Utility of misoprostol for labor induction in severe pre-eclampsia and eclampsia

Anestesia para pacientes con preeclampsia

Introducción. La preeclampsia es una enfermedad con alta frecuencia a nivel mundial relacionada con la gestación. Las pacientes que la padecen pueden precisar un procedimiento anestésico por diversos motivos, incluidas las complicaciones graves.Objetivo. Realizar una revisión narrativa de la literatura respecto a las pautas principales del tratamiento anestésico de pacientes con preeclampsia.Materiales y métodos. Se realizó una búsqueda estructurada en las bases de datos ProQuest, EBSCO, ScienceDirect, PubMed, LILACS, Embase, Trip Database, SciELO y Cochrane Library con los términos Anesthesia AND pre-eclampsia AND therapeutics; hypertension, Pregnancy-Induced AND anesthesia AND therapeutics; anesthesia AND pre-eclampsia; hypertension, pregnancy induced AND anesthesia. La búsqueda se hizo en inglés con sus equivalentes en español.Resultados. Se encontraron 61 artículos con información relevante para el desarrollo de la presente revisión.Conclusiones. Una valoración preanestésica y la instauración temprana de las técnicas analgésicas y anestésicas pueden mitigar el impacto de complicaciones derivadas del curso de la preeclampsia. Respecto a desenlaces mayores, no existe diferencia significativa entre los distintos tipos de anestesia.

Labor induction in preeclampsia: is misoprostol more effective than dinoprostone?

OBJECTIVE

To compare the efficacy of vaginal misoprostol versus dinoprostone for induction of labor (IOL) in patients with preeclampsia according to the WHO criteria.

STUDY DESIGN

Ninety-eight patients were retrospectively analyzed. A total of 47 patients received 3 mg dinoprostone suppositories every 6 h (max. 6 mg/24 h) whereas 51 patients in the misoprostol group received either 50 mug misoprostol vaginally every 12 h, or 25 mug every 6 h (max. 100 mug/24 h). Primary outcomes were vaginal delivery within 24 and 48 h, respectively.

RESULTS

The probability of delivering within 48 h was more than three-fold higher in the misoprostol than in the dinoprostone group: odds ratio (OR)=3.48; 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.24, 10.30, whereas no significant difference was observed within 24 h (P=0.34). No correlation was seen between a ripe cervix prior to IOL and delivery within 24/48 h (P=0.33 and P=1.0, respectively). More cesarean sections were performed in the dinoprostone group due to failed IOL (P=0.0009). No significant differences in adverse maternal outcome were observed between both study groups, whereas more neonates (12 vs. 6) of the dinoprostone group were admitted to the NICU (P=0.068).

CONCLUSION

This study suggests that misoprostol may have some advantages compared to dinoprostone, including improved efficacy and lower cost of the drug, even in cases of preeclampsia.