Comparison of labor duration of induced labor with dinoprostone insert vs spontaneous labor.

OBJECTIVES Labor induction is one of the most common procedures in modern obstetrics. One in five pregnant women and 30-40% of women delivering vaginally undergo this procedure. If the cervical status is unfavorable, a ripening process is used prior to induction to shorten the duration of oxytocin administration and maximize the possibility of vaginal birth. The aim of this study was to compare the duration of labor induced with dinoprostone vaginal insert additionally followed by foley catheter to spontaneous labor. MATERIAL AND METHODS It was a retrospective study conducted between May 2019 and February 2021 in the tertiary reference center, the Obstetrics and Perinatology Department of the Jagiellonian University Hospital in Krakow. The research group involved 182 patients in singleton pregnancy at term, qualified for cervical ripening procedure. The control group consisted of 178 patients that were delivering spontaneously and admitted to the delivery ward in the first stage of labor. Statistical analysis was performed to compare the duration of labor between groups. To find factors affecting the procedure we compared different models consisting of maternal and fetal characteristics. RESULTS Successful vaginal delivery in the dinoprostone group was achieved in the group of 88% of patients. There was no significant difference in labor duration between the groups: 315 minutes in the study group and 300 min in the control group. Only being primipara was a factor related to longer labor in both groups. CONCLUSIONS Pre-induction with dinoprostone insert and additional foley catheter, if indicated, does not make labor longer in comparison with spontaneous labor.

[1]  Z. Alfirevic,et al.  Induction of labour: first, do no harm , 2022, The Lancet.

[2]  R. Pilka,et al.  Prospective comparison of cervical ripening with double balloon Cook catheter, misoprostol or dinoprostone in term singleton pregnancies. , 2022, Ginekologia Polska.

[3]  H. Huras,et al.  Factors associated with caesarean section in women referred for preinduction - a nested case-control study in dinoprostone and misoprostol groups. , 2021, Ginekologia polska.

[4]  P. Middleton,et al.  Induction of labour at or beyond 37 weeks' gestation. , 2020, The Cochrane database of systematic reviews.

[5]  Dunjin Chen,et al.  Comparison of Dinoprostone and Oxytocin for the Induction of Labor in Late-Term Pregnancy and the Rate of Cesarean Section: A Retrospective Study in Ten Centers in South China , 2019, Medical science monitor : international medical journal of experimental and clinical research.

[6]  Carolyn M. Brown,et al.  Influence of Maternal Obesity on Labor Induction: A Systematic Review and Meta‐Analysis , 2019, Journal of midwifery & women's health.

[7]  M. Shirley Dinoprostone Vaginal Insert: A Review in Cervical Ripening , 2018, Drugs.

[8]  G. Iotti,et al.  Outcomes of induced versus spontaneous labor , 2017, The journal of maternal-fetal & neonatal medicine : the official journal of the European Association of Perinatal Medicine, the Federation of Asia and Oceania Perinatal Societies, the International Society of Perinatal Obstetricians.

[9]  T. Vrijkotte,et al.  Possible relationship between general and pregnancy-related anxiety during the first half of pregnancy and the birth process: a prospective cohort study , 2017, BMJ Open.

[10]  S. Wen,et al.  A systematic review and network meta‐analysis comparing the use of Foley catheters, misoprostol, and dinoprostone for cervical ripening in the induction of labour , 2016, BJOG : an international journal of obstetrics and gynaecology.

[11]  S. Ural,et al.  The association between the regular use of preventive labour induction and improved term birth outcomes: findings of a systematic review and meta‐analysis , 2015, BJOG : an international journal of obstetrics and gynaecology.

[12]  D. Wing,et al.  Misoprostol Vaginal Insert and Time to Vaginal Delivery: A Randomized Controlled Trial , 2013, Obstetrics and gynecology.

[13]  Olivier Irion,et al.  Mechanical methods for induction of labour. , 2012, The Cochrane database of systematic reviews.

[14]  David R. Anderson,et al.  AIC model selection and multimodel inference in behavioral ecology: some background, observations, and comparisons , 2011, Behavioral Ecology and Sociobiology.

[15]  D. Wing Misoprostol Vaginal Insert Compared With Dinoprostone Vaginal Insert: A Randomized Controlled Trial , 2008, Obstetrics and gynecology.

[16]  J. Crane Factors Predicting Labor Induction Success: A Critical Analysis , 2006, Clinical obstetrics and gynecology.

[17]  A. J. Kelly,et al.  Intravenous oxytocin alone for cervical ripening and induction of labour. , 2001, The Cochrane database of systematic reviews.

[18]  H. Huras,et al.  Polish Gynecological Society Recommendations for Labor Induction. , 2017, Ginekologia polska.

[19]  H. Huras,et al.  Analysis of intravaginal misoprostol 0.2 mg versus intracervical dinoprostone 0.5 mg doses for labor induction at term pregnancies. , 2017, Ginekologia polska.

[20]  J. Vogel,et al.  Model Selection And Multimodel Inference , 2016 .