These tools will no longer be maintained as of December 31, 2024. Archived website can be found here. PubMed4Hh GitHub repository can be found here. Contact NLM Customer Service if you have questions.


Pubmed for Handhelds

PUBMED FOR HANDHELDS

Search MEDLINE/PubMed

  • Title: A randomized trial that compared intravaginal misoprostol and dinoprostone vaginal insert in pregnancies at high risk of fetal distress.
    Author: Rozenberg P, Chevret S, Sénat MV, Bretelle F, Paule Bonnal A, Ville Y.
    Journal: Am J Obstet Gynecol; 2004 Jul; 191(1):247-53. PubMed ID: 15295374.
    Abstract:
    OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to compare the safety and efficacy of misoprostol and dinoprostone in pregnancies at high risk of fetal distress. STUDY DESIGN: Medical indications for the induction of labor with postdate pregnancy or intrauterine growth restriction were randomized. A sequential design that was based on the triangular test was used. RESULTS: At the fourth interim analysis, which included 140 patients, the trial was stopped because no significant difference was found in neonatal safety between misoprostol and dinoprostone, which was assessed on arterial cord pH <7.20 (14.3% vs 10.0%, respectively; P=.60). Neonatal tolerance was similar in the 2 groups, with no difference in the cesarean delivery rate for fetal distress or in the incidence of meconium-stained amniotic fluid. Time to vaginal delivery was shortened by misoprostol (P=.03). CONCLUSION: Misoprostol and dinoprostone are equally safe for the induction of labor in pregnancies that are at high risk of fetal distress; however, misoprostol allowed the earlier induction of labor than did dinoprostone.
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related] [New Search]