first 24 hours administration of dinoprostone for cervical ripening, and its use is associated with lower cesarean section rates.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Timmons B, Akins M, Mahendroo M. Cervical remodeling during pregnancy and parturition. Trends Endocrinol Metab. 2010;21(6): 353–361.

    CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  2. Arulkumaran S, Gibb DM, Tamby Raja RL, Heng SH, Ratnam SS. Failed induction of labour. Aust N Z J Obstet Gynaecol. 1985;25(3):190–193.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Xenakis EM, Piper JM, Conway DL, Langer O. Induction of labor in the nineties: conquering the unfavorable cervix. Obstet Gynecol. 1997;90(2):235–239.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Thomas J, Fairclough A, Kavanagh J, Kelly AJ. Vaginal prostaglandin (PGE2 and PGF2a) for induction of labour at term. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2014:6:CD003101.

    Google Scholar 

  5. ACOG Committee on Practice Bulletins - Obstetrics. ACOG Practice Bulletin No. 107: induction of labor. Obstet Gynecol. 2009;114(2 pt 1):386–397.

    Google Scholar 

  6. Macones GA, Hankins GD, Spong CY, Hauth J, Moore T. The 2008 National Institute of Child Health and Human Development workshop report on electronic fetal monitoring: update on definitions, interpretation and research guidelines. Obstet Gynecol. 2008;112(3):661–666.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists. ACOG Practice Bulletin No. 116: management of intrapartum fetal heart rate tracings. Obstet Gynecol. 2010;116(5):1232–1240.

    Google Scholar 

  8. Pevzner L, Rayburn WF, Rumney P, Wing DA. Factors predicting successful labor induction with dinoprostone and misoprostol vaginal inserts. Obstet Gynecol. 2009;114(2 pt 1):261–267.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Vrouenraets FP, Roumen FJ, Dehing CJ, van den Akker ES, Aarts MJ, Scheve EJ. Bishop score and risk of cesarean delivery after induction of labor in nulliparous women. Obstet Gynecol. 2005; 105(4):690–697.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Bishop EH. Pelvic scoring for elective induction. Obstet Gynecol. 1964;24:266–268.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Keirse MJ. Natural prostaglandins for induction of labor and pre-induction cervical ripening. Clin Obstet Gynecol. 2006;49(3): 609–626.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Triglia MT, Palamara F, Lojacono A, Prefumo F, Frusca T. A randomized controlled trial of 24-hour vaginal dinoprostone pessary compared to gel for induction of labor in term pregnancies with a Bishop score < or = 4. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand. 2010;89(5): 651–657.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. 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(3):612–618.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Sanchez-Ramos L, Peterson DE, Delke I, Gaudier FL, Kaunitz AM. Labor induction with prostaglandin E1 misoprostol compared with dinoprostone vaginal insert: a randomized trial. Obstet Gynecol. 1998;91(3):401–405.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. 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(1): 124–128.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Garry D, Figueroa R, Kalish RB, Catalano CJ, Maulik D. Randomized controlled trial of vaginal misoprostol versus dinoprostone vaginal insert for labor induction. J Matern Fetal Neonatal Med. 2003;13(4):254–259.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Rozenberg P, Chevret S, Senat MV, Bretelle F, Paule Bonnal A, Ville Y. A randomized trial that compared intravaginal misoprostol and dinoprostone vaginal insert in pregnancies at high risk of fetal distress. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2004;191(1): 247–253.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Tanir HM, Sener T, Yildiz C, Kaya M, Kurt I. A prospective randomized trial of labor induction with vaginal controlled-release dinoprostone inserts with or without oxytocin and misoprostol + oxytocin. Clin Exp Obstet Gynecol. 2008;35(1):65–68.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Ozkan S, Caliskan E, Doger E, Yucesoy I, Ozeren S, Vural B. Comparative efficacy and safety of vaginal misoprostol versus dinoprostone vaginal insert in labor induction at term: a randomized trial. Arch Gynecol Obstet. 2009;280(1):19–24.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Ramsey PS, Harris DY, Ogburn PL, Heise RH, Magtibay PM, Ramin KD. Comparative efficacy and cost of the prostaglandin analogs dinoprostone and misoprostol as labor preinduction agents. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2003;188(2):560–565.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Bebbington M, Schmuel E, Pevzner L, et al. Misoprostol versus dinoprostone for labor induction at term: a randomized controlled trial. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2003;189(6 suppl):s211.

    Google Scholar 

  22. Zanconato G, Bergamini V, Mantovani E, Carlin R, Bortolami O, Franchi M. Induction of labor and pain: a randomized trial between two vaginal preparations of dinoprostone in nulliparous women with an unfavorable cervix. J Matern Fetal Neonatal Med. 2011;24(5):728–731.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Marconi AM, Bozzetti P, Morabito A, Pardi G. Comparing two dinoprostone agents for cervical ripening and induction of labor: a randomized trial. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol. 2008; 138(2):135–140.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Facchinetti F, Fontanesi F, Del Giovane C. Pre-induction of labour: comparing dinoprostone vaginal insert to repeated prostaglandin administration: a systematic review and meta-analysis. J Matern Fetal Neonatal Med. 2012;25(10):1965–1969.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Petrovic Barbitch M, Gnisci A, Marcelli M, et al. Cervical ripening at term with repeated administration of dinoprostone vaginal pessary. Gynecol Obstet Fertil. 2013;41(6):346–350.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Sanchez-Ramos L, Kaunitz AM, Delke I, Gaudier FL. Cervical ripening and labor induction with a controlled-release dinoprostone vaginal insert: a meta-analysis. Obstet Gynecol. 1999;94(5 pt 2):878–883.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. Smith JG, Merrill DC. Oxytocin for induction of labor. Clin Obstet Gynecol. 2006;49(3):594–608.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  28. Tan PC, Daud SA, Omar SZ. Concurrent dinoprostone and oxytocin for labor induction in term premature rupture of membranes: a randomized controlled trial. Obstet Gynecol. 2009;113(5): 1059–1065.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  29. Khan RA, Khan ZE, Ashraf O. Concurrent versus sequential methods for labor induction at term. Int J Gynaecol Obstet. 2007;96(2):94–97.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  30. Christensen FC, Tehranifar M, Gonzalez JL, Qualls CR, Rappaport VJ, Rayburn WF. Randomized trial of concurrent oxytocin with a sustained-release dinoprostone vaginal insert for labor induction at term. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2002;186(1):61–65.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Biomedical and Clinical Sciences, Hospital “L. Sacco,” Unit of Obstetrics and Gynecology, University of Milan, and Centre for Fetal Research Giorgio Pardi, University of Milan, Via GB Grassi 74, 20157, Milano, Italy

    Patrizio Antonazzo MD, PhD, Arianna Laoreti MD, Carlo Personeni MD, Elena Grossi MD, Anna Martinelli MD & Irene Cetin MD

Authors
  1. Patrizio Antonazzo MD, PhD
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Arianna Laoreti MD
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Carlo Personeni MD
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Elena Grossi MD
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Anna Martinelli MD
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Irene Cetin MD
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Patrizio Antonazzo MD, PhD.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Antonazzo, P., Laoreti, A., Personeni, C. et al. Vaginal Dinoprostone Versus Intravenous Oxytocin for Labor Induction in Patients Not Responsive to a First Dose of Dinoprostone: A Randomized Prospective Study. Reprod. Sci. 23, 779–784 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1177/1933719115618272

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/1933719115618272

Keywords

Search

Navigation