Abstract

Objective: To compare the efficacy of vaginal misoprostol versus dinoprostone for induction of labor (IOL) in patients with preeclampsia according to the WHO criteria.

Study design: Ninety-eight patients were retrospectively analyzed. A total of 47 patients received 3 mg dinoprostone suppositories every 6 h (max. 6 mg/24 h) whereas 51 patients in the misoprostol group received either 50 μg misoprostol vaginally every 12 h, or 25 μg every 6 h (max. 100 μg/24 h). Primary outcomes were vaginal delivery within 24 and 48 h, respectively.

Results: The probability of delivering within 48 h was more than three-fold higher in the misoprostol than in the dinoprostone group: odds ratio (OR)=3.48; 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.24, 10.30, whereas no significant difference was observed within 24 h (P=0.34). No correlation was seen between a ripe cervix prior to IOL and delivery within 24/48 h (P=0.33 and P=1.0, respectively). More cesarean sections were performed in the dinoprostone group due to failed IOL (P=0.0009). No significant differences in adverse maternal outcome were observed between both study groups, whereas more neonates (12 vs. 6) of the dinoprostone group were admitted to the NICU (P=0.068).

Conclusion: This study suggests that misoprostol may have some advantages compared to dinoprostone, including improved efficacy and lower cost of the drug, even in cases of preeclampsia.