medigraphic.com
ISSN 0185-3252 (Print)
Revista de la Asociación Médica del Centro Médico ABC

2022, Number 1

<< Back Next >>

An Med Asoc Med Hosp ABC 2022; 67 (1)

Risk and incidence of cesarean surgery in induction of elective labor with misoprostol: maternal outcome

Felgueres-Hermida A, Correa-Castillo MC, Padilla-Correa AM, Hugues-García MG, Avendaño-Barroeta A, Bermúdez-Rodríguez A

Language: Spanish
References: 19
Page: 18-23
PDF size: 270.36 Kb.


ABSTRACT

Introduction: Between 1990 and 2019, the induction of elective labor has been tripled in United States, rises from 9.5% in 1990 to 27.1% in 2018. It is currently estimated that 30% of all pregnancies end with induction of labor of elective delivery. Objective: To determine the risk and incidence of cesarean surgery in the induction of elective labor with misoprostol, as well as maternal-fetal complications related to the use of this drug. Material and methods: A case series report, prospective, descriptive and unicentric. The study was performed in a private obstetric care center. 122 patients were evaluated; primigravids and multigravids with full term pregnancy were included. Based on the Bishop score two groups were formed: first group with a score less than or equal to 4, and a second group with a score greater than or equal to 5 points. Results: Of the 122 patients, 111 of them had vaginal delivery after the elective induction of labor. 56.7 percent (n = 63) of them were nulliparas, while the other 43.3 percent (n = 48) were multiparas. From the 11 patient who had cesarean surgical delivery, 90.9 percent (n = 10) were nulliparas. A Bishop score less than 4 was found in 68.4 percent of the vaginal delivery group, and in the 90.9 percent of the cesarean delivery group. Conclusion: Induction of elective labor with 25 μg vaginal dose of misoprostol does not increase the incidence of cesarean surgery.


REFERENCES

  1. Grobman W. Induction of labor with oxytocin [Internet]. UpToDate; 2020 [cited 26 March 2020]. Available in: https://www.uptodate.com/contents/induction-of-labor-with-oxytocin?search=elective%20labor%20induction&source=search_result&selectedTitle=1~150&usage_type=default&display_rank=1

  2. Sociedad Española de Ginecología y Obstetricia. Inducción del parto (actualizado julio del 2013). Prog Obstet Ginecol. 2015; 58 (1): 54-64.

  3. Sareen S, Chawla I, Singh P. Labor induction with 50 μg vaginal misoprostol: can we reduce induction-delivery intervals safely? J Obstet Gynaecol India. 2014; 64 (4): 270-273.

  4. Caughey AB, Sundaram V, Kaimal AJ, Gienger A, Cheng YW, McDonald KM et al. Systematic review: elective induction of labor versus expectant management of pregnancy. Ann Intern Med. 2009; 151 (4): 252-263.

  5. Miller NR, Cypher RL, Foglia LM, Pates JA, Nielsen PE. Elective induction of labor compared with expectant management of nulliparous women at 39 weeks of gestation: a randomized controlled trial. Obstet Gynecol. 2015; 126 (6): 1258-1264.

  6. Handal-Orefice RC, Friedman AM, Chouinard SM, Eke AC, Feinberg B, Politch J, et al. Oral or vaginal misoprostol for labor induction and cesarean delivery risk. Obstetrics & Gynecology 2019;134(1):10-16

  7. Betrán AP, Ye J, Moller AB, Zhang J, Gülmezoglu AM, Torloni MR. The increasing trend in caesarean section rates: global, regional and national estimates: 1990-2014. PLoS One. 2016; 11 (2): e0148343.

  8. Bernal-García C, Nahín-Escobedo CC. Cesárea: situación actual y factores asociados en México. Salud Quintana Roo. 2018; 11 (40): 28-33.

  9. Yogev Y, Hiersch L, Yariv O, Peled Y, Wiznitzer A, Melamed N. Association and risk factors between induction of labor and cesarean section. J Matern-Fetal Neonatal Med. 2013; 26 (17): 1733-1736. doi: 10.3109/14767058.2013.799661.

  10. Wood S, Cooper S, Ross S. Does induction of labour increase the risk of caesarean section? A systematic review and meta-analysis of trials in women with intact membranes. BJOG. 2014; 121 (6): 674-685; discussion 685.

  11. Lee HR, Kim MN, You JY, Choi SJ, Oh SY, Roh CR et al. Risk of cesarean section after induced versus spontaneous labor at term gestation. Obstet Gynecol Sci. 2015; 58 (5): 346-352.

  12. UpToDate [Internet]. Uptodate.com. 2020 [cited 28 March 2020]. Available in: https://www.uptodate.com/contents/misoprostol-drug-information?search=labor%20induction&topicRef=5398&source=see_link

  13. González Merlo J, Lailla Vicens JM, Fabre González E, González Bosquet E.. Obstetricia. 6a edición. España: Elsevier; 2013. Cap. 39, pp. 633-639.

  14. Lockwood C. Elective induction at 39 weeks: A reasonable option [Internet]. Contemporary OBGYN. 2018 [cited 26 March 2020]. Available in: https://www.contemporaryobgyn.net/article/elective-induction-39-weeks-reasonable-option

  15. Vrouenraets FP, Roumen FJ, Dehing CJ, van den Akker ES, Aarts MJ, Scheve EJ. Bishop score and risk of cesarean delivery after induction of labor in nulliparous women. Obstet Gynecol. 2005; 105 (4): 690-697.

  16. ACOG Practice Bulletin No. 107: Induction of labor. Obstet Gynecol. 2009; 114 (2 Pt 1): 386-397.

  17. Bleich AT, Villano KS, Lo JY, Alexander JM, McIntire DD, Leveno KJ. Oral misoprostol for labor augmentation: a randomized controlled trial. Obstet Gynecol. 2011; 118 (6): 1255-1260.

  18. Rouzi AA, Alsibiani S, Mansouri N, Alsinani N, Darhouse K. Randomized clinical trial between hourly titrated oral misoprostol and vaginal dinoprostone for induction of labor. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2014; 210 (1): 56.e1-6.

  19. Misoprostol-only recommended regimens 2017. [Access September 20, 2017] Available in: https://www.figo.org/sites/default/files/2020-06/FIGO%20Dosage%20Chart%20%20-%20ENGLISH.pdf



EVIDENCE LEVEL

III




2020     |     www.medigraphic.com