Controlled-release dinoprostone vaginal insert for cervical ripening and labor induction

References

• Rayburn WF. Clinical experience with a controlled-release prostaglandin E2 intravaginal insert in the USA. Br. J. Obstet. Gynaecol.104(Suppl.), 8–12 (1997).
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Sanchez-Ramos L, Kaunitz AM, Delke I et al. Cervical ripening and labor induction with a controlled-release dinoprostone vaginal insert: a meta-analysis. Obstet. Gynecol.94, 878–883 (1999).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bishop EH. Pelvic scoring for elective induction. Obstet. Gynecol.24, 266 (1964).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Keirse MJ. Natural prostaglandins for induction of labor and preinduction cervical ripening. Clin. Obstet. Gynecol.49, 609–626 (2006).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lyrenas S, Clason I, Ulmsten U. In vivo controlled release of PGE2 from a vaginal insert (0.8 mm, 10 mg) during induction of labour. Br. J. Obstet. Gynaecol.108, 169–178 (2001).
   Google Scholar
• Kelly AJ, Kavanagh J, Thomas J. Vaginal prostaglandin (PGE2 and PGF2a) for induction of labour at term (review). Cochrane Database Syst. Rev.4, CD003101 (2003).
   Google Scholar
• Crane JM, Bennett KA. A meta-analysis of controlled-release prostaglandin for cervical ripening and labour induction. J. Soc. Obstet. Gynaecol. Can.22(9), 692–698 (2002).
   Google Scholar
• Crane JM, Butler B, Young DC et al. Misoprostol compared with prostaglandin E2 for labour induction in women at term with intact membranes and unfavourable cervix: a systematic review. Br. J. Obstet. Gynaecol.113, 1366–1376 (2006).
   Google Scholar
• Ramsey PS, Ramin KD. Misoprostol, a prostaglandin E1 analog for prelabour ripening of the unfavourable uterine cervix. Fetal. Matern. Med. Rev.8, 217–227 (1996).
   Google Scholar
• Magtibay PM, Ramin KD, Harris DY et al. Misoprostol as a labor induction agent. J. Matern. Fetal Med.7, 15–18 (1998).
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Wing DA, Ortiz-Omphroy G, Paul RH. A comparison of intermittend vaginal administration of misoprostol with continuous dinoprostone for cervical ripening and labor induction. Am. J. Obstet. Gynecol.177, 612–618 (1997).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists. Induction of labor. In: ACOG Practice Bulletin No 10. American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, Washington, DC, USA (1999).
   Google Scholar
• Lyndrup J. Induction of labor by PGE2 and other local methods. Physiology, methods and guidelines for patient selection. Dan. Med. Bull.42, 227–243 (1996).
   Google Scholar
• Curtis P, Evens S, Resnick J. Uterine hyperstimulation. The need for standard terminology. J. Reprod. Med.32, 91–93 (1987).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Rayburn WF, Wapner RJ, Barss VA et al. An intravaginal controlled-release prostaglandin E2 pessary for cervical ripening and initiation of labor at term. Obstet. Gynecol.79, 374–379 (1992).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Witter FR, Mercer BM. Improved intravaginal controlled-release prostaglandin E2 insert for cervical ripening at term. J. Matern. Fetal Med.5, 64–69 (1996).
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Witter FR, Rocco LE, Johnson TR. A randomized trial of prostaglandin E2 in a controlled-release vaginal pessary for cervical ripening at term. Am. J. Obstet. Gynecol.166(3), 830–834 (1992).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Miller AM, Rayburn WF, Smith CV. Patterns of uterine activity after intravaginal prostaglandin E2 during preinduction cervical ripening. Am. J. Obstet. Gynecol.165, 1006–1009 (1991).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ottinger WS, Menard MK, Brost BC. A randomized clinical trial of prostaglandin E2 intracervical gel and a slow release vaginal pessary for preinduction cervical ripening. Am. J. Obstet. Gynecol.179(2), 349–353 (1998).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Chyu JK, Strassner HT. Prostaglandin E2 for cervical ripening: a randomized comparison of cervidil versus prepidil. Am. J. Obstet. Gynecol.177(3), 606–611 (1997).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Strobelt N, Meregalli V, Ratti M et al. Randomized study on removable PGE2 vaginal insert versus PGE2 cervical gel for cervical priming and labor induction in low-Bishop-score pregnancy. Acta Obstet. Gynecol. Scand.85, 302–305 (2006).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Facchinetti F, Venturini P, Verocchi G et al. Comparison of two preparations of dinoprostone for pre-induction of labour in nulliparous women with very unfavourable cervical condition: a randomized clinical trial. Eur. J. Obstet. Gynecol.119, 189–193 (2005).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• D’Aniello G, Florio CB, Guidoni CG et al. Cervical ripening and induction of labor by prostaglandin E2: a comparison between intracervical gel and vaginal pessary. J. Matern. Fetal. Neonatal. Med.14, 158–162 (2003).
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Tomlinson AJ, Archer PA, Hobson S. Induction of labour: a comparison of two methods with particular concern to patient acceptability. J. Obstet. Gynaecol.21, 239–241 (2001).
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Vollebregt A, van’t Hof DB. Exalto N. Prepidil compared to propess for cervical ripening. Eur. J. Obstet. Gynecol. Reprod. Bio.104, 116–119 (2002).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Khoury AN, Zhou QP, Gorenberg DM et al. Comparison of intermittent vaginal administration of two different doses of misoprostol suppositories with continuous dinoprostone for cervical ripening and labor induction. J. Matern. Fetal Med.10, 186–192 (2001).
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Sanchez-Ramos L, Peterson DE, Delke I et al. Labor induction with prostaglandin E1 misoprostol compared with dinoprostone vaginal insert: a randomized trial. Obstet. Gynecol.91, 401–405 (1998).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Rozenberg P, Chevret S, Senat M. A randomized trial that compared intravaginal misoprostol and dinoprostone vaginal insert in pregnancies at high risk of fetal distress. Am. J. Obstet. Gynecol.191, 247–253 (2004).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Garry D, Figueroa R, Kalish RB et al. Randomized controlled trial of vaginal misoprostol versus dinoprostone vaginal insert for labor induction. J. Matern. Fetal Neonatal Med.13, 254–259 (2003).
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Ramsey PS, Meyer L, Walkes BA et al. Cardiotocographic abnormalities associated with dinoprostone and misoprostol cervical ripening. Obstet. Gynecol.105(1), 85–90 (2005).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hennessey MH, Rayburn WF, Stewart JD. Pre-eclampsia and induction of labor: a randomized comparison of prostaglandin E2 as an intracervical gel, with oxytocin immediately, or as a sustained-release vaginal insert. Am. J. Obstet. Gynecol.179, 1204–1209 (1998).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Stewart JD, Rayburn WF, Farmer KC et al. Effectiveness of prostaglandin E2 intracervical gel (prepidil) with immediate oxytocine, versus vaginal insert (cervidil) for induction of labor. Am. J. Obstet. Gynecol.179, 1175–1180 (1998).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Smith CV, Rayburn WF, Miller AM. Intravaginal prostaglandin E2 for cervical ripening and initiation of labor: comparison of a multidose gel and single, controlled-release pessary. J. Reprod. Med.39, 381–386 (1994).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Perry MY, Leaphart WL. Randomized trial of intracervical versus posterior fornix dinoprostone for induction of labor. Obstet. Gynecol.103, 13–17 (2004).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ramsey PS, Ogburn PL, Harris RH et al. Effect of vaginal pH of efficacy of the controlled-release dinoprostone vaginal insert for cervical ripening/labor induction. J. Matern. Fetal Neonatal Med.13, 250–253 (2003).
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Hoefmyer GJ, Alfirevic Z, Kavanagh J et al. Methods for cervical ripening and labor induction in late pregnancy: generic protocol. Cochrane Database Syst. Rev.4 (2001).
   Google Scholar
• Ramsey PS, Harris DY, Ogburn PL et al. Comparative cost analysis of prostaglandin analogues dinoprostone and misoprostol as labor preinduction agents. Prim. Care Update Ob. Gyns.5, 182 (1998).
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Hughes EG, Kelly AJ, Kavangh J. Dinoprostone vaginal insert for cervical ripening and labor induction: a meta-analysis. Obstet. Gynecol.97(5), 847–855 (2001).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Taylor DR, Doughty AS, Kaufman H et al. Uterine rupture with the use of PGE2 vaginal inserts for labor induction in women with previous cesarean sections. J. Reprod. Med.47, 549–554 (2002).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bondel B, Breart G, du Mazaubrun C et al. The Perinatal situation in France. Trends between 1981 and 1995. J. Gynecol. Obstet. Biol. Reprod. (Paris)26(8), 770–780 (2006).
   Google Scholar
• Le Ray C, Carayol M, Breart G, Goffinet F. Elective induction of labor: failure to follow guidelines and risk of cesarean delivery. Acta Obstet. Gynecol. Scand.86, 657–665 (2007).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Rath W. A clinical evaluation of controlled-release dinoprostone for cervical ripening – a review of current evidence in hospital and outpatient settings. J. Perinat. Med.33, 491–499 (2005).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Biem SR, Turnell RW, Olatunbosun O et al. A randomized controlled trial of outpatient versus inpatient labor induction with vaginal controlled-release prostaglandin E2: effectiveness and satisfaction. J. Obstet. Gynaecol. Can.25, 23–31 (2003).
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Martin JA, Hamilton BE, Sutton PD et al. Birth: final data for 2003. Natl Vital Stat. Rep.54, 1–116 (2005).
   PubMedGoogle Scholar