Use of Vaginal Dinoprostone (PGE<sub>2</sub>) in Patients with Premature Rupture of Membranes (PROM) Undergoing Induction of Labor: A Comparative Study
Purpose: To evaluate the effect and safety of vaginal dinoprostone in pregnant women with PROM who undergo induction of labor (IoL). Materials and Methods: Prospective observational study conducted at La Mancha Centro hospital from 1 February 2019, to 30 August 2020. Obstetric and neonatal variables...
| Main Authors: | , , , , , , , |
|---|---|
| Format: | Article |
| Language: | English |
| Published: |
MDPI AG
2022-04-01
|
| Series: | Journal of Clinical Medicine |
| Subjects: | |
| Online Access: | https://www.mdpi.com/2077-0383/11/8/2217 |
| _version_ | 1797410611432259584 |
|---|---|
| author | Nuria López-Jiménez Fiamma García-Sánchez Rafael Hernández Pailos Valentin Rodrigo-Álvaro Ana Pascual-Pedreño María Moreno-Cid Antonio Hernández-Martínez Milagros Molina-Alarcón |
| author_facet | Nuria López-Jiménez Fiamma García-Sánchez Rafael Hernández Pailos Valentin Rodrigo-Álvaro Ana Pascual-Pedreño María Moreno-Cid Antonio Hernández-Martínez Milagros Molina-Alarcón |
| author_sort | Nuria López-Jiménez |
| collection | DOAJ |
| description | Purpose: To evaluate the effect and safety of vaginal dinoprostone in pregnant women with PROM who undergo induction of labor (IoL). Materials and Methods: Prospective observational study conducted at La Mancha Centro hospital from 1 February 2019, to 30 August 2020. Obstetric and neonatal variables of 94 pregnant women with PROM who underwent IoL with vaginal dinoprostone were analyzed, and the results were compared with 330 patients without PROM who also underwent IoL. Bivariate and multivariate analyses were performed using binary and multiple linear regression. Results: A total of 424 women were included in this study. A greater response to cervical ripening (Bishop score > 6) with PGE<sub>2</sub> was observed in the PROM group (odds ratio (OR) 2.73, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.50–4.99, <i>p</i> = 0.001), as well as a shorter total duration of IoL (mean difference (MD) 2823.37 min (min), 95% CI 1257.30–4389.43, <i>p</i> < 0.001). Cesarean sections were performed in 28.7% (<i>n</i> = 27) of patients in the PROM group vs. 34.2% (<i>n</i> = 113) of patients in the non-PROM group, with no significant differences (OR 0.87%, 95% CI 0.47–1.60, <i>p</i> = 0.652). There were no significant differences in changes in the cardiotocographic record (CTG), postpartum hemorrhage (PPH), uterine rupture, or adverse neonatal outcomes between the two groups. Conclusions: The use of vaginal dinoprostone in pregnant women undergoing IoL with PROM is safe for the mother and the fetus, shortens the total delivery time, and does not increase the risk of cesarean section compared with pregnant women undergoing IoL without PROM. |
| first_indexed | 2024-03-09T04:32:42Z |
| format | Article |
| id | doaj.art-341af984f3b6457ca815c3b31f4da712 |
| institution | Directory Open Access Journal |
| issn | 2077-0383 |
| language | English |
| last_indexed | 2024-03-09T04:32:42Z |
| publishDate | 2022-04-01 |
| publisher | MDPI AG |
| record_format | Article |
| series | Journal of Clinical Medicine |
| spelling | doaj.art-341af984f3b6457ca815c3b31f4da7122023-12-03T13:33:01ZengMDPI AGJournal of Clinical Medicine2077-03832022-04-01118221710.3390/jcm11082217Use of Vaginal Dinoprostone (PGE<sub>2</sub>) in Patients with Premature Rupture of Membranes (PROM) Undergoing Induction of Labor: A Comparative StudyNuria López-Jiménez0Fiamma García-Sánchez1Rafael Hernández Pailos2Valentin Rodrigo-Álvaro3Ana Pascual-Pedreño4María Moreno-Cid5Antonio Hernández-Martínez6Milagros Molina-Alarcón7Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, La Mancha Centro Hospital, 13600 Alcazar de San Juan, SpainDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynecology, La Mancha Centro Hospital, 13600 Alcazar de San Juan, SpainDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynecology, La Mancha Centro Hospital, 13600 Alcazar de San Juan, SpainDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynecology, La Mancha Centro Hospital, 13600 Alcazar de San Juan, SpainDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynecology, La Mancha Centro Hospital, 13600 Alcazar de San Juan, SpainDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynecology, La Mancha Centro Hospital, 13600 Alcazar de San Juan, SpainDepartment of Nursing, Physiotherapy and Occupational Therapy, Faculty of Nursing, University of Castilla-La Mancha IDINE, Camilo José Cela, 14, 13071 Ciudad Real, SpainDepartment of Nursing, Physiotherapy and Occupational Therapy, Faculty of Nursing, University of Castilla-La Mancha IDINE, Av. de España, s/n, 02001 Albacete, SpainPurpose: To evaluate the effect and safety of vaginal dinoprostone in pregnant women with PROM who undergo induction of labor (IoL). Materials and Methods: Prospective observational study conducted at La Mancha Centro hospital from 1 February 2019, to 30 August 2020. Obstetric and neonatal variables of 94 pregnant women with PROM who underwent IoL with vaginal dinoprostone were analyzed, and the results were compared with 330 patients without PROM who also underwent IoL. Bivariate and multivariate analyses were performed using binary and multiple linear regression. Results: A total of 424 women were included in this study. A greater response to cervical ripening (Bishop score > 6) with PGE<sub>2</sub> was observed in the PROM group (odds ratio (OR) 2.73, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.50–4.99, <i>p</i> = 0.001), as well as a shorter total duration of IoL (mean difference (MD) 2823.37 min (min), 95% CI 1257.30–4389.43, <i>p</i> < 0.001). Cesarean sections were performed in 28.7% (<i>n</i> = 27) of patients in the PROM group vs. 34.2% (<i>n</i> = 113) of patients in the non-PROM group, with no significant differences (OR 0.87%, 95% CI 0.47–1.60, <i>p</i> = 0.652). There were no significant differences in changes in the cardiotocographic record (CTG), postpartum hemorrhage (PPH), uterine rupture, or adverse neonatal outcomes between the two groups. Conclusions: The use of vaginal dinoprostone in pregnant women undergoing IoL with PROM is safe for the mother and the fetus, shortens the total delivery time, and does not increase the risk of cesarean section compared with pregnant women undergoing IoL without PROM.https://www.mdpi.com/2077-0383/11/8/2217premature rupture of membranes (PROM)induction of labor (IoL)PGE<sub>2</sub>cesarean sectiondelivery time |
| spellingShingle | Nuria López-Jiménez Fiamma García-Sánchez Rafael Hernández Pailos Valentin Rodrigo-Álvaro Ana Pascual-Pedreño María Moreno-Cid Antonio Hernández-Martínez Milagros Molina-Alarcón Use of Vaginal Dinoprostone (PGE<sub>2</sub>) in Patients with Premature Rupture of Membranes (PROM) Undergoing Induction of Labor: A Comparative Study Journal of Clinical Medicine premature rupture of membranes (PROM) induction of labor (IoL) PGE<sub>2</sub> cesarean section delivery time |
| title | Use of Vaginal Dinoprostone (PGE<sub>2</sub>) in Patients with Premature Rupture of Membranes (PROM) Undergoing Induction of Labor: A Comparative Study |
| title_full | Use of Vaginal Dinoprostone (PGE<sub>2</sub>) in Patients with Premature Rupture of Membranes (PROM) Undergoing Induction of Labor: A Comparative Study |
| title_fullStr | Use of Vaginal Dinoprostone (PGE<sub>2</sub>) in Patients with Premature Rupture of Membranes (PROM) Undergoing Induction of Labor: A Comparative Study |
| title_full_unstemmed | Use of Vaginal Dinoprostone (PGE<sub>2</sub>) in Patients with Premature Rupture of Membranes (PROM) Undergoing Induction of Labor: A Comparative Study |
| title_short | Use of Vaginal Dinoprostone (PGE<sub>2</sub>) in Patients with Premature Rupture of Membranes (PROM) Undergoing Induction of Labor: A Comparative Study |
| title_sort | use of vaginal dinoprostone pge sub 2 sub in patients with premature rupture of membranes prom undergoing induction of labor a comparative study |
| topic | premature rupture of membranes (PROM) induction of labor (IoL) PGE<sub>2</sub> cesarean section delivery time |
| url | https://www.mdpi.com/2077-0383/11/8/2217 |
| work_keys_str_mv | AT nurialopezjimenez useofvaginaldinoprostonepgesub2subinpatientswithprematureruptureofmembranespromundergoinginductionoflaboracomparativestudy AT fiammagarciasanchez useofvaginaldinoprostonepgesub2subinpatientswithprematureruptureofmembranespromundergoinginductionoflaboracomparativestudy AT rafaelhernandezpailos useofvaginaldinoprostonepgesub2subinpatientswithprematureruptureofmembranespromundergoinginductionoflaboracomparativestudy AT valentinrodrigoalvaro useofvaginaldinoprostonepgesub2subinpatientswithprematureruptureofmembranespromundergoinginductionoflaboracomparativestudy AT anapascualpedreno useofvaginaldinoprostonepgesub2subinpatientswithprematureruptureofmembranespromundergoinginductionoflaboracomparativestudy AT mariamorenocid useofvaginaldinoprostonepgesub2subinpatientswithprematureruptureofmembranespromundergoinginductionoflaboracomparativestudy AT antoniohernandezmartinez useofvaginaldinoprostonepgesub2subinpatientswithprematureruptureofmembranespromundergoinginductionoflaboracomparativestudy AT milagrosmolinaalarcon useofvaginaldinoprostonepgesub2subinpatientswithprematureruptureofmembranespromundergoinginductionoflaboracomparativestudy |