Objective: Pharmacological agents such as prostaglandins (dinoprostone and misoprostol) are commonly used to reduce the duration of labor and promote vaginal delivery. However, key safety considerations with its use include an increased risk of uterine rupture, tachysystole and hyperstimulation of pregnant women, which could potentially lead to a non-reassuring fetal heart rate and to fetal hypoxemia. The aim of this systematic review was to assess maternal and fetal outcomes between misoprostol group (PGE1) and dinoprostone group (PGE2) Study design: We search on MEDLINE (PubMed), CINHAL (EBSCOhost), EMBASE, Scopus (Ovid), CENTRAL (January 1, 1998, to December 31, 2022). Patients were eligible if they presented at greater than 36 weeks gestation with an indication for induction of labor and a single live cephalic fetus. We conducted a meta-analysis of data for both primary (cesarean section rate, instrumental deliveries rate, tachysystole, uterine rupture, post- partum haemorrage; chorionamiositis) and secondary outcomes (Apgar at 5 min <7, meconium-stained liquor, NICU admission, infant death) using odds-ratio (OR) as a measure of effect-size. Risk of bias assessment was performed with RoB-I. We performed statistical analyses using Cochrane RevMan version 5.4 software. Results: We found 39 RCTs comparing the outcomes of interest between misoprostol and dinoprostone. The pooled effect showed no statistically significant difference between the two groups in terms of cesarean section rate [OR: 0.94; 95% CI 0.84–1.05], instrumental deliveries rate [OR: 1.04; 95% CI: 0.90–1.19; p=0.62], tachysystole [OR: 1.21; 95% CI: 0.91–1.60; p=0.19], post-partum hemorrhage [OR: 0.85; 95% CI: 0.62–1.15p = 0.30], chorioamnionitis [OR: 0.94; 95% CI: 0.76–1.17p = 0.59], Apgar at 5 min < 7 [OR: 0.83; 95% CI: 0.61–1.12, p=0.21], meconium-stained liquor [OR: 1.11; 95% CI: 0.97–1.27p=0.59], NICU admission group [OR: 0.91; 95% CI: 0.77–1.09], infant death [OR: 0.57; 95% CI: 0.22–1.44]. After performing a sub-group analysis based on the type of prostaglandins administrations (oral, vaginal gel, vaginal pessary), results did not change substantially. Conclusions: This systematic review and meta-analysis demonstrate that misoprostol and dinoprostone appear to have a similar safety profile.

Safety of misoprostol vs dinoprostone for induction of labor: A systematic review and meta-analysis

Cristina Taliento
Primo
;
Margherita Manservigi
Secondo
;
Rosaria Cappadona;Irene Piccolotti;Gennaro Scutiero
Penultimo
;
Pantaleo Greco
Ultimo
2023

Abstract

Objective: Pharmacological agents such as prostaglandins (dinoprostone and misoprostol) are commonly used to reduce the duration of labor and promote vaginal delivery. However, key safety considerations with its use include an increased risk of uterine rupture, tachysystole and hyperstimulation of pregnant women, which could potentially lead to a non-reassuring fetal heart rate and to fetal hypoxemia. The aim of this systematic review was to assess maternal and fetal outcomes between misoprostol group (PGE1) and dinoprostone group (PGE2) Study design: We search on MEDLINE (PubMed), CINHAL (EBSCOhost), EMBASE, Scopus (Ovid), CENTRAL (January 1, 1998, to December 31, 2022). Patients were eligible if they presented at greater than 36 weeks gestation with an indication for induction of labor and a single live cephalic fetus. We conducted a meta-analysis of data for both primary (cesarean section rate, instrumental deliveries rate, tachysystole, uterine rupture, post- partum haemorrage; chorionamiositis) and secondary outcomes (Apgar at 5 min <7, meconium-stained liquor, NICU admission, infant death) using odds-ratio (OR) as a measure of effect-size. Risk of bias assessment was performed with RoB-I. We performed statistical analyses using Cochrane RevMan version 5.4 software. Results: We found 39 RCTs comparing the outcomes of interest between misoprostol and dinoprostone. The pooled effect showed no statistically significant difference between the two groups in terms of cesarean section rate [OR: 0.94; 95% CI 0.84–1.05], instrumental deliveries rate [OR: 1.04; 95% CI: 0.90–1.19; p=0.62], tachysystole [OR: 1.21; 95% CI: 0.91–1.60; p=0.19], post-partum hemorrhage [OR: 0.85; 95% CI: 0.62–1.15p = 0.30], chorioamnionitis [OR: 0.94; 95% CI: 0.76–1.17p = 0.59], Apgar at 5 min < 7 [OR: 0.83; 95% CI: 0.61–1.12, p=0.21], meconium-stained liquor [OR: 1.11; 95% CI: 0.97–1.27p=0.59], NICU admission group [OR: 0.91; 95% CI: 0.77–1.09], infant death [OR: 0.57; 95% CI: 0.22–1.44]. After performing a sub-group analysis based on the type of prostaglandins administrations (oral, vaginal gel, vaginal pessary), results did not change substantially. Conclusions: This systematic review and meta-analysis demonstrate that misoprostol and dinoprostone appear to have a similar safety profile.
2023
Taliento, Cristina; Manservigi, Margherita; Tormen, Mara; Cappadona, Rosaria; Piccolotti, Irene; Salvioli, Stefano; Scutiero, Gennaro; Greco, Pantaleo
File in questo prodotto:
File Dimensione Formato  
Safety of misoprostol vs dinoprostone for induction of labor- A systematic review and meta-analysis.pdf

solo gestori archivio

Descrizione: Full text editoriale
Tipologia: Full text (versione editoriale)
Licenza: NON PUBBLICO - Accesso privato/ristretto
Dimensione 10.67 MB
Formato Adobe PDF
10.67 MB Adobe PDF   Visualizza/Apri   Richiedi una copia

I documenti in SFERA sono protetti da copyright e tutti i diritti sono riservati, salvo diversa indicazione.

Utilizza questo identificativo per citare o creare un link a questo documento: https://hdl.handle.net/11392/2521270
Citazioni
  • ???jsp.display-item.citation.pmc??? 0
  • Scopus 1
  • ???jsp.display-item.citation.isi??? 0
social impact