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
[21]   Vaginal dinoprostone vs Foley catheter for induction of labor at term with an unfavorable cervix: an open-label randomized controlled trial [J].
Liu, Xiaohua ;
Huang, Ding ;
Liu, Yang ;
Qu, Cuicui ;
Mo, Huiqin ;
Zhao, Xin ;
Li, Wentao ;
Mol, Ben Willem ;
Shen, Hong ;
Cheng, Weiwei ;
Ying, Hao .
AMERICAN JOURNAL OF OBSTETRICS & GYNECOLOGY MFM, 2024, 6 (09)
[22]   Safety and Efficacy of Combined Oral Misoprostol and Foley Catheter Treatment in Comparison with Oral Misoprostol Alone for Labor Induction: A Randomized Clinical Trial study [J].
Beyrami, Shima ;
Noorzadeh, Maryam ;
Naemi, Mahsa .
BIOMEDICAL RESEARCH AND THERAPY, 2024, 11 (10) :6852-6858
[23]   Oral misoprostol, low dose vaginal misoprostol, and vaginal dinoprostone for labor induction: Randomized controlled trial [J].
Young, David C. ;
Delaney, Tina ;
Armson, B. Anthony ;
Fanning, Cora .
PLOS ONE, 2020, 15 (01)
[24]   Induction of labor and pain: a randomized trial between two vaginal preparations of dinoprostone in nulliparous women with an unfavorable cervix [J].
Zanconato, Giovanni ;
Bergamini, Valentino ;
Mantovani, Elena ;
Carlin, Roberta ;
Bortolami, Oscar ;
Franchi, Massimo .
JOURNAL OF MATERNAL-FETAL & NEONATAL MEDICINE, 2011, 24 (05) :728-731
[25]   Oral Misoprostol and Vaginal Isosorbide Mononitrate for Labor Induction A Randomized Controlled Trial [J].
Collingham, Justin P. ;
Fuh, Katherine C. ;
Caughey, Aaron B. ;
Pullen, Kristin M. ;
Lyell, Deirdre J. ;
El-Sayed, Yasser Y. .
OBSTETRICS AND GYNECOLOGY, 2010, 116 (01) :121-126
[26]   Comparison of oral and vaginal misoprostol for induction of labor at term: A randomized controlled trial [J].
Paungmora, N ;
Herabutya, Y ;
O-Prasertsawat, P ;
Punyavachira, P .
JOURNAL OF OBSTETRICS AND GYNAECOLOGY RESEARCH, 2004, 30 (05) :358-362
[27]   A comparison between intravaginal and oral misoprostol for labor induction: A randomized controlled trial [J].
Nopdonrattakoon, L .
JOURNAL OF OBSTETRICS AND GYNAECOLOGY RESEARCH, 2003, 29 (02) :87-91
[28]   RANDOMIZED TRIAL OF ORAL MISOPROSTOL TREATMENT FOR CERVICAL RIPENING BEFORE TANDEM APPLICATION IN CERVIX CANCER [J].
Cepni, Kimia ;
Gul, Sule ;
Cepni, Ismail ;
Guralp, Onur ;
Sal, Veysel ;
Mayadagli, Alpaslan .
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RADIATION ONCOLOGY BIOLOGY PHYSICS, 2011, 81 (03) :778-781
[29]   Prospective randomized clinical trial of inpatient cervical ripening with stepwise oral misoprostol vs vaginal misoprostot [J].
Colón, I ;
Clawson, K ;
Hunter, K ;
Druzin, ML ;
Taslimi, MM .
AMERICAN JOURNAL OF OBSTETRICS AND GYNECOLOGY, 2005, 192 (03) :747-752
[30]   Foley Plus Oxytocin Compared With Oxytocin for Induction After Membrane Rupture A Randomized Controlled Trial [J].
Mackeen, A. Dhanya ;
Durie, Danielle E. ;
Lin, Monique ;
Huls, Christopher K. ;
Qureshey, Emma ;
Paglia, Michael J. ;
Sun, Haiyan ;
Sciscione, Anthony .
OBSTETRICS AND GYNECOLOGY, 2018, 131 (01) :4-11