Cervical ripening after cesarean section: a prospective dual center study comparing a mechanical osmotic dilator vs. prostaglandin E2.

OBJECTIVES: Worldwide, the overall cesarean section is rising. Trial of labor after cesarean (TOLAC) is an overall safe option with an immediate impact on neonatal and maternal short- and long-term health. Since the use of prostaglandins in cervical ripening is associated with an increased risk of uterine rupture, mechanical methods as balloon catheters or osmotic dilators have been suggested for cervical ripening prior to induction of labour. Here we are analyzing and comparing the VBAC rate, as well as maternal and fetal outcome in cervical ripening prior to TOLAC. METHODS: This prospective dual center study analyses maternal and neonatal outcomes of TOLAC in women with an unfavorable cervix requiring cervical ripening agent. The prospective application of an osmotic dilator (Dilapan-S, n=104) was analysed in comparison to the retrospective application of off-label dinoprostone (n=102). RESULTS: The overall fetal and neonatal outcome revealed no significant differences in both groups. Patients receiving cervical ripening with the osmotic dilator delivered vaginally/by ventouse in 52% of cases, compared to 53% when using dinoprostone (p=0.603). The interval between application to onset of labor was significantly higher in the osmotic dilator group (37.9 vs.20.7 h, p=<0.001). However, time from onset of labor to delivery was similar in both groups (7.93 vs. 7.44 h, p=0.758). There was one case of uterine rupture in the dinoprostone group. CONCLUSIONS: Our data shows that the application of the osmotic dilator leads to similar outcomes in VBAC rate and time from onset of labor to delivery as well as safety in both groups compared to off-label use dinoprostone. Cervical ripening using the mechanical dilator is a viable and effective option, without the risk of uterine hyperstimulation.

Peripartum Covid-19 Pneumonia with Severe ARDS - A Case Report.

INTRODUCTION: SARS-CoV-2 is a novel coronavirus that was first isolated in Wuhan, China, and resulted in a rapidly spreading pandemic worldwide. Currently there is only limited evidence on the effect of COVID-19 on pregnant women. CASE: Here we present one of the first serious COVID-19 cases in pregnancy at term with subsequent delivery. Postpartum the mother required antibiotic and symptomatic treatment. She experienced acute worsening of symptoms and developed acute respiratory failure requiring endotracheal intubation and subsequently extracorporeal membrane oxygenation. CONCLUSION: COVID-19 affects all medical disciplines, requiring interdisciplinary approaches and development of patient care regimes. Obstetricians should be aware and be prepared for the special needs of pregnant women with potential prenatal and postnatal issues. Ideally pregnant COVID-19 patients should be cared for at a tertiary perinatal center with experienced perinatologists and neonatologists.

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.