Vaginal misoprostol versus vaginal dinoprostone for cervical ripening and induction of labour: An individual participant data meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials.

BACKGROUND: Induction of labour (IOL) is common practice and different methods carry different effectiveness and safety profiles. OBJECTIVES: To compare the effectiveness, and maternal and perinatal safety outcomes of IOL with vaginal misoprostol versus vaginal dinoprostone using individual participant data from randomised clinical trials. SEARCH STRATEGY: The following databases were searched from inception to March 2023: CINAHL Plus, ClinicalTrials.gov, Cochrane Pregnancy and Childbirth Group Trial Register, Ovid Embase, Ovid Emcare, Ovid MEDLINE, Scopus and the World Health Organization (WHO) International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP). SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised controlled trials (RCTs), with viable singleton gestation, no language restrictions, and all published and unpublished data. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: An individual participant data meta-analysis was carried out. MAIN RESULTS: Ten of 52 eligible trials provided individual participant data, of which two were excluded after checking data integrity. The remaining eight trials compared low-dose vaginal misoprostol versus dinoprostone, including 4180 women undergoing IOL, which represents 32.8% of all participants in the published RCTs. Of these, 2077 were assigned to low-dose vaginal misoprostol and 2103 were assigned to vaginal dinoprostone. Compared with vaginal dinoprostone, low-dose vaginal misoprostol had a comparable rate of vaginal birth. Composite adverse perinatal outcomes did not differ between the groups. Compared with vaginal dinoprostone, composite adverse maternal outcomes were significantly lower with low-dose vaginal misoprostol (aOR 0.80, 95% CI 0.65-0.98, P = 0.03, I2 = 0%). CONCLUSIONS: Low-dose vaginal misoprostol and vaginal dinoprostone for IOL are comparable in terms of effectiveness and perinatal safety. However, low-dose vaginal misoprostol is likely to lead to a lower rate of composite adverse maternal outcomes than vaginal dinoprostone.

A randomised controlled trial comparing low dose vaginal misoprostol and dinoprostone vaginal gel for inducing labour at term.

OBJECTIVE: To compare the efficacy of low dose vaginal misoprostol and dinoprostone vaginal gel for induction of labour at term. DESIGN: A single-blind randomised controlled trial. SETTING: Antenatal and labour ward of a UK district general hospital. PARTICIPANTS: Two hundred and sixty-eight women requiring induction of labour at term (>37 weeks of gestation) with no significant fetal or medical condition, no previous uterine surgery and no contraindication to prostaglandin. METHODS: Misoprostol 25 microg (one-quarter of a 100 microg tablet) was inserted into the posterior vaginal fornix every 4 hours (to a maximum of six doses) or dinoprostone vaginal gel 1-2 mg 6 hourly (maximum of 3 mg in 24 hours). MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE: Induction-to-vaginal delivery interval. SECONDARY OUTCOME MEASURES: Requirements for oxytocin, mode of delivery, number of women delivering < 24 hours, incidence of uterine contraction abnormalities, incidence of abnormal cardiotocograph (CTG) recordings, 5-minute Apgar scores, umbilical cord pH recordings, analgesia requirements, admission to NICU and blood loss at delivery. RESULTS: There were no significant differences between the two groups in induction-to-vaginal delivery interval, mode of delivery, number of women delivering within 24 hours and neonatal outcomes. The incidence of uterine contraction abnormalities (tachysystole and hyperstimulation) and the incidence of abnormal CTG recordings were also similar for both groups. CONCLUSION: Low dose vaginal misoprostol is as effective as dinoprostone gel for inducing labour at term. There would be substantial cost savings, estimated at around 3.9 million UK pounds per annum, for maternity services if low dose misoprostol became the agent of choice for inducing labour in the UK.

Postnatal morbidity after childbirth and severe obstetric morbidity.

OBJECTIVE: To identify the impact of pregnancy and childbirth, and severe obstetric morbidity on outcome 6 to 12 months postpartum. DESIGN: Questionnaire assessment of postnatal outcome in a cohort study. SETTING: South East Thames, UK. POPULATION: All women resident in South East Thames and delivering between 1st March 1997 and 28th February 1998. METHODS: Questionnaire study of a cohort of women who experienced a severe obstetric morbidity during pregnancy or labour (cases), compared with a cohort of women who did not (controls). MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Assessment of postnatal depression risk [Edinburgh Postnatal Depression Scale (EPDS)], general health [Short Form 36 (SF-36)], sexual activity and use of health services between 6 and 12 months postpartum. RESULTS: There were 331 cases and 1339 controls out of 48,262 deliveries. Six to 12 months after delivery, 77 (23.3%) of cases and 272 (20.5%) of the controls were at risk of postnatal depression (P = 0.25; 95% CI for difference -2.2% to 7.9%), 43.1% of cases were having problems with sexual relations compared with 18.7% of controls (P < 0.001; 95% CI for difference 8.9% to 21.9%). There was evidence of poorer general health in cases. Some 31.5% of cases attended outpatients in the first six months and 9.4% required emergency admission to hospital compared with 17.0% (P < 0.001; 95% CI for difference 9.1% to 19.9%) and 3.7% (P < 0.001; 95% CI for difference 2.4% to 9.0%), respectively, in controls. CONCLUSION: Both control pregnancy and childbirth and severe obstetric morbidity are associated with significant postnatal morbidity. A severe obstetric morbid event significantly influences women's sexual health and wellbeing and increases health services utilisation. Prevention and appropriate management of severe obstetric morbid events may reduce these outcomes.