Search

Background and Objectives: To compare effectiveness and safety of dinoprostone, misoprostol and Cook's balloon as labour-inducing agents in women with intrauterine growth restriction (IUGR) at term.Methods: Retrospective cohort chart review of women diagnosed with foetal growth restriction at term in Reina Sofia Hospital, Cordoba, Spain from January 2014 to December 2015. Registration of baseline characteristics and method of induction was made. The main outcome was time from induction to delivery. Obstetric and perinatal outcomes were also collected.Results: A total of 99 women were diagnosed with IUGR in the mentioned period. Of them, 21 women were induced with dinoprostone [dinoprostone group (DG)], 20 with misoprostol (MG) and in 58 with Cook's balloon (CG). Groups were homogeneous regarding pre-induction Bishop score and parity. The CG required more time (24.36 vs. 19.23 h; p = 0.02) and more oxytocin dose for conduction of labour from induction to delivery (6.75 vs. 1.24 mUI; p < 0.01) than DG. Moreover, the CG also needed more oxytocin than MG, 6.75 vs. 2.37 mUI (p < 0.001). Caesarean rate was 5, 14.9 and 17.3% in MG, DG and CG, respectively. No differences were observed in rates of uterine tachysystole, non-reassuring foetal status and neonatal adverse events.Interpretation and Conclusions: Prostaglandins were more effective than Cook's balloon to induce labour and achieve vaginal birth in this sample of women with IUGR at term, with a similar safety profile. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objective: To evaluate the costs associated with induction of labour in intrauterine growth restriction fetuses comparing different procedures.Study Design: 150 pregnancies at term diagnosed with intrauterine growth restriction and indication for induction of labour were included. 24 were ripened with misoprostol 25 μg tablets, 24 with dinoprostone 10 mg vaginal insert, and 77 with Cook® cervical ripening balloon. To determine the costs of induction of labour, method of induction, intrapartum medication, epidural analgesia, type of delivery, and maternal and neonatal admissions were considered. Statistical analysis was performed using the G-Stat 2.0 free statistical software. ANOVA test was used for comparisons between quantitative parametric variables. Chi-squared test or Fisher test was used for qualitative variables. A value of p < 0.05 was considered statistically significant.Results: Up to 70.83% women in dinoprostone group gave birth within the first 24 h compared to 42.66% in misoprostol group and 36.36% in CG (p < 0.01). Misoprostol tablets were cheaper (9.45 ± 1.52 US dollars) than dinoprostone or Cook® balloon (41.67 ± 0 and 59.85 ± 0 54.45 ± 0 US dollars, respectively) (p < 0.01). Costs related to maternal admissions were higher in CG (475.13 ± 146.95$) than dinoprostone group (475.13 ± 146.95$) or MG (427.97 ± 112.65$) (p = 0.03). Total costs in misoprostol group (2765.18 ± 495.38$) were lower than in the dinoprostone group (3075.774 ± 896.14$) or Cook® balloon group (3228.02 ± 902.06$) groups.Conclusions: Misoprostol for induction of labour had lower related costs than dinoprostone or Cook® balloon, with similar obstetrical and perinatal outcomes. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]