We have located links that may give you full text access.
Timing of cesarean delivery for fetal heart rate abnormalities in hypertensive pregnancies induced with oral misoprostol or Foley catheter: Secondary analysis of a randomized clinical trial.
International Journal of Gynaecology and Obstetrics 2024 January 18
OBJECTIVE: The study aims to assess how oral misoprostol for cervical ripening affects the time of cesarean delivery (CD) for fetal heart rate (FHR) abnormalities in pre-eclampsia patients. Secondary goals include determining the role of uterine hyperstimulation, comparing misoprostol with Foley catheter, and identifying risk factors for FHR abnormalities associated with CD.
METHODS: A previously published randomized clinical trial was subjected to a secondary analysis (NCT01801410). We conducted a time-dependent analysis, stratifying the population based on the final mode of induction used (low-dose oral misoprostol vs Foley catheter).
RESULTS: There was no CD for FHR abnormalities within 2 h of starting misoprostol. At 5 h, the cumulative incidence of CD for FHR abnormalities in the misoprostol group was 2.10%, while it was 1.00% in the Foley group (P = 0.565). After 25 h, the CD risk for FHR abnormalities remained constant in both groups at 21.00% (95% confidence interval [CI] 15.00%-28.00%). Within 5 h of misoprostol induction, the risk of uterine hyperstimulation was similar in both groups (0.33% in misoprostol vs 0.34% in Foley group, P = 0.161). The risk of CD for FHR abnormalities was unaffected by newborn weight centiles.
CONCLUSION: There was no significant difference in CD risk for FHR abnormalities between misoprostol and Foley catheter induction. Nonetheless, the cumulative incidence of CD for FHR abnormalities increased faster in the misoprostol group, indicating that FHR monitoring timing should be tailored to the induction method.
METHODS: A previously published randomized clinical trial was subjected to a secondary analysis (NCT01801410). We conducted a time-dependent analysis, stratifying the population based on the final mode of induction used (low-dose oral misoprostol vs Foley catheter).
RESULTS: There was no CD for FHR abnormalities within 2 h of starting misoprostol. At 5 h, the cumulative incidence of CD for FHR abnormalities in the misoprostol group was 2.10%, while it was 1.00% in the Foley group (P = 0.565). After 25 h, the CD risk for FHR abnormalities remained constant in both groups at 21.00% (95% confidence interval [CI] 15.00%-28.00%). Within 5 h of misoprostol induction, the risk of uterine hyperstimulation was similar in both groups (0.33% in misoprostol vs 0.34% in Foley group, P = 0.161). The risk of CD for FHR abnormalities was unaffected by newborn weight centiles.
CONCLUSION: There was no significant difference in CD risk for FHR abnormalities between misoprostol and Foley catheter induction. Nonetheless, the cumulative incidence of CD for FHR abnormalities increased faster in the misoprostol group, indicating that FHR monitoring timing should be tailored to the induction method.
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