Choose your font:
 Arimo
 Merriweather
 Mukta Malar
 Open Sans Condensed
 Rokkitt
 Source Sans Pro
 Login


 English 
 Français 
 Português 

[Valid RSS] RSS
bar

Database - Alliance francophone pour l'accouchement respecté (AFAR)

Description of this bibliographical database (AFAR website)
Currently 3048 records
YouTube channel (tutorial)

https://afar.info/id=2751

Created on : 26 Nov 2017
Modified on : 26 Nov 2017

 Modify this record
Do not follow this link unless you know an editor’s password!


Share: Facebook logo   Tweeter logo   Hard

Bibliographical entry (without author) :

Labor induction for premature rupture of membranes using vaginal misoprostol versus dinoprostone vaginal insert - American Journal of Perinatology - Vol. 31, 3 - p.181-185

Author(s) :

Abraham, C.; Meirowitz, N.; Kohn, N.

Year of publication :

2014

URL(s) :

https://www.scopus.com/inward/record.uri?eid=2-s2.…
https://doi.org/10.1055/s-0033-1343768

Résumé (français)  :

Abstract (English)  :

Objective: To compare labor induction outcomes using vaginal misoprostol versus dinoprostone insert in women with premature rupture of membranes (PROM) and an unfavorable cervix. Study Design: Charts of singleton gestations beyond 34 weeks with PROM and an unfavorable cervix from 2008 to 2011 were reviewed. Group assignment was determined by initial induction agent used. Dinoprostone was administered as a 10-mg vaginal insert left for up to 12 hours. Misoprostol was administered vaginally as a 25-μg tablet every 4 hours for up to six doses. Times to active labor, complete dilatation, and delivery and incidence of adverse outcomes (intrapartum fever, tachysystole, fetal heart rate abnormalities) were compared. Results: Ninety-eight women were included. Baseline characteristics between groups were not different. Median times to active labor (7 versus 11 hours, p < 0.001) and complete dilatation (13.5 versus 19 hours, p < 0.001) were shorter in the misoprostol group. In the misoprostol group, 41.7 and 88.4% of patients delivered vaginally within 12 and 24 hours, respectively, compared with 20.8 and 58.0% in the dinoprostone group (p < 0.001). There was no difference in incidence of adverse outcomes. Conclusion: Vaginal misoprostol is more effective than dinoprostone insert for induction secondary to PROM without increasing the incidence of adverse outcomes. Copyright © 2014 by Thieme Medical Publishers, Inc.

Sumário (português)  :

Comments :

Argument (français) :

Argument (English):

Argumento (português):

Keywords :

➡ induction of labor ; misoprostol (Cytotec)

Author of this record :

Import 26/11/2017 — 26 Nov 2017

Discussion (display only in English)
 
➡ Only identified users



 I have read the guidelines of discussions and I accept all terms (read guidelines)

barre

New expert query --- New simple query

Creating new record --- Importing records

User management --- Dump database --- Contact

bar

This database is managed by Alliance francophone pour l'accouchement respecté (AFAR, https://afar.info)
affiliated with Collectif interassociatif autour de la naissance (CIANE, https://ciane.net).
It is fed by the voluntary contributions of persons interested in the sharing of scientific data.
If you agree with this project, you can support us in several ways:
(1) contributing to this database if you have a minimum training in documentation
(2) or financially supporting AFAR (see below)
(3) or joining the AFAR (or another society affiliated with CIANE).
Sign in or create an account to follow changes or become an editor.
Contact afar.association(arobase)gmail.com for more information.

Valid CSS! Valid HTML!
Donating to AFAR (click “Faire un don”) will help us to maintain and develop sites and public
databases towards the support of parents and caregivers’ informed decisions with respect to childbirth