Maternal and perinatal outcomes in women with and without hypertensive syndromes submitted to induction of labor with misoprostol

References

• Brasil. Ministério da Saúde. Gestação de alto risco: manual técnico. Ministério da Saúde: Brasília; 2010. 257–265.
   Google Scholar
• ACOG Committee on Practice Bulletins - Obstetrics. ACOG Practice Bulletin No. 107: Induction of labor. Obstet Gynecol. 2009;114:386–397.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Faúndes A, Cecatti JG. Cesarean section in Brazil: incidence, trends, causes, consequences and suggestions for change. Cad Saude Publica. 1991;7:150–173.
   Google Scholar
• Patah LE, Malik AM. Models of childbirth care and cesarean rates in different countries. Rev Saúde Pública. 2011;45:185–194.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Edwards C, Witter FR. Preeclampsia, labor duration and mode of delivery. Int J Gynaecol Obstet. 1997;57:39–42.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hofmeyr GJ, Gülmezoglu AM, Pileggi C. Vaginal misoprostol for cervical ripening and induction of labour. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2010;(10): CD000941. DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD000941.pub2
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lin MG, Rouse DJ. What is a failed labor induction? Clin Obstet Gynecol. 2006;49:585–593.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Guerra GV, Cecatti JG, Souza JP, et al. World Health Organization 2005 Global Survey on Maternal and Perinatal Health Research Group. Factors and outcomes associated with the induction of labour in Latin America. BJOG. 2009;116:1762–1772.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• World Health Organization. WHO Recommendations for Induction of Labour. World Health Organization: Geneva; 2011.
   Google Scholar
• Abdul MA, Ibrahim UN, Yusuf MD, Musa H. Efficacy and safety of misoprostol in induction of labour in a Nigerian tertiary hospital. West Afr J Med. 2007;26:213–216.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists; RCOG Clinical Effectiveness Support Unit. Induction of Labour. Evidence-based Clinical Guideline Number 9. RCOG Press: London; 2001.
   Google Scholar
• Lin C, Raynor BD. Risk of uterine rupture in labor induction of patients with prior cesarean section: an inner city hospital experience. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2004;190:1476–1478.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wing DA, Lovett K, Paul RH. Disruption of prior uterine incision following misoprostol for labor induction in women with previous cesarean delivery. Obstet Gynecol. 1998;91:828–830.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Vause S, Macintosh M. Evidence based case report: use of prostaglandins to induce labour in women with a caesarean section scar. BMJ. 1999;318:1056–1058.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Moraes Filho OB, Albuquerque RM, Pacheco AJ, Ribeiro RH, Cecatti JG, Welkovic S. Sublingual versus vaginal misoprostol for labor induction of term pregnancies. Rev Bras Ginecol Obstet. 2005;27:24–31.
   Google Scholar
• Souza AS, Costa AA, Coutinho I, Noronha Neto C, Amorim MM. Induction of labor: concepts and particularities. Femina. 2010;38:185–194.
   Google Scholar
• Kim LH, Cheng YW, Delaney S, Jelin AC, Caughey AB. Is preeclampsia associated with an increased risk of cesarean delivery if labor is induced? J Mater Fetal Neonatal Med. 2010;23:383–388.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Feitosa FE, Sampaio ZS, Alencar CA Jr, Amorim MM, Passini R Jr. Sublingual vs. vaginal misoprostol for induction of labor. Int J Gynaecol Obstet. 2006;94:91–95.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Souza AS, Feitosa FE, Costa AA, et al. Titrated oral misoprostol solution versus vaginal misoprostol for labor induction. Int J Gynaecol Obstet. 2013;123:207–212.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mann T. Clinical Guidelines: Using Clinical Guidelines to Improve Patient Care within the NHS. NHS Executive: Leeds; 1996.
   Google Scholar
• Cecatti JG, Machado MR, dos Santos FF, Marussi EF. Curve of normal fetal weight values estimated by ultrasound according to gestation age. Cad Saude Publica. 2000;16:1083–1090.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Bishop EH. Pelvis scoring for elective induction. Obstet Gynecol. 1964;24:266–268.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Fenton TR, Kim JH. A systematic review and meta-analysis to revise the Fenton growth chart for preterm infants. BMC Pediatr. 2013;13:59.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Report of the National High Blood Pressure Education Program Working Group on High Blood Pressure in Pregnancy. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2000;183:S1–S22.
   Google Scholar
• Cecatti JG, Faúndes A, Surita FG, Aquino MM. Impact of advanced maternal age on the outcome of pregnancy. Rev Bras Ginecol Obstet. 1998;20:389–394.
   Google Scholar
• Heffner LJ. Advanced maternal age - how old is too old? N Engl J Med. 2004;351:1927–1929.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Koopmans CM, Bijlenga D, Groen H, et al. HYPITAT study group. Induction of labour versus expectant monitoring for gestational hypertension or mild pre-eclampsia after 36 weeks’ gestation (HYPITAT): a multicentre, open-label randomised controlled trial. Lancet. 2009;374:979–988.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Xiong X, Mayes D, Demianczuk N, et al. Impact of pregnancy-induced hypertension on fetal growth. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 1999;180:207–213.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Marques RM, Souza AS, Costa AA, Feitosa FE, Amorim MM. Factors associated with vaginal delivery in hypertensive and normotensive pregnant women submitted to labor induction with misoprostol: a cohort study. Hypertens Pregnancy. 2015;34(4):153–170.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sampaio ZS, Alencar Júnior CA, Feitosa FE, Amorim MM. Factors associated with vaginal delivery in high-risk pregnant women submitted to labor induction with misoprostol. Rev Bras Ginecol Obstet. 2004;26:21–29.
   Google Scholar
• Lydon-Rochelle MT, Cárdenas V, Nelson JC, Holt VL, Gardella C, Easterling TR. Induction of labor in the absence of standard medical indications: incidence and correlates. Med Care. 2007;45:505–512.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Seyb S, Berka RJ, Socol ML, Dooley SL. Risk of cesarean delivery with elective induction of labor at term in nulliparous women. Obstet Gynecol. 1999;94:600–607.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Notzon FC, Cnattingius S, Bergsjø P, et al. Cesarean section delivery in the 1980s: international comparison by indication. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 1994;170:495–504.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gattás DS, Souza AS, Souza CG, et al. Low dose of sublingual misoprostol (12.5 µg) for labor induction. Rev Bras Ginecol Obstet. 2012;34:164–169.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Amorim MM, Souza AS, Porto AM. Evidence-based cesarean section indications: part I. Femina. 2010;38:415–422.
   Google Scholar
• Sanchez-Ramos L, Kaunitz AM, Delke I. Labor induction with 25 microg versus 50 microg intravaginal misoprostol: a systematic review. Obstet Gynecol. 2002;99:145–151.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Guerra GV, Cecatti JG, Souza JP, et al. WHO Global Survey on Maternal Perinatal Health in Latin America Study Group. Elective induction versus spontaneous labour in Latin America. Bull World Health Organ. 2011;89:657–665.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Pevzner L, Rayburn WF, Rumney P, Wing DA. Factors predicting successful labor induction with dinoprostone and misoprostol vaginal inserts. Obstet Gynecol. 2009;114:261–267.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar