A comparison of obstetrical outcomes and costs between misoprostol and dinoprostone for induction of labor

Abstract

Objective: The objective of this study is to compare resource utilization (efficiency) and obstetrical/cost outcomes of single dose misoprostol versus dinoprostone for induction of labor (IOL) at term.

Methods: Retrospective cohort of induced deliveries 37–41 weeks gestation presenting with a Bishop score ≤4 using single-dose-50 mcg vaginal misoprostol or 10 mg-dinoprostone vaginal-inserts. Dinoprostone patients were compared (5:1) with misoprostol patients. The primary outcome variable was length of L&D stay (proxy for resource utilization). Baseline characteristics, clinical outcomes, and costs were compared.

Results: Three-hundred thirty-one patients were included, 276 received dinoprostone and 55 received misoprostol. The misoprostol group had statistically significant decreased time to active labor [median 8 h (1.6,24) versus 12(0.8,52)], time-to-delivery [median 11 h (4,31) versus 17(2.8,56)] and L&D stay [median 16 h (13,28) versus 24(18,30)]. Differences remained significant after adjustment for race, method of delivery, birth weight, gravidity/parity, gestational age, and BMI (adjusted p values <0.001,  <0.01, and < 0.05, respectively). There were no statistical differences in Apgar scores, tachysystole rate, cesarean section rate, and composite maternal/neonatal morbidity. A policy of using misoprostol would result in annual cost savings of approximately $242 500 at our institution as compared with dinoprostone.

Conclusion: Single-dose misoprostol is more efficient in IOL at term with respect to L&D utilization and cost and its use is not associated with increased adverse obstetrical outcomes.

Keywords:

• Clinical outcomes
• cost analysis
• induction of labor
• prostaglandin
• term gestation

Declaration of interest

The authors report that they have no conflicts of interest.