Vaginal prostaglandin E2 gel versus tablet in the induction of labour at term

a retrospective

Ashalatha Shetty, I. Livingston, S. Acharya, Alexander Allan Templeton

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

6 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

Our aim in this retrospective analysis was to compare labour
outcomes between 145 consecutive women with unfavourable
cervices, who received prostaglandin E2 vaginal gel (1 – 2 mg)
for labour induction over a 3-month period, and 149 women
receiving a prostaglandin E2 vaginal tablet (3 mg) over the
following 3 months. Our results showed that cervical dilatation
in the gel group was significantly more than in the tablet group
at transfer to labour ward [4 cm (SD 2.5cm) versus 3.3 cm (SD
2 cm), mean difference – 0.7, 95% CI – 1.2 to – 0.2, P=0.01),
with fewer women requiring oxytocin augmentation, but this
was not statistically significant (41.4% versus 50%, RR 0.8, 95%
CI 0.7 – 1.1). There were no significant differences in the mode
of delivery in the number delivering vaginally within 24 hours of
the induction (60.4% in the gel group versus 56.2% in the tablet
group, RR1.1, 95% CI 0.9 – 1.4), in the number of doses of
PGE2 administered, or in the neonatal outcomes between the
two groups. In conclusion, there were no significant differences
in labour or neonatal outcomes between prostaglandin E2 gel or
tablet use in the induction of labour in this retrospective
analysis.
Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)243-246
Number of pages3
JournalJournal of Obstetrics and Gynaecology
Volume24
Issue number3
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - 2004

Fingerprint

Induced Labor
Dinoprostone
Foams and Jellies Vaginal Creams
Tablets
Gels
Oxytocin

Cite this

Vaginal prostaglandin E2 gel versus tablet in the induction of labour at term : a retrospective. / Shetty, Ashalatha; Livingston, I.; Acharya, S.; Templeton, Alexander Allan.

In: Journal of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, Vol. 24, No. 3, 2004, p. 243-246.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

@article{d12203842709461791d78679b02ad404,
title = "Vaginal prostaglandin E2 gel versus tablet in the induction of labour at term: a retrospective",
abstract = "Our aim in this retrospective analysis was to compare labour outcomes between 145 consecutive women with unfavourable cervices, who received prostaglandin E2 vaginal gel (1 – 2 mg) for labour induction over a 3-month period, and 149 women receiving a prostaglandin E2 vaginal tablet (3 mg) over the following 3 months. Our results showed that cervical dilatation in the gel group was significantly more than in the tablet group at transfer to labour ward [4 cm (SD 2.5cm) versus 3.3 cm (SD 2 cm), mean difference – 0.7, 95{\%} CI – 1.2 to – 0.2, P=0.01), with fewer women requiring oxytocin augmentation, but this was not statistically significant (41.4{\%} versus 50{\%}, RR 0.8, 95{\%} CI 0.7 – 1.1). There were no significant differences in the mode of delivery in the number delivering vaginally within 24 hours of the induction (60.4{\%} in the gel group versus 56.2{\%} in the tablet group, RR1.1, 95{\%} CI 0.9 – 1.4), in the number of doses of PGE2 administered, or in the neonatal outcomes between the two groups. In conclusion, there were no significant differences in labour or neonatal outcomes between prostaglandin E2 gel or tablet use in the induction of labour in this retrospective analysis.",
author = "Ashalatha Shetty and I. Livingston and S. Acharya and Templeton, {Alexander Allan}",
year = "2004",
doi = "10.1080/01443610410001660706",
language = "English",
volume = "24",
pages = "243--246",
journal = "Journal of Obstetrics and Gynaecology",
issn = "0144-3615",
publisher = "Informa Healthcare",
number = "3",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Vaginal prostaglandin E2 gel versus tablet in the induction of labour at term

T2 - a retrospective

AU - Shetty, Ashalatha

AU - Livingston, I.

AU - Acharya, S.

AU - Templeton, Alexander Allan

PY - 2004

Y1 - 2004

N2 - Our aim in this retrospective analysis was to compare labour outcomes between 145 consecutive women with unfavourable cervices, who received prostaglandin E2 vaginal gel (1 – 2 mg) for labour induction over a 3-month period, and 149 women receiving a prostaglandin E2 vaginal tablet (3 mg) over the following 3 months. Our results showed that cervical dilatation in the gel group was significantly more than in the tablet group at transfer to labour ward [4 cm (SD 2.5cm) versus 3.3 cm (SD 2 cm), mean difference – 0.7, 95% CI – 1.2 to – 0.2, P=0.01), with fewer women requiring oxytocin augmentation, but this was not statistically significant (41.4% versus 50%, RR 0.8, 95% CI 0.7 – 1.1). There were no significant differences in the mode of delivery in the number delivering vaginally within 24 hours of the induction (60.4% in the gel group versus 56.2% in the tablet group, RR1.1, 95% CI 0.9 – 1.4), in the number of doses of PGE2 administered, or in the neonatal outcomes between the two groups. In conclusion, there were no significant differences in labour or neonatal outcomes between prostaglandin E2 gel or tablet use in the induction of labour in this retrospective analysis.

AB - Our aim in this retrospective analysis was to compare labour outcomes between 145 consecutive women with unfavourable cervices, who received prostaglandin E2 vaginal gel (1 – 2 mg) for labour induction over a 3-month period, and 149 women receiving a prostaglandin E2 vaginal tablet (3 mg) over the following 3 months. Our results showed that cervical dilatation in the gel group was significantly more than in the tablet group at transfer to labour ward [4 cm (SD 2.5cm) versus 3.3 cm (SD 2 cm), mean difference – 0.7, 95% CI – 1.2 to – 0.2, P=0.01), with fewer women requiring oxytocin augmentation, but this was not statistically significant (41.4% versus 50%, RR 0.8, 95% CI 0.7 – 1.1). There were no significant differences in the mode of delivery in the number delivering vaginally within 24 hours of the induction (60.4% in the gel group versus 56.2% in the tablet group, RR1.1, 95% CI 0.9 – 1.4), in the number of doses of PGE2 administered, or in the neonatal outcomes between the two groups. In conclusion, there were no significant differences in labour or neonatal outcomes between prostaglandin E2 gel or tablet use in the induction of labour in this retrospective analysis.

U2 - 10.1080/01443610410001660706

DO - 10.1080/01443610410001660706

M3 - Article

VL - 24

SP - 243

EP - 246

JO - Journal of Obstetrics and Gynaecology

JF - Journal of Obstetrics and Gynaecology

SN - 0144-3615

IS - 3

ER -