Reduction in resource use with the misoprostol vaginal insert vs the dinoprostone vaginal insert for labour induction: a model-based analysis from a United Kingdom healthcare perspective

Comparison of Misoprostol for Labor Induction: Vaginal Insert Versus Oral Application Concerning Efficiency and Safety

BACKGROUND/AIM

The aim of the present retrospective study was to examine the efficiency and safety of the induction of labor with Misoprostol, administered either vaginally or orally.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

This retrospective cohort study included pregnant women with a gestational age of ≥36 +0 weeks and a singleton pregnancy who underwent induction of labor with Misoprostol as vaginal insert or as tablet (oral) between January 2014 and January 2019 at the Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology of the University Hospital of Cologne. The objective of this study was to analyze the time until delivery and the maternal and neonatal outcomes.

RESULTS

A total of 1,511 patients were included in this retrospective analysis, of whom 1,035 patients (68.5%) underwent induction of labor with a misoprostol vaginal insert (MVI) and 476 (31.5%) with tablets (oral misoprostol: OM). MVI significantly shortened the time from application to delivery (p<0.001) in comparison to OM, reduced the need for epidural anesthesia (EA) (p=0.018) without an increase in caesarean sections (CS) (p=1), ventouse deliveries (VD) (p=0.715), maternal birth injuries or a reduced neonatal outcome (APGAR-Score, umbilical cord pH).

CONCLUSION

MVI is superior to OM in terms of efficiency (primary outcome: time from application to delivery) and is equally safe (primary outcome: CS rate). Our study, along with existing literature, highlights the need for further research, particularly regarding neonatal outcomes. Additionally, it underscores the importance of careful consideration when inducing labor and ensuring informed consent.

Labor induction with prostaglandin E1 versus E2: a comparison of outcomes

OBJECTIVE

To compare the peripartum outcomes when labor is induced with prostaglandins E₁ versus E₂.

METHODOLOGY

The Consortium of Safe Labor database was utilized. Women with non-anomalous singletons >24 weeks gestation undergoing induction were analyzed. The primary endpoint was a composite adverse maternal outcome with a composite adverse neonatal outcome as our secondary outcome.

RESULTS

Of the 228,438 births within the database, 8229 (10.8%) met inclusion criteria with 4703 (55.7%) receiving PGE₁, and 3741 (44.3%), PGE₂. The rate of vaginal delivery was similar between both. Composite adverse maternal outcome, was more likely among the prostaglandin E₁: 7.2% vs. 1.5% (aOR 4.20; 95% CI 3.02-5.85); similar trend observed with composite adverse neonatal outcome rates: 4.6% vs. 1.4% (aOR 1.69; 95% CI 1.14-2.50).

CONCLUSION

Utilization of prostaglandin E₁, compared to E_2, was associated with an increased likelihood of adverse maternal and neonatal outcomes.

Do we need a 200 μg misoprostol vaginal insert? A retrospective cohort study comparing the misoprostol vaginal insert to oral misoprostol

AIM

The misoprostol vaginal insert (MVI) was reported to be more effective than dinoprostone but discussed critically because of high rates of fetal heart rate changes due to uterine tachysystole. The aim of this study was to investigate the outcome of induced labor using the MVI compared to off-label orally-administered misoprostol (OM).

METHODS

Retrospective study including a total of 401 patients with singleton pregnancies in whom labor was induced at ≥36 0/7 gestational weeks with MVI (203) or OM (198). Primary outcomes were the time from induction to delivery, vaginal delivery in 24 h and the mode of delivery and the neonatal outcome.

RESULTS

Median time until any delivery was 833 min (645-1278) for MVI and 1076.5 min (698-1686.3) for OM group; 83.7% of the patients in the MVI group gave birth within 24 h versus 63.6% in the OM group. The MVI group needed significantly less pre-delivery oxytocin (29%). Tachysystole (6.4%) and pathological CTG (30.5%) occurred at a significantly higher frequency in the MVI group. The cesarean section rate was significantly higher in the MVI group amounting to 21.7% versus 14.6% in the OM group (P < 0.05). Neonatal outcome did not differ between the groups.

CONCLUSION

The MVI might be an option if you are in need for an approved and faster method to induce labor. Although we observed a significantly higher rate of fetal heart rate changes and cesarean sections in the MVI group this did not affect the neonatal outcome.

Labor induction with misoprostol vaginal insert compared with dinoprostone vaginal insert

INTRODUCTION

Misoprostol vaginal insert could lead to a significant reduction in the time to vaginal delivery, and an increase in the proportion of women achieving vaginal delivery, compared with dinoprostone vaginal insert. We compared the delivery outcomes of misoprostol 200 μg vaginal insert and dinoprostone 10 mg vaginal insert for induction of labor in women with an unfavorable cervix.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

This is a retrospective observational study conducted on a cohort of 220 women with a Bishop score ≤4 admitted for induction of labor at a single institution. Of these, 109 (49.5%) received the misoprostol vaginal insert and 111 (50.5%) received the dinoprostone vaginal insert. The primary outcome was the vaginal delivery rate. Secondary outcomes were time from induction to vaginal delivery, time to any delivery mode, time from induction to the onset of active labor, oxytocin use, uterine tachysystole and need for tocolysis.

RESULTS

The vaginal delivery rate was 88% in the misoprostol insert group, compared with 74% in the dinoprostone insert group (P < 0.007). The average time from drug administration to the beginning of labor was shorter in the misoprostol compared with the dinoprostone group (855 min vs 1740 min, P < 0.0001). Also, the average time from administration to delivery was shorter for women receiving misoprostol compared with dinoprostone (1113 min vs 2150 min, P < 0.0001). The use of misoprostol reduced the need for oxytocin compared with dinoprostone (30.2% vs 43.2%, P = 0.046). Finally, compared with dinoprostone, the misoprostol insert was associated with more uterine tachysystole (38% vs 12%, P < 0.001), but the rate of tachysystole requiring tocolysis was not significantly different between the 2 groups (51.2% vs 46.1%, P = 0.1). Multivariate analysis showed that Bishop score and method of induction, but not maternal body mass index or gestational age at induction, were independently associated with mode of delivery.

CONCLUSIONS

The cesarean section rate was significantly lower in the misoprostol insert group. The use of misoprostol was also associated with reduced time to vaginal delivery and time to onset of active labor and with decreased use of oxytocin. Tachysystole was a frequent complication during induction of labor with the misoprostol insert.

The efficacy of misoprostol vaginal insert compared with oral misoprostol in the induction of labor of nulliparous women: A randomized national multicenter trial

INTRODUCTION

Our objective was to compare the efficacy of a 200-μg misoprostol vaginal insert vs oral misoprostol regarding the cesarean section rate and the time interval to vaginal delivery in nulliparous women with unfavorable cervix.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

In this prospective multicenter trial, 283 nulliparous women at term with Bishop score <6 were randomized to induction of labor with either a misoprostol vaginal insert (n = 140) or oral misoprostol (n = 143). In the oral misoprostol group, a 50-μg dose of oral misoprostol was administered every 4 hours up to three times during the first day; during the second day, the dose was increased to 100-μg every 4 hours up to three times during the first day, if necessary. Primary outcome was the cesarean section rate. Secondary outcomes were the time from induction of labor to vaginal delivery, the rate of other induction methods needed, labor augmentation with oxytocin and/or amniotomy, use of tocolytics and adverse neonatal and maternal events.

RESULTS

In the misoprostol vaginal insert group, median time to vaginal delivery was shorter (24.5 hours vs 44.2 hours, P < 0.001), whereas no difference was found in the cesarean section rate (33.8% vs 29.6%, odds ratio [OR] 1.21, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.66-1.91, P = 0.67). Other induction methods and labor augmentation with oxytocin and/or amniotomy were less frequent in the misoprostol vaginal insert group (OR 0.32, 95% CI 0.18-0.59 and OR 0.56, 95% CI 0.32-0.99, respectively). Need for tocolysis and meconium-stained amniotic fluid were more common in the misoprostol vaginal insert group (OR 3.63, 95% CI 1.12-11.79 and OR 2.38, 95% CI 1.32-4.29, respectively). Maternal and neonatal adverse events did not differ between groups.

CONCLUSIONS

Misoprostol vaginal insert proved to shorten the time to vaginal delivery and to reduce the use of other methods of labor induction and augmentation, but it did not reduce the cesarean section rate compared with oral misoprostol. The benefit of more rapid delivery associated with misoprostol vaginal insert should be weighed against the greater risks for uterine hyperstimulation and meconium-stained amniotic fluid.