Efficacy and safety of misoprostol compared with the dinoprostone for labor induction at term: a meta-analysis

Abstract

Objective: The purpose of this study was to compare the efficacy and safety of intravaginal misoprostol and the dinoprostone vaginal insert for labor induction at term.

Method: PubMed, EMBASE, MEDLINE, CNKI, EBSCO and the Cochrane Library were searched for articles published in English language from 2000 to 2014, Using the keywords misoprostol, dinoprostone, labor induction.

Results: Eight of 436 studies (1669 women) identified met the criteria for meta-analysis. We assigned a quality rating to each included article. The use of misoprostol showed less oxytocin augmentation when compared with dinoprostone (RR = 0.78, 95% CI = 0.67–0.90). There was no difference in the risk of tachysystole (RR = 1.18, 95% CI = 0.78–1.79), uterine hyperstimulation (RR = 1.24, 95% CI = 0.75–2.06), vaginal delivery within 24 h (RR = 1.10, 95% CI = 1.00–1.20), cesarean delivery (RR = 0.84, 95% CI = 0.56–1.24), Neonatal Intensive Care Unit admission (RR = 0.86, 95% CI = 0.58–1.28), Apgar scores <7 in 5 min (RR = 1.18, 95% CI = 0.39–3.63) between misoprostol and dinoprostone.

Conclusion: Misoprostol compared with dinoprostone appears to show less oxytocin augmentation for labor induction at term. The other outcomes of both drugs were similar. However, these findings were based on small-scale trials. Further studies assessing the effectiveness and safety of misoprostol and dinoprostone in selected groups of patients are warranted.

• Dinoprostone
• labor induction
• misoprostol

Declaration of interest

All the listed authors have participated in the design of the study and approved the final manuscript. There is no conflict of interest exiting in the submission of this manuscript. The authors would like to extend their gratitude to the financial support of The National Natural Science Foundation of China.