Characterization of Uterine Response to Misoprostol based on Electrohysterogram

When the maternal and fetal risks of prolonging gestation are higher than the benefits, labor induction is performed in order to stimulate uterine contractions and to facilitate cervical ripening. Nevertheless, not all cases end up in successful induction leading to an increase in the rate of caesarean sections. The aim of this study was to study the electrophysiological uterine response to misoprostol drug by obtaining and analyzing the evolution of temporal and spectral parameters from uterine electromyogram (electrohysterogram, EHG) records picked up during the first 4 hours of labor induction. Successful inductions showed a progressive increase in amplitude and a frequency shift in spectral content towards higher frequencies approximately 120 min after the initiation of labor induction; such response was not seen in failed inductions. In conclusion, the electrophysiological response caused by effect of misoprostol in pregnant women has been characterized by EHG parameters which showed patterns in their evolution that were different for successful and failed labor inductions. EHG recording and analysis could serve as a very helpful tool to predict the success of labor induction and hence reduce risks and facilitate labor management in this frequent clinical situation.

[1]  E. Papanikolaou,et al.  Comparison of Misoprostol and Dinoprostone for elective induction of labour in nulliparous women at full term: A randomized prospective study , 2004, Reproductive biology and endocrinology : RB&E.

[2]  M. Mischi,et al.  Nifedipine-Induced Changes in the Electrohysterogram of Preterm Contractions: Feasibility in Clinical Practice , 2010, Obstetrics and gynecology international.

[3]  A. C. Primavesi Risk of Cesarean Delivery with Elective Induction of Labor at Term in Nulliparous Women , 2000 .

[4]  Catherine Marque,et al.  Uterine EHG Processing for Obstetrical Monitorng , 1986, IEEE Transactions on Biomedical Engineering.

[5]  W. Watson,et al.  Factors Predicting Successful Labor Induction , 1996, Obstetrics and gynecology.

[6]  E. Hadar,et al.  Effect of Prostaglandin E2 on Myometrial Electrical Activity in Women Undergoing Induction of Labor , 2013, American Journal of Perinatology.

[7]  P. Ho,et al.  Pharmacokinetics of different routes of administration of misoprostol. , 2002, Human reproduction.

[8]  J. Martin,et al.  Births: final data for 2010. , 2012, National vital statistics reports : from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, National Center for Health Statistics, National Vital Statistics System.

[9]  D. Young,et al.  Predictors of Successful Labor Induction With Oral or Vaginal Misoprostol , 2003, 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.

[10]  W. Maner,et al.  Physiology and electrical activity of uterine contractions. , 2007, Seminars in cell & developmental biology.

[11]  E H BISHOP,et al.  Pelvic Scoring for Elective Induction , 1964, Obstetrics and gynecology.

[12]  G. Gudex Induction of labour with prostaglandin E2; a prospective audit. , 1993, The New Zealand medical journal.

[13]  P. Oppelt,et al.  Initial clinical experience with a misoprostol vaginal insert in comparison with a dinoprostone insert for inducing labor. , 2016, European journal of obstetrics, gynecology, and reproductive biology.

[14]  Holger Maul,et al.  Monitoring the progress of pregnancy and labor using electromyography. , 2009, European journal of obstetrics, gynecology, and reproductive biology.

[15]  M. Bygdeman,et al.  Effects of misoprostol on uterine contractility following different routes of administration. , 2004, Human reproduction.

[16]  M. Boulvain,et al.  Reliability of the Bishop score before labour induction at term. , 2004, European journal of obstetrics, gynecology, and reproductive biology.

[17]  Shalom Darmanjian,et al.  Monitoring uterine activity during labor: a comparison of 3 methods. , 2012, American journal of obstetrics and gynecology.