Randomized study of vaginal misoprostol (PGE(1)) and dinoprostone gel (PGE(2)) for induction of labor at term.

OBJECTIVES: To investigate the efficacy and safety of misoprostol in the induction of labor at term by comparing this agent with the commonly used dinoprostone gel. PATIENTS AND METHODS: A randomized clinical trial of vaginal misoprostol, 50 microg 6-hourly, and dinoprostone gel, 1-2 mg 6-hourly, in 435 women undergoing induction of labor at term. The women, 210 in the misoprostol group and 225 in the dinoprostone group, were compared to determine whether there was a significant difference in achieving vaginal delivery within 24 h, the incidence of hyperstimulation syndrome, Cesarean section rate and adverse neonatal outcome. They were also offered the option of preinduction sonographic cervical assessment. RESULTS: Misoprostol, compared to dinoprostone gel, was associated with a significantly shorter median induction-to-delivery interval (14.6 h vs. 19.0 h; P = 0.0014), a higher incidence of vaginal delivery within 24 h of induction (65.7% vs. 54.2%; P = 0.019) and a reduced need for oxytocin augmentation during labor (20.5% vs. 29.8%; P = 0.034). The groups did not differ significantly in the rates of Cesarean section (18.1% vs. 19.1%; P = 0.88) and hyperstimulation syndrome (2.4% vs. 0.9%; P = 0.27). None of the cases of hyperstimulation required treatment with tocolysis. All nine cases of excessive uterine contractility occurred after the first dose of the drug. There were no significant differences in maternal and neonatal morbidity between the two groups. There was a significant association between preinduction cervical length and the induction-to-delivery interval in both those receiving misoprostol and those treated with dinoprostone. CONCLUSIONS: The use of misoprostol is associated with a shorter duration of labor and a higher rate of vaginal delivery within 24 h from induction without an increase in maternal and neonatal morbidity. Transvaginal sonographic measurement of cervical length is useful in the prediction of the likelihood of vaginal delivery within 24 h of induction and of the induction-to-delivery interval and may be useful in the stratification of patients participating in randomized studies that examine the effectiveness of inducing agents.

A retrospective comparison of water births and conventional vaginal deliveries.

The aim of this study was to document the practice of water births and compare their outcome and safety with normal vaginal deliveries. A retrospective case-control study was conducted over a five year period from 1989 to 1994 at the Maternity Unit, Rochford Hospital, Southend, UK. Three hundred and one women electing for water births were compared with the same number of age and parity matched low risk women having conventional vaginal deliveries. Length of labour; analgesia requirements; apgar scores; maternal complications including perineal trauma, postpartum haemorrhages, infections; fetal and neonatal complications including shoulder dystocias; admissions to the Special Care Baby Unit, and infections were noted. Primigravidae having water births had shorter first and second stages of labour compared with controls (P<0.05 and P<0.005 respectively), reducing the total time spent in labour by 90 min (95% confidence interval 31 to 148). All women having water births had reduced analgesia requirements. No analgesia was required by 38% (95% confidence interval 23.5 to 36.3, P<0.0001) and 1.3% requested opiates compared to 56% of the controls (95% confidence interval 46. 3 to 58.1, P<0.0001). Primigravidae having water births had less perineal trauma (P<0.05). Overall the episiotomy rate was 5 times greater in the control group (95% confidence interval 15 to 26.2, P<0.0001), but more women having water births had perineal tears (95% confidence interval 6.6 to 22.6, P<0.001). There were twice as many third degree tears, post partum haemorrhages and admissions to the Special Care Baby Unit in the controls, although these differences were not significant. Apgar scores were comparable in both groups. There were no neonatal infections or neonatal deaths in the study. This study suffers from many of the methodological problems inherent in investigation of uncommon modes of delivery. However, we conclude that water births in low risk women delivered by experienced professionals are as safe as normal vaginal deliveries. Labouring and delivering in water is associated with a reduction in length of labour and perineal trauma for primigravidae, and a reduction in analgesia requirements for all women.