We have located links that may give you full text access.
Comparative Study
English Abstract
Journal Article
[''Prepidil versus Propess'': pharmacological induction of labour with dinoprostone].
Minerva Ginecologica 2008 April
AIM: The aim of the study was to evaluate the effectiveness and safety of the two different pharmaceutical preparations of dinoprostone: ''Prepidil vs Propess'', in patients with medical and/or obstetrical indications to pharmaceutical induction of labour.
METHODS: A retrospective analysis was carried out on 144 patients (82 with Propess vs 62 with Prepidil).
INDICATIONS: post-term pregnancy, premature rupture of membranes (PROM), gestational diabetes, gestational-chronic hypertension, intrauterine growth restriction (IUGR),others (fetal macrosomia, oligohydramnios).
RESULTS: The groups were homogenous regarding: age, parity, weeks of amenorrhea, Bishop score and indication to induction. Both pharmaceutical preparations of dinoprostone (Prepidil vs Propess) are effective and safe; there are some differences not statistically significant (P>0.01) regarding the percentage of spontaneous deliveries: 61.5% vs 63%, interval from induction to delivery 24.53 vs 20.45 h, number of inductions 1.35 vs 1.15 and neonatal outcome (Apgar scores at 1 and 5 min). A case of serious hyperstimulation with hysterectomy post-delivery after induction with Prepidi was observed.
CONCLUSION: A greater use of Propess, especially in patients with PROM, is suggested; Propess has determined a higher percentage of spontaneous deliveries, a shorter interval from induction to delivery and less risks for the mother. It is in fact possible to remove the device easily and safely in case of complication.
METHODS: A retrospective analysis was carried out on 144 patients (82 with Propess vs 62 with Prepidil).
INDICATIONS: post-term pregnancy, premature rupture of membranes (PROM), gestational diabetes, gestational-chronic hypertension, intrauterine growth restriction (IUGR),others (fetal macrosomia, oligohydramnios).
RESULTS: The groups were homogenous regarding: age, parity, weeks of amenorrhea, Bishop score and indication to induction. Both pharmaceutical preparations of dinoprostone (Prepidil vs Propess) are effective and safe; there are some differences not statistically significant (P>0.01) regarding the percentage of spontaneous deliveries: 61.5% vs 63%, interval from induction to delivery 24.53 vs 20.45 h, number of inductions 1.35 vs 1.15 and neonatal outcome (Apgar scores at 1 and 5 min). A case of serious hyperstimulation with hysterectomy post-delivery after induction with Prepidi was observed.
CONCLUSION: A greater use of Propess, especially in patients with PROM, is suggested; Propess has determined a higher percentage of spontaneous deliveries, a shorter interval from induction to delivery and less risks for the mother. It is in fact possible to remove the device easily and safely in case of complication.
Full text links
Related Resources
Get seemless 1-tap access through your institution/university
For the best experience, use the Read mobile app
All material on this website is protected by copyright, Copyright © 1994-2024 by WebMD LLC.
This website also contains material copyrighted by 3rd parties.
By using this service, you agree to our terms of use and privacy policy.
Your Privacy Choices
You can now claim free CME credits for this literature searchClaim now
Get seemless 1-tap access through your institution/university
For the best experience, use the Read mobile app