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

Search MEDLINE/PubMed


  • Title: [Comparison of combination of dinoprostone suppository and ethacridine and ethacridine alone for induction of mid term pregnancy].
    Author: Chen F, Liu XY, Peng P, Lang JH.
    Journal: Zhongguo Yi Xue Ke Xue Yuan Xue Bao; 2010 Oct; 32(5):505-8. PubMed ID: 21050553.
    Abstract:
    OBJECTIVE: To compare the effectiveness and safety of using the combination of dinoprostone suppository and ethacridine and ethacridine alone for the induction of mid-term pregnancy. METHODS: The clinical data of 96 patients at 16-27+6 gestational weeks in Peking Union Medical College Hospital from March 2008 to December 2009 were retrospectively analyzed. Patients were divided into combination group (n=54) and ethacridine alone group (n=42) based on their induction methods. The efficacy and side effect were compared between these two groups after the induction. RESULTS: The effectiveness rate was 70.4% (38/54) in the combination group,which was significantly higher than that in ethacridine alone group (4.8%) (2/42) (P=0.001). The durations of the first and second,and total stage of labor were found to be significantly shorter in combination group [(287∓39) and (513∓39) min)] when compared with ethacridine alone group [(546∓84) and (661∓82) min] (P=0.01). The bleeding volume in the combination group was (69∓4) ml, which was significantly less than that in control group (96∓7) ml (P=0.02). The two groups had no significant differences in terms of in-labor duration (P=0.45), postpartum placenta remnants (P=0.91), and fetal membrane remnants (P=1.31). CONCLUSION: The combination of dinoprostone suppositories and ethacridine is more effective and safer than ethacridine alone for induction of mid-term pregnancy.
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related] [New Search]