Obstetrics & Gynecology Email Alerts
HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
 QUICK SEARCH:   [advanced]


     


Obstetrics & Gynecology 1995;86:880-885
© 1995 by The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists
This Article
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Murray, H.
Right arrow Articles by Hawley, J
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Murray, H.
Right arrow Articles by Hawley, J

Articles

A randomized trial of two preparations of vaginal prostaglandin for pre-induction cervical ripening

HG Murray, A Buonocore, and J Hawley

OBJECTIVE: To compare two prostaglandin (PG) E2 preparations for pre-induction cervical ripening in a randomized clinical trial. METHODS: Two milligrams of vaginal PGE2 gel was compared with a vaginal PGE2 3-mg tablet in 200 nulliparous women. Outcomes assessed were induction failure, need for labor augmentation, pain relief requirements, fetal heart rate (FHR) abnormalities, operative delivery rate, induction-to-delivery interval, neonatal condition, and occurrence of uterine hyperstimulation. RESULTS: There was no statistical difference in pre- and post-dose cervical scores. Compared with the tablet group, women in the gel group were more likely to have significant FHR abnormalities in early labor (odds ratio [OR] 4.77, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.15-19.5) requiring cesarean delivery. Fetal heart rate tracings in the active phase of labor were also more likely to be abnormal in the gel group (chi 2 = 4.31, P < .05). Compared with the gel group, women in the tablet group were significantly more likely to require operative delivery for poor progress in labor (OR 2.83, 95% CI 1.20-7.24). Other clinical outcomes were identical, with no significant differences in the overall rate of failed induction, cesarean delivery, rate of assisted delivery, requirement for oxytocin infusion, induction-to-delivery interval, pain relief requirements, or neonatal condition. CONCLUSIONS: When compared with the PGE2 tablet, the use of PGE2 gel for cervical ripening and labor induction in nulliparous women did not result in significant improvements in labor outcome. Whereas the gel was associated with an increase in significant FHR abnormalities, the tablet was associated with an increase in the rate of operative delivery for poor progress in labor.





HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
Copyright © 1995 by the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists.