Oxytocin vs oral misoprostol for PROM induction in nulliparas with unfavorable cervix: a randomized trial

被引:1
作者
Bender, Whitney R. [1 ,2 ]
Mccoy, Jennifer A. [1 ]
Levine, Lisa D. [1 ]
机构
[1] Univ Penn, Pregnancy & Perinatal Res Ctr, Perelman Sch Med, Philadelphia, PA USA
[2] Thomas Jefferson Univ Hosp, Sidney Kimmel Med Coll, Philadelphia, PA 19107 USA
关键词
cervical ripening; prelabor rupture of membranes; PREMATURE RUPTURE; PRELABOR RUPTURE; LABOR INDUCTION; MEMBRANES; WOMEN; TERM;
D O I
10.1016/j.ajogmf.2024.101414
中图分类号
R71 [妇产科学];
学科分类号
100211 ;
摘要
BACKGROUND: Induction of labor (IOL) is recommended following prelabor rupture of membranes (PROM). The optimal method for IOL and need for cervical ripening in those with PROM and an unfavorable cervical examination is unclear. OBJECTIVE: To determine if oxytocin or oral misoprostol results in a shorter time to delivery among nulliparous patients with an unfavorable cervical examination and PROM diagnosis and to evaluate patient satisfaction with both methods. STUDY DESIGN: This is a randomized clinical trial conducted at an urban tertiary care center from 2019 to 2023. Subjects were nulliparas >= 36 weeks with an unfavorable starting cervical exam (<= 2 cm and Bishop <8). The primary outcome was time from IOL to delivery in hours compared between oxytocin vs oral misoprostol. Secondary outcomes included suspected intraamniotic infection, cesarean delivery, composite maternal and neonatal morbidity, and patient satisfaction (assessed by Birth Satisfaction Scale-Revised). Sub-group analyses for those with BMI >= 30 kg/m(2) and cervical dilation >= 1 cm were performed. We required 148 subjects to have 80% power to detect a 2-hour difference in time to delivery. The study was stopped early by the data safety monitoring board due to feasibility concerns in recruiting desired sample size. RESULTS: A total of 108 subjects were randomized: 56 oxytocin; 52 oral miso. The median gestational age at induction was 39.5 weeks; the mean starting cervical dilation was 1.1 cm. There was no statistical difference in time to delivery between groups overall: 14.9 hours oxytocin vs 18.1 hours oral misoprostol (P=.06). In sub-group analyses, there was a 5 hours shorter time to delivery with oxytocin for those with a BMI >= 30 kg/m(2) (16.6 hours oxytocin vs 21.8 hours oral misoprostol, P .04) and 4.5 hours shorter time to delivery with oxytocin for those with cervix >= 1 cm (12.9 hours oxytocin vs 17.3 hours oral misoprostol, P .04). There were no differences intraamniotic infection, cesarean delivery, maternal or neonatal morbidity between the groups. Patient satisfaction was higher for those receiving oxytocin compared to misoprostol (29.0 vs 26.3, P=.03). CONCLUSION: Among nulliparas with PROM and an unfavorable cervix, there was no difference in overall time to delivery between oxytocin and oral misoprostol. This result should be interpreted with caution given early study discontinuation and inadequate power. However, a shorter time to delivery with oxytocin was noted in obese patients and those with cervical dilation of at least cm. Furthermore, patient satisfaction was higher in the oxytocin group, and there was no increased risk of neonatal or maternal morbidity with oxytocin.
引用
收藏
页数:7
相关论文
共 50 条
  • [1] Vaginal assessment and expedited amniotomy in oral misoprostol labor induction in nulliparas: a randomized trial
    Win, Sandar Tin
    Tan, Peng Chiong
    Balchin, Imelda
    Khong, Su Yen
    Lay, Khaing Si
    Omar, Siti Zawiah
    AMERICAN JOURNAL OF OBSTETRICS AND GYNECOLOGY, 2019, 220 (04) : 387.e1 - 387.e12
  • [2] Oral Misoprostol for Induction of Labour in Term PROM: A Systematic Review
    Padayachee, Larissa
    Kale, Mruganka
    Mannerfeldt, Jaelene
    Metcalfe, Amy
    JOURNAL OF OBSTETRICS AND GYNAECOLOGY CANADA, 2020, 42 (12) : 1525 - +
  • [3] Oral Misoprostol for Labor Augmentation A Randomized Controlled Trial
    Bleich, April T.
    Villano, Kathryn S.
    Lo, Julie Y.
    Alexander, James M.
    McIntire, Donald D.
    Leveno, Kenneth J.
    OBSTETRICS AND GYNECOLOGY, 2011, 118 (06) : 1255 - 1260
  • [4] Nulliparas at Term with Premature Rupture of Membranes and an Unfavorable Cervix: Labor Induction with Prostaglandin or Oxytocin? A Retrospective Matched Case Study
    Lando, Maayan Bas
    Majida, Ewida
    Solnica, Amy
    Helman, Sarit
    Kalifa, Tal Margaliot
    Grisaru-Granovsky, Sorina
    Reichman, Orna
    JOURNAL OF CLINICAL MEDICINE, 2024, 13 (12)
  • [5] Randomized trial of preinduction cervical ripening: misoprostol vs oxytocin
    Fonseca, Linda
    Wood, Hilaire C.
    Lucas, Michael J.
    Ramin, Susan M.
    Phatak, Deepali
    Gilstrap, Larry C., III
    Yeomans, Edward R.
    AMERICAN JOURNAL OF OBSTETRICS AND GYNECOLOGY, 2008, 199 (03) : 305.e1 - 305.e5
  • [6] A randomized controlled trial comparing vaginal misoprostol versus Foley catheter plus oxytocin for labor induction
    Moraes Filho, Olimpio B.
    Albuquerque, Rivaldo M.
    Cecatti, Jose G.
    ACTA OBSTETRICIA ET GYNECOLOGICA SCANDINAVICA, 2010, 89 (08) : 1045 - 1052
  • [7] Labor induction in term gravidas with prelabor rupture of membranes and unfavorable cervixes: Oxytocin versus vaginal misoprostol
    Zhang, Chengyan
    Jiang, Haili
    Kong, Lijun
    Feng, Yi
    Zhou, Li
    INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF GYNECOLOGY & OBSTETRICS, 2023, 161 (02) : 536 - 543
  • [8] Foley Bulb Added to an Oral Misoprostol Induction Protocol A Cluster Randomized Trial
    Adhikari, Emily H.
    Nelson, David B.
    McIntire, Donald D.
    Leveno, Kenneth J.
    OBSTETRICS AND GYNECOLOGY, 2020, 136 (05) : 953 - 961
  • [9] Oral misoprostol vs. intravenous oxytocin for labor induction in women with prelabor rupture of membranes at term
    Al-Hussaini, TK
    Abdel-Aal, SA
    Youssef, MAM
    INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF GYNECOLOGY & OBSTETRICS, 2003, 82 (01) : 73 - 75
  • [10] Chorioamnionitis after premature rupture of membranes in nulliparas undergoing labor induction: prostaglandin E2 vs. oxytocin
    Gulersen, Moti
    Zottola, Cristina
    Li, Xueying
    Krantz, David
    DiSturco, Mariella
    Bornstein, Eran
    JOURNAL OF PERINATAL MEDICINE, 2021, 49 (09) : 1058 - 1063