200500078.491_499.tp

• Copyright ᮊ by Walter de Gruyter • Berlin • New York. DOI 10.1515/JPM.2005.087 A clinical evaluation of controlled-release dinoprostone for
cervical ripening – a review of current evidence in hospital
and outpatient settings
Werner Rath*
many clinical circumstances, such as pregnancy-inducedhypertension, prelabor rupture of the membranes, sus- Department Obstetrics and Gynecology, University of pected fetal jeopardy or death, or maternal morbidity (e.g. diabetes), lead to the use of labor induction w1x, itsroutine use in, and recommendation for, post-term preg- Abstract
nancy is becoming more frequent (for example, NICE Labor induction is used in approximately 20% of preg- recommendations in the UK w30x). In many countries, nancies in Europe and North America. Prostaglandins induction is routine for pregnancies over 41 weeks, which and prostaglandin analogs are favored when women account for over 20% of all pregnancies w35x. Recom- undergoing labor induction have an unripe cervix. Con- mendations to induce labor in post-term pregnancy fol- trolled-release dinoprostone, delivered over 24 h from a low the finding that the prevalence of stillbirths increases vaginal insert, results in cervical ripening within 12 h in from 0.35 per 1000 ongoing pregnancies at 37 weeks to most women. It is marginally more effective than imme- 2.12 per 1000 at 43 weeks w17x. Furthermore, routine diate release formulations and has similar efficacy to induction of labor in pregnancies of more than 41 weeks misoprostol, a prostaglandin E analog used off-label for reduces perinatal mortality (OR 0.20 w95% CI 0.06–0.70x) this indication. The controlled-release preparation offers many advantages compared with an immediate-release In attempt to optimize labor induction, there has been formulation: a single application is sufficient; it is less an increase in the number of agents available for cervical invasive; it is easily administered and removed, allowing ripening/labor induction. In this article, we review the lit- greater dose control. The most significant adverse effect, erature on one such agent, a sustained and controlled- uterine hyperstimulation, with and without an effect on release dinoprostone vaginal insert (prostaglandin E ; fetal heart rate, occurs in 5–15% of patients, which is Propessᮋ or Cervidilᮋ). We review the efficacy and safety comparable with other formulations or misoprostol. The of the agent as well as recent data on its use in an out- insert can be removed easily on the first sign of uterine patient setting. With outpatient management in obstetrics hyperstimulation, or as soon as labor starts. The efficacy being continuously expanding, we address the current and safety of controlled-release dinoprostone are com- evidence on this important issue, and its potential impli- parable whether it is used in the outpatient or the inpa- cations in terms of cost and patient convenience.
tient setting. For low-risk women, outpatient use may bea highly attractive option, potentially reducing hospital Aims of labor induction
costs, and improving patient convenience. The ease ofuse of controlled-release dinoprostone and women’s sat- Induction of labor is indicated when a continuation of the isfaction emphasize its benefits over many other agents pregnancy would mean that the risks to the mother or fetus outweigh the benefits from further observation. The Keywords: Controlled-release; dinoprostone; outpatient;
aims of induction are straightforward—vaginal delivery or active labor within 12 h. Undesirable outcomes havebeen clearly defined by the Cochrane CollaborationPregnancy and Childbirth Group and include: vaginal Introduction
delivery not achieved within 24 h; uterine hyperstimula-tion with fetal heart rate wFHRx changes; requirement for The frequency of labor induction has increased in Europe cesarean section; serious neonatal morbidity or perinatal and North America over the past 10 years w25x. Although death; and serious maternal morbidity or death w18, 22x.
In the guideline published by the Royal College of Obste- tricians and Gynaecologists, the term hyperstimulation with and without FHR changes included uterine tachy- systole ()5 contractions in 10 min for G20 min) and uterine hypersystole/hypertonus (a contraction lasting G2 min). However, due to varied reporting of this out- 492 Rath, Clinical efficacy of controlled-release dinoprostone The Bishop score for assessment of cervical ripeness w5x.
* Station of fetus relative to the ischial spine come, possible subjective bias in interpretation exists venous infusion of oxytocin, which rapidly stimulates w30x. Where possible, we used these outcomes in uterine contractions but has no direct effect on the con- dition of the cervix w20x. Prostaglandins (dinoprostoneand dinoprost wprostaglandin F x), however, are used for Methods of labor induction
cervical ripening w21, 42x. Dinoprostone is favored overdinoprost for several reasons, including relative potency A pre-requisite for successful labor induction is cervical ripening (or cervical maturation). Many clinicians regardlabor induction and cervical ripening as essentially the Dinoprostone formulations
same process. If labor is induced when the cervix isunripe and unable to yield in response to contractions, The risk of systemic side effects with prostaglandins has high rates of failure are observed w9x.
led to the development of various formulations for local Because of the importance of cervical ripening, meth- application. These include, intra-vaginal tablets or sup- ods of evaluating the status of the cervix have been positories, intra-cervical or intra-vaginal gels in a single- developed. The most widely used is the Bishop score w5x use syringe, and sustained release intra-vaginal inserts.
or the modified Bishop score w8x. The Bishop score rates Tablets or suppositories are the simplest formulation to the dilatation, consistency, and length of the cervix, and administer, but outcome can be unpredictable w27x. In the position of the fetus. A combined score gives a addition, a second dose of the tablets is often adminis- measure of cervical ripeness on a scale from 0 to 13 tered 6–8 h after the first (if the single dose is considered (Table 1). The state of the cervix is not favorable enough ineffective), but since the onset of labor may be 8–12 h to commence labor induction when the Bishop score is after induction, this double dosing increases the risk of below a certain level. No consensus exists on the precise uterine hyperstimulation. Gel formulations of dinopros- score that indicates the need for cervical ripening, but tone provide more predictable results, but administration generally a Bishop score -6 are considered too low to (particularly of intra-cervical gels) requires an experi- enced clinician and can be uncomfortable for the woman.
Approximately, 50% of women undergoing induction of Spillage from the cervical canal can reduce efficacy or, if labor have an unfavorable cervix and, therefore, require the dose passes into the extra-amniotic space, cause cervical ripening w2x. The optimal method of labor induc- uterine hyperstimulation w27x. Both intra-vaginal and tion should ideally also ripen the cervix. Dilatation and intra-cervical gels may also cause uterine hyperstimula- labor can be induced by mechanical means, such as tion by delivering dinoprostone too quickly (i.e. dose- membrane sweeping, artificial rupture (amniotomy), dig- dumping). In the event of such an adverse reaction, gel ital stretching of the cervix, or insertion of catheters, but formulations are quite impossible to remove.
most mechanical methods can traumatize the cervix and A sustained and controlled release of dinoprostone is are associated with discomfort and bleeding in a sub- needed to overcome the potential problems with gel and stantial number of women w49x. In addition, women tablet formulations. A retrievable vaginal insert is availa- undergoing labor induction tend to favor less invasive ble that releases a continuous and predictable dose of pharmacological methods to mechanical methods, such dinoprostone at a rate of approximately 0.3 mg/h for 24 h as artificial rupture of membranes w41x. Pharmacological w28x. The controlled-release formulation of dinoprostone, compounds for inducing labor are therefore preferred— minimizes the risk of uterine hyperstimulation, is easy to the most widely used agents are oxytocin, prostaglan- apply, and can be removed quickly when labor starts, or in the event of an adverse reaction. Furthermore, the pro- The ideal agent must effectively induce labor and con- gressive cervical ripening induced by the controlled vert an unfavorable cervix to one receptive to delivery, release of dinoprostone may be more acceptable to but also needs to be safe, easy to administer, and patients than the rapid onset of contractions observed acceptable to the patient. The most frequently used with some agents w44x. The controlled release of dino- pharmacological method for inducing labor is an intra- prostone from the vaginal insert continues for up to 24 h Rath, Clinical efficacy of controlled-release dinoprostone w28x allowing longer induction, if required, with only one 18.32 w95% CI 9.49–35.38x; P-0.0001), and overall treatment success (OR 4.93 w95% CI 3.36–7.24x;P-0.0001) compared to placebo w11x. Controlled-releasedinoprostone was also associated with a significantly Efficacy of controlled-release dinoprostone
lower rate of oxytocin use (OR 0.14 w95% CI 0.06–0.32x;P-0.0001) and a non-significantly lower rate of cesarean Placebo-controlled trials
delivery. While parity did not affect most of the outcomemeasures, multiparous women had 50% shorter labors Three randomized, double-blind, clinical trials have assessed the efficacy of controlled-release dinoprostone The efficacy of controlled-release dinoprostone was vs. placebo in 485 women at term (referred to as studies reviewed by Kelly et al. w23x. The primary aim of the 1, 2 and 3, respectively) w34, 47, 48x. A subsequent meta- review was to determine the effects of vaginal prosta- analysis including these trials and other studies compar- glandin E for cervical ripening or induction of labor in ing dinoprostone with different cervical ripening agents comparison with placebo, no treatment, or other vaginal were performed by Crane and Bennett w11x.
prostaglandins (except misoprostol). This was reflected The three placebo-controlled trials were similar with by an increase in successful vaginal delivery rates within respect to design. Inclusion criteria were singleton preg- 24 h, no increase in operative delivery rates, and signif- nancy G37 weeks’ duration, cephalic presentation, Bish- icant improvement in cervical condition within 24 to 48 h.
op score F4 at admission, medical or obstetric reasonfor induction, and F3 previous viable deliveries. Exclu- Comparative trials
sion criteria included previous uterine scar, vaginal bleed-ing, ruptured membranes, FHR abnormalities, and A number of trials have examined the efficacy of con- medical conditions precluding dinoprostone administra- trolled-release dinoprostone compared with vaginal or tion. The primary outcome measure for these trials was intra-cervical gel formulations of dinoprostone, and the cervical ripening with treatment success defined as vag- prostaglandin E analog, misoprostol. However, most of inal delivery within 12 h, or a Bishop score G6, or an the comparative trials involve small numbers of patients, increase from baseline in Bishop score G3 at 12 h. A reducing the statistic power. The latter agent is widely number of secondary outcomes were also measured used off-label in both the USA and Europe for cervical including time to vaginal delivery, time to onset of labor, ripening. Misoprostol oral tablets are indicated for the need for oxytocin (reflecting induction failure) and cesa- prevention and treatment of NSAID gastric and duodenal ulcers and were not approved for induction of labor.
The baseline characteristics were similar in each trial Three prospective trials and one retrospective study and did not differ between placebo and active-treatment have assessed the comparative efficacy of controlled- groups, with the exception that in study 3, the mean age release dinoprostone and vaginal or intra-cervical gel of women in the multiparous group receiving placebo dinoprostone w10, 31, 33x. The aggregated data from the was significantly higher than for those receiving active two prospective trials were also analyzed in the Crane treatment (28.2"5.1 vs. 25.6"5.3 years; Ps0.03) w48x.
and Bennett meta-analysis w11x. In one trial, 73 women In all three trials, the most frequent indication for labor who had an indication for induction of labor for a variety of reasons were randomized to receive either intra-cer- Dinoprostone was significantly better than placebo for vical gel (ns36) or a controlled-release (ns37) dinopros- all primary outcomes (Table 2), and in general, the results tone insert w10x. Although changes in Bishop scores were were unchanged when nulliparous women were analyzed similar in the two groups, the mean times to cervical rip- separately. However in study 3, the response to con- ening, active labor, and delivery were significantly shorter trolled-release dinoprostone in nulliparous women was with the use of controlled-release dinoprostone (Figure primarily a cervical change (Bishop score was improved 1). Hospital stay was also shorter with the controlled- but there were no vaginal deliveries in either placebo release formulations than with the gel; 3.7 vs. 4.4 days, recipients or dinoprostone recipients), whereas in multi- respectively (Ps0.03). If active labor had not already parous women the response was mainly higher rates of begun, oxytocin infusion was initiated 6 h after the final delivery within 12 h w48x. Furthermore, in both nulliparous dose of gel or 30 min after removal of the insert. Oxytocin and multiparous women, the time to onset of labor and was administered in 97% of patients receiving dinopros- to vaginal delivery was significantly shorter in those tone gel and in only 76% of patients receiving the con- women receiving controlled-release dinoprostone w34, trolled-release dinoprostone insert (Ps0.014) w10x. In a previous study, this figure was even less for the dino- The meta-analysis of these three trials confirmed that prostone insert group whereby 54% of patients required controlled-release dinoprostone was associated with a labor to be initiated or augmented with oxytocin w47x. At significantly higher rate of cervical ripening (OR 3.99 least 50% of women required three doses of the gel to w95% CI 2.71–5.86x; P-0.0001), onset of labor (OR 494 Rath, Clinical efficacy of controlled-release dinoprostone Primary efficacy outcomes from the three placebo-controlled trials of controlled-release dinoprostone w34, 47, 48x.
aTreatment success is defined as a change in Bishop score of G3, or a Bishop score of G6 at 12 h or delivery within 12 h of insertplacement.
*In nulliparous and multiparous women separately. In all other cases, figures are combined.
In a more recent comparison by Ottinger et al. w31x, 90 prostone gel (ns50) (29.8"22.0 h vs. 62.0"78.8 h, women with an indication for labor induction were ran- respectively wPs0.039x) w43x. Additionally, controlled- domized to receive either intra-cervical gel (ns45) or release dinoprostone was associated with a higher rate controlled-release dinoprostone (ns45), and the advan- of cervical ripening and a higher rate of deliveries within tages of controlled-release formulations were noted. The 24 h than dinoprostone gel (80% vs. 56% and 62% vs.
investigators found that controlled-release dinoprostone was associated with a greater mean change in Bishop In a more recent study, controlled-release dinopros- score (1.8"1.9 vs. 3.2"3.1, Ps0.01) than the gel. In this tone had generally equivalent efficacy to an intra-cervical study, there was no significant difference between treat- gel formulation of dinoprostone w13x. In this trial of 115 ments in the percentage of deliveries within 24 h, and women, the majority needing labor induction for post- there was a non-significant decrease in the application- term pregnancies, there was a slightly higher occurrence to-delivery interval (28.3 and 24.0 h for gel and con- of vaginal delivery in the group receiving controlled- trolled-release formulations, respectively wPs0.19x) w31x.
release dinoprostone than in those receiving the gel, but A prospective multicenter German study found similar this difference did not reach statistical significance.
results. In this study, 158 pregnant women with a Bishop Other studies have shown advantages of a controlled- Score F4 were randomized to receive either controlled- release formulation over vaginal gels in terms of initiating release dinoprostone (ns83) or intra-cervical application sustained high-amplitude contractions w29x or initiating of 0.5 mg prostaglandin E gel (ns75) w33x. The study labor w39x. However, a meta-analysis of nine published found that there was no significant difference in the per- studies concluded that there were no clinically significant centage of vaginal deliveries within 24 h between the differences between controlled-release dinoprostone and women given controlled-release dinoprostone and those alternatives, such as gels, used for cervical ripening in the intra-cervical gel group, and no significant differ- (however, no sub-analysis was done on trials with intra- ence in the mean induction to delivery interval (28 h for cervical or vaginal gels specifically) w19x.
the gel and 21.5 h for the controlled-release formulation).
A recent study by Perry and Leaphart w32x reported There was no significant difference in perinatal outcome.
that intra-cervical placement of the sustained-release The investigators concluded that controlled-release dino- dinoprostone insert decreased time to delivery without prostone is appropriate for use across the whole range increasing the cesarean delivery rate, infectious morbi- of Bishop Scores, from the unripe to the ripe cervix. This dity, or other complications of labor. However, when is of benefit to the obstetrician as only one formulation induction of labor is undertaken with prostaglandins, for induction is required, independent of cervical status.
intravaginal prostaglandin E should be used in prefer- The study also monitored FHR in both sample groups ence to intracervical preparations, because despite being w33x. Fetal heart rate was monitored for 20–30 min in the effective, administration of the vaginal insert is less inva- controlled-release dinoprostone group in accordance sive w30x. In addition, it should be noted that the vaginal with product guidelines, and for 2 h in the intra-cervical insert is not licensed for intra-cervical administration and gel group. No significant difference in fetal outcome as the safety and efficacy of administration by this route has measured by pH or Apgar score was detected.
In a retrospective analysis of 100 records, the time for A recent randomized trial by Garry et al. w15x suggest- application to delivery in women who received con- ed that induction of labor with misoprostol, results in a trolled-release dinoprostone (ns50) was significantly higher rate of vaginal delivery and a shorter induction shorter than in those who received intra-cervical dino- time than induction with controlled-release dinoprostone.
Rath, Clinical efficacy of controlled-release dinoprostone changes was 2.6% in the dinoprostone group and 0%and 7.5% in the misoprostol 35 mg and 50 mg groups,respectively (Ps0.328). Tachysystole more frequentlyoccurred after dinoprostone (15.4%) compared withmisoprostol (2.6 and 5.6% for the 35 mg and 50 mg dos-es, respectively). In general, there are safety aspects ofmisoprostol that have not been fully evaluated and it isnot currently licensed for obstetric use.
Twenty-four hour use
Most clinical trials have compared controlled-release Comparison of controlled-release dinoprostone with dinoprostone for 12 h with placebo or other agents, but dinoprostone gel for induction of labor and cervical ripening the use of controlled-release dinoprostone for longer periods can maintain prostaglandin E levels for up to 24 h if required w16x. Furthermore, Lyrenas et al. w28x The mean time to vaginal delivery was 13.2 h and 16.8 h revealed that the prostaglandin E release rate was linear in the misoprostol (50 mg every 3 h) and controlled- over 24 h in patients with intact membranes. The two release dinoprostone groups (P-0.02), respectively, and comparative trials by Wing et al. and Khoury et al. w24, 44% of women receiving misoprostol had delivered at 46x allowed the vaginal insert to be left in place for up to -12 h compared with 12% in the dinoprostone group 24 h and 22.5 h, respectively. The efficacy of controlled- (P-0.0001) w15x. However, two earlier comparisons of release dinoprostone and misoprostol were similar and controlled-release dinoprostone and misoprostol showed there was no evidence of adverse effects associated with no significant differences in any of these parameters (Fig- the 24-h use of controlled-release dinoprostone. These ure 2) w24, 46x. This could potentially be explained by trials show the potential for the prolonged use of con- slightly lower dosages of misoprostol used in these stud- trolled-release dinoprostone when 12-h exposure has not ies—25 mg every 4 h w46x and 35 mg or 50 mg every resulted in adequate cervical ripening or the onset of 4.5 h w24x—compared with the 50 mg every 3 h used by labor. Controlled-release dinoprostone is now approved Garry et al. w15x. However, the higher dosages used in the latter study may be associated with unacceptablelevels of adverse effects. In the study by Garry andcoworkers, uterine hyperstimulation occurred in 4% of Safety of controlled-release dinoprostone
women receiving misoprostol compared with 1% in thedinoprostone group (Ps0.37 w15x). In contrast, Wing Placebo-controlled trials
et al. w46x observed uterine hyperstimulation with abnor-mal FHR patterns in 4.1% of the patients receiving the The most significant adverse effect of any method of dinoprostone vaginal insert compared with 1.0% in the labor induction is uterine hyperstimulation. Compared misoprostol group (Ps0.21). In the study by Khoury et with placebo, controlled-release dinoprostone increased al. w24x, the rate of uterine hyperstimulation with FHR the rate of hyperstimulation in all three clinical trials w34,47, 48x. The incidence of uterine hyperstimulation rangedfrom 5 to 16% in patients treated with controlled-releasedinoprostone w34, 48x, but in the trial with the highestincidence w34x the insert was left in situ after the onsetof labor (in error—the dinoprostone insert should beremoved at the onset of labor) and this would explainthese higher rates (75% of cases occurred after the onsetof labor with dinoprostone insert still in place). In all threetrials, uterine hyperstimulation resolved within 15 minafter removal of the insert. Fetal distress or FHR abnor-malities were observed in 3–10% of dinoprostone-recip-ients, but these also resolved immediately after removalof the dinoprostone insert w34, 47, 48x. Importantly, theproportion of women requiring cesarean section due tonon-reassuring FHR tracing was similar in the dinopros- Time interval between induction and vaginal delivery with controlled-release dinoprostone (DP), misoprostol 25 mg tone-treated group to the placebo-treated group w34, 47, every 4 h (M25), misoprostol 35 mg every 4.5 h (M35), or miso- 48x. Other than the adverse effects discussed above, prostol 50 mg every 4.5 h (M50) w24, 47x.
controlled-release dinoprostone was relatively well toler- 496 Rath, Clinical efficacy of controlled-release dinoprostone Comparison of odds ratios (OR) for uterine hypertonus with fetal heart rate change between controlled-release dinoprostone (treatment) and other vaginal or cervical prostaglandin formulations (control) w19x.
ated and there were no laboratory abnormalities that Comparative trials
were drug-related in the three placebo-controlled trials A number of trials compared the safety of controlled-release dinoprostone with other prostaglandin E formu-lations. None of the trials comparing intra-cervical gels Experience in clinical practice
with controlled-release dinoprostone showed significant-ly different rates of uterine hyperstimulation or cesarean Post-marketing assessments of controlled-release dino- section w10, 13, 31x. Similarly, controlled-release dino- prostone confirmed the safety profile and incidence of prostone has a similar safety profile to vaginal gel for- uterine hyperstimulation in clinical practice. An exami- mulations w29, 39x. The same is generally true in nation of 173 cases over a 16-month period found a fre- comparisons of controlled-release dinoprostone with quency of uterine hyperstimulation of 5.2% (8.4% of misoprostol w24, 46x, but higher doses of misoprostol primiparous women and 1.3% of multiparous women) (50 mg every 3 h) may result in more cesarean sections w6x. As in the clinical studies, women experiencing because of non-reassuring FHR tracing w15x.
hyperstimulation delivered healthy infants without the Because most comparative trials involved small num- additional risk of requiring a cesarean section, and the bers of patients, the data on safety from these trials were nursing staff quickly learned to remove the vaginal insert amalgamated in a meta-analysis by Hughes et al. w19x.
Rates of uterine hypertonus with FHR changes were sim- In a study of women undergoing vaginal birth after ilar in controlled-release dinoprostone to rates with other cesarean section (VBAC), six out of 58 women (10.3%) prostaglandin E products (OR 1.19 wCI 0.58–2.54x) (Fig- receiving controlled-release dinoprostone experienced ure 3), but misoprostol induced higher rates of this uterine rupture compared with only 1.1% of women who adverse effect compared with controlled-release dino- did not w40x. However, three of the six women were also prostone (OR 1.53 wCI 1.05–2.22x). An analysis of cesa- using oxytocin and were low-weight women (possibly rean delivery also showed similar rates between different indicating an increase in overall bioavailability of dino- formulations and agents w19x. The similar safety of con- prostone in low-weight women). Although there is a low trolled-release dinoprostone with other formulations is risk of uterine rupture in women undergoing VBAC with now well established with the publication of these trials.
controlled-release dinoprostone, this risk may be similar Furthermore, there are no safety issues associated with to dinoprostone gels w40x. The labeling for Propessᮋ leaving the insert for longer than 12 h and up to 24 h.
takes this risk into account and contraindicates its use inwomen with previous uterine surgery, such as cesarean Outpatient use of controlled-release dinoprostone
section. However, controlled-release dinoprostone is nolonger contraindicated for use in PROM cases, but An increasingly important aspect of labor induction (or should, nonetheless, be used with caution.
any obstetric care) is patient satisfaction. Controlled- Rath, Clinical efficacy of controlled-release dinoprostone release dinoprostone has therefore been investigated in ture seems contradictory. No pharmacological agent has an outpatient setting to test if the insert had favorable shown consistent benefit over other agents or formula- safety and whether it improves patient satisfaction. Such tions in clinical trials when both safety and efficacy are outpatient use of agents for labor induction may also considered. However, unlike other agents such as miso- reduce hospital stay, thus freeing space, time, and staff prostol, dinoprostone has been licensed specifically for for the care of high-risk inductions, and may be more use in cervical ripening and has therefore been subjected to rigorous trials. Irrespective of whether or not an agent The safety of outpatient use of controlled-release dino- is licensed for use in pregnancy, the cost, ease of use, prostone has been assessed in four studies. In a retro- and the patient preference may be the deciding factors spective study by Sennik, a cohort of 201 women were when choosing an agent for induction of labor. Patient monitored for 2 h after the insertion of the insert before acceptability of controlled-release dinoprostone is excel- being allowed home if no adverse effects were detected lent and the potential to use this formulation in an out- w37x. Of the 192 women discharged, only two (1.0%) had patient setting may make it more acceptable to women uterine hyperstimulation and three other women (1.6%) and therefore superior to other agents. In addition, the experienced uterine hyperstimulation during the 2-h administration method of controlled release dinoprostone monitoring period. All newborn infants were healthy and minimizes the risk of uterine hyperstimulation in compar- 73.1% of the deliveries were vaginal. In a prospective ison to intra-vaginal or intra-cervical gels as the insert study, 150 women were given controlled-release dino- can quickly be removed when labor starts or at the onset prostone to induce labor in an inpatient setting and were of any adverse events. The efficacy and safety of con- compared with those given controlled-release dinopros- trolled-release dinoprostone in an outpatient setting tone, monitored for 1 h, and then allowed home w4x. The make the product an appropriate choice for cervical proportion of inpatients that were in labor or delivered within 24 h (71%) was similar to the proportion in theoutpatient group (77%). The median times to labor anddelivery were also similar in the two treatment groups,but the proportion of women reporting satisfaction in the References
first 12 h of induction was significantly higher in the out-patient group (56%) than in the inpatient group (39%), w1x Anon: Induction of labor wACOG technical bulletinx. Int J P-0.008. Furthermore, adverse effects were very similar in both groups. A recent retrospective study by Brest and w2x American College of Obstetricians Gynecologists: ACOG technical bulletin. Induction of labor. Int J Gynaecol Obstet patients who received the dinoprostone vaginal insert. Of w3x American College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists: the 207 patients who were discharged, no maternal or Induction of labor. Practice bulletin no. 10. Washington, fetal adverse effects were identified. The authors con- clude that in carefully-selected patients, outpatient cer- w4x Biem SRD, RW Turnell, O Olatunbosun, M Tauh, HJ Biem: vical ripening with the dinoprostone vaginal insert is a A randomized controlled trial of outpatient vs. inpatient safe procedure. Similarly, in a retrospective study by labor induction with vaginal controlled-release prostaglan- Simpson and colleagues w38x, data from 373 outpatients din-E : effectiveness and satisfaction. J Obstet Gynaecol and 317 inpatients, which received the dinoprostone w5x Bishop EH: Pelvic scoring for elective induction. Obstet vaginal insert, were compared. There was no significant difference in overall cesarean rate and no difference in w6x Blair FC, SA Tassone, CR Pearman, MB St Cyr, WF Ray- burn: Inducing labor with a sustained-release PGE vaginal Although data available at present are limited, they do insert. Experience at a community hospital. J Reprod Med suggest that outpatient induction of labor with con- trolled-release dinoprostone may be a viable option for w7x Brest N, T Marlino, A Gerson: Outpatient cervical ripening some women and may have the potential to reduce hos- with a dinoprostone vaginal insert. Today’s Therapeutic w8x Calder AA, MP Embrey, K Hillier: Extra-amniotic prosta- glandin E for the induction of labor at term. J Obstet Conclusions
w9x Calder AA: The management of the unripe cervix. In: Keirse MJNC, ABM Anderson, J Bennebroek Gravenhorst:Human Parturition. Leiden University Press, The Hague Comparisons with placebo and other agents and for- mulations used for the induction of labor suggest that w10x Chyu JK, HT Strassner: Prostaglandin E for cervical rip- controlled-release dinoprostone is well suited for a wide ening: a randomized comparison of Cervidil vs. Prepidil.
range of women, although some of the published litera- 498 Rath, Clinical efficacy of controlled-release dinoprostone w11x Crane JM, KA Bennett: A meta-analysis of controlled- w30x National Institute for Clinical Excellence, and the Royal release prostaglandin for cervical ripening and labor induc- College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists: Induction of tion. J Soc Obstet Gynaecol Canada 22 (2000) 692 labor: Evidence-based clinical guideline. 2001 w12x Crowley P: Interventions for preventing or improving the w31x Ottinger WS, MK Menard, BC Brost: A randomized clinical outcome of delivery at or beyond term (Cochrane Review).
trial of prostaglandin E intracervical gel and a slow release vaginal pessary for preinduction cervical ripening. Am J w13x D’Aniello G, C Bocchi, P Florio, E Ignacchiti, CG Guidoni, G Centini, et al.: Cervical ripening and induction of labor w32x Perry MY, WL Leaphart. Randomized trial of intracervical by prostaglandin E : a comparison between intracervical vs. posterior fornix dinoprostone for induction of labor.
gel and vaginal pessary. J Matern Fetal Med 14 (2003) 158 w14x Edwards RK, DS Richards: Preinduction cervical assess- 33x Rath W, C Bartz, M Winkler: Geburtseinleitung bei unreifer Zervix mit dem PGE -Vaginalinsert Propessᮋ—ergebnisse einer prospectiven randomisierten Multizenterstudie im w15x Garry D, R Figuerosa, RB Kalish, CJ Catalano, D Maulik: Randomized controlled trial of vaginal misoprostol vs.
Vergleich mit der intrazervikalen Applikation von Prosta-glandin-E -Gel (Prepidilᮋ). Frauenartz 43 (2002) 1173 dinoprostone vaginal insert for labor induction. J Matern w34x Rayburn WF, RJ Wapner, VA Barss, E Spitzberg, RD Moli- na, N Mandsager, et al.: An intravaginal controlled-release w16x Goharkhay N, FZ Stanczyk, E Gentzschein, DA Wing: prostaglandin E pessary for cervical ripening and initiation Plasma prostaglandin E metabolite levels during labor of labor at term. Obstet Gynecol 79 (1992) 374 induction with a sustained-release prostaglandin E vagi- w35x Rayburn WF: Clinical experience with a controlled-release, nal insert. J Soc Gynecol Investig 7 (2000) 338 prostaglandin E2 intravaginal insert in the USA. Br J Obs- w17x Hilder L, K Costeloe, B Thilaganathan: Prolonged preg- nancy: evaluating gestation-specific risks of fetal and w36x Sanchez-Ramos L, DE Peterson, J Delke, FL Gaudier, AM infant mortality. Br J Obstet Gynaecol 105 (1998) 169 Kaunitz: Labor induction with prostaglandin E misoprostol w18x Hofmeyr GJ, Z Alfirevic, J Kavanagh, J Thomas, P Brock- compared with dinoprostone vaginal insert: A randomized lehurst, JP Neilson: Methods for cervical ripening and labor induction in late pregnancy: generic protocol.
w37x Sennik BK: Outpatient use of a sustained-release PGE2 vaginal insert – a retrospective study. Today’s Therapeutic w19x Hughes EG, AJ Kelly, J Kavanagh: Dinoprostone vaginal insert for cervical ripening and labor induction: a meta- w38x Simpson ML, O Von Lipinski, MG Radmanovic, NL Miten- ko: Timed-release dinoprostone vaginal inserts in an out- w20x Keirse MJNC, ACA van Oppen: Preparing the cervix for patient and inpatient setting. Poster presented at ACOG induction of labor. In: Chalmers I, M Enkin, MJNC Keirse: Effective care in pregnancy and childbirth. Oxford Univer- w39x Smith CV, WF Rayburn, AM Miller: Intravaginal prostaglan- din E for cervical ripening and initiation of labor. Com- w21x Keirse MJ: Prostaglandins in preinduction cervical ripen- parison of a multidose gel and single, controlled-release ing. Meta-analysis of worldwide clinical experience. J w40x Taylor DR, AS Doughty, H Kaufman, L Yang, TA Iannucci: w22x Kelly AJ, Z Alfirevic, GJ Hofmeyr, J Kavanagh, JP Neilson, Uterine rupture with the use of PGE vaginal inserts for J Thomas: Induction of labor in specific clinical situations: labor induction in women with previous caesarean sec- generic protocol. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2001 w41x Taylor SJ, CL Armour: Consumer preference for dinopros- w23x Kelly AJ, J Kavanagh, J Thomas: Vaginal prostaglandin tone vaginal gel using stated preference discrete choice (PGE2 and PGEF2a) for induction of labor at term.
w42x Trofatter KF Jr: Endocervical prostaglandin E gel for pre- w24x Khoury AN, QP Zhou, DM Gorenberg, BM Nies, GE Man- induction cervical ripening. Clinical trials results. J Reprod ley, FE Mecklenburg: A comparison of intermittent vaginal administration of two different doses of misoprostol sup- w43x Vollebregt A, DB van’t Hof, N Exalto: Prepidil compared to positories with continuous dinoprostone for cervical rip- Propess for cervical ripening. Eur J Obstet Gynecol ening and labor induction. J Matern Fetal Med 10 (2001) w44x Westgate J, JA Williams: Evaluation of a controlled release w25x Kozak LJ, JD Weeks: US trends in obstetric procedures, vaginal prostaglandin E pessary with a retrieval system for the induction of labor. J Obstet Gynaecol 14 (1994) 146 w26x Ludmir J, HM Sehdev: Anatomy and physiology of the w45x Wieland D, F Friedman Jr: Comparing two dinoprostone uterine cervix. Clin Obstet Gynecol 43 (2000) 433 agents for preinduction cervical ripening at term: A ran- w27x Lyndrup J: Prostaglandins and induction of labor. Eur J domized trial. J Reprod Med 44 (1999) 724 w46x Wing DA, G Ortiz-Omphroy, RH Paul: A comparison of w28x Lyrenas S, C Ingegerd, U Ulmsten: In vivo controlled intermittent vaginal administration of misoprostol with release of PGE from a vaginal insert (0.8 mm, 10 mg) dur- continuous dinoprostone for cervical ripening and labor ing induction of labor. Br J Obstet Gynaecol 108 (2001) induction. Am J Obstet Gynecol 177 (1997) 612 w47x Witter FR, LE Rocco, TRB Johnson: A randomised trial of w29x Miller AM, WF Rayburn, CV Smith: Patterns of uterine prostaglandin E in a controlled-release vaginal pessary for activity after intravaginal prostaglandin E during preinduc- cervical ripening at term. Am J Obstet Gynecol 166 (1992) tion cervical ripening. Am J Obstet Gynecol 165 (1991) w48x Witter FR, BM Mercer: Improved intravaginal controlled- Rath, Clinical efficacy of controlled-release dinoprostone release prostaglandin E insert for cervical ripening at term.
w49x Wong SF, SK Hui, H Choi, LC Ho: Does sweeping of mem- The Prostaglandin E insert Study Group. J Matern Fetal branes beyond 40 weeks reduce the need for formal

Source: http://www.pacmed.ca/resources/rath_2005.pdf