Double-blind comparison of intracervical and intravaginal prostaglandin E2 for cervical ripening and induction of labor. Labor induction with intravaginal misoprostol versus intracervical prostaglandin E2 gel (Prepidil gel): randomized comparison. A randomized, double-blind trial of prostaglandin E2 gel for cervical ripening and meta-analysis. Induction of labor by prostaglandin E(2) in relation to the Bishop score. Intravaginal versus intracervical application of prostaglandin E2 in viscous gel for cervical priming and induction of labor at term in patients with an unfavorable cervical state. Local administration of prostaglandin E2 for cervical ripening and labor induction: the appropriate route and dose. Preinduction cervical ripening: a randomized prospective comparison of the efficacy and safety of intravaginal and intracervical prostaglandin E2 gel. A randomized trial comparing vaginal and cervical prostaglandin gel for cervical ripening and labor induction. Misoprostol: an effective agent for cervical ripening and labor induction. Cervical ripening before induction of labour in patients with an unfavourable cervix: a comparative randomized study of the Atad Ripener Device, prostaglandin E2 vaginal pessary, and prostaglandin E2 intracervical gel. A comparison of osmotic dilators, Lamicel and Dilapan, and a prostaglandin E1 analogue, gemeprost, for ripening the cervix before legal abortion.
Our purpose was to compare the safety and effectiveness of prostaglandin E2 delivered sequentially as an intracervical (0.5 mg) or intravaginal (2.5 mg) gel.
                Hospitalized patients with an unfavorable cervix (Bishop score < or = 4) at > or = 35 weeks and requiring induction of labor were assigned to receive two 2.5 ml doses of gel intracervically and intravaginally in a double-blind, placebo-controlled manner. Second and third doses were given at 6-hour intervals until there were either regular uterine contractions or a Bishop score change > 3 points.
                The 100 evaluable cases received prostaglandin E2 either intracervically (n = 52) or intravaginally (n = 48). Difficulty with exact gel instillation was present with intracervical gel only, where spillage occurred in 85% of cases. Compared with intracervical therapy prostaglandin E2 given intravaginally was more likely to significantly change the Bishop score (60.4% vs 40.4%, p = 0.04) and stimulate regular contractions (72.9% vs 48.1%, p = 0.01). Uterine hyperstimulation was present in one case in each group.
                Although each was safe, instillation of prostaglandin E2 gel was better at a higher intravaginal dose than a lower intracervical dose because of its greater ease of administration and higher likelihood of cervical change. Our purpose was to compare the safety and efficacy of intravaginal prostaglandin E1, misoprostol, with that of intracervical prostaglandin E2 (Prepidil gel) for labor induction.
                One hundred three patients with an indication for induction of labor were randomly assigned to induction with prostaglandin E1, 50 micrograms intravaginally, or with Prepidil gel, 0.5 mg intracervically, every 4 hours until active labor.
                Four patients were excluded, leaving 49 patients who received prostaglandin E1 and 50 who received prostaglandin E2. The time from start of induction to vaginal delivery was significantly shorter in the prostaglandin E1 group (11.4 vs 18.9 hours, p < 0.001), and fewer patients in the prostaglandin E1 group required oxytocin augmentation (23% vs 55%, p < 0.005). No significant differences were noted in mode of delivery or in adverse maternal, fetal, or neonatal effects.
                Intravaginal prostaglandin E1 is a more effective, lower-cost agent for induction of labor than is intracervical prostaglandin E2 gel and is comparable in safety. The ability of prostaglandin E2 to prepare the unripe cervix before an indicated labor induction is controversial. We therefore tested 100 pregnant women in a randomized, double-blind trial with intracervical prostaglandin E2 gel, 0.5 mg. The 53 women who received the placebo gel had an outcome similar to that of the 47 women who received the prostaglandin E2 gel. The mean change in cervical score, mean application-to-delivery interval, incidence of uncomplicated spontaneous labor, incidence of cesarean delivery for a failed induction, and the overall cesarean section rate were not significantly different for the two groups. A meta-analysis, incorporating 18 studies of 1811 patients who received a single application of at least 5 mg prostaglandin E2 gel intravaginally or 0.5 mg intracervically, demonstrated no significant decrease in the overall cesarean delivery rate (p = 0.85). We conclude that the use of single-dose intracervical prostaglandin E2 gel for cervical ripening has little effect on labor induction. Moreover, the use of single-dose intracervical or intravaginal prostaglandin E2 gel does not alter the incidence of cesarean delivery, even when large numbers of patients are analyzed by combining the results of similar reports. To compare the effectiveness of prostaglandin E(2) intravaginal gel with the intracervical gel in patients with an unfavorable cervix.
                In a prospective multicenter trial 470 patients with unfavorable Bishop scores (3-4) were randomized to receive prostaglandin vaginal gel (2 mg) or intracervical gel (0.5 mg).
                In patients with unfavorable Bishop scores the intravaginal application route resulted in a better cervical ripening, a shorter induction to delivery interval and a higher cumulative rate of deliveries during 24 h (P=0.01).
                Intravaginal instillation of prostaglandin E(2) gel for induction of labor is effective in patients with an unfavorable Bishop score of 3-4. Sixty term pregnant women with unripe cervix were randomly given either 0.5 mg of prostaglandin E2 (PGE2) in 2 ml of gel intracervically or 4 mg of PGE2 in 3 ml of gel intravaginally to prime the cervix and/or to induce labor. In patients with a highly unfavorable cervix (cervical score less than or equal to 3), the intracervical application was significantly more effective than the intravaginal. In patients with a more favorable cervical state (cervical score 4 or 5), the two routes of application were equipotent. Gastrointestinal side effects were registered after intravaginal but not after intracervical application. Myometrial activity was significantly more increased after intravaginal than after intracervical gel application. All children were born in good condition with an Apgar score greater than 7 within 5 minutes. Although there are many comparative studies concerning the local administration of prostaglandin E2 gel for cervical ripening and labor induction, the safety, efficacy and the appropriate route and dose of the gel are still debated.
                One hundred and ten women with high-risk pregnancy and unripe cervix received prostaglandin E2 gel 1 mg intravaginally (n=35), 2 mg intravaginally (n=36) and 0.5 mg intracervically (n=39), maximally three times at 6-hour intervals for cervical ripening prior to labor induction. The safety, efficacy and optimal dose were assessed.
                The 2 mg intravaginal gel and the 0.5 mg intracervical gel were equally effective and more effective than the 1 mg intravaginal gel in labor characteristics such as ripening time and cesarean section rate, but not in labor time. However, the failure rate (labor could not be induced) was highest in the intracervical group (10.3%) compared to the intravaginal groups (2.9% and 2.8%), although the differences were not statistically significant. In the two intravaginal groups three and five patients received the third gel application and one patient in both groups could not be induced. In the intracervical group the ripening of the cervix failed in all patients, who received the third gel. The neonatal outcome was uneventful in all groups. There were two cases of uterine hypertonus associated with fetal bradycardia, one in the intracervical and one in the 2 mg intravaginal group. Thus careful fetal monitoring is necessary. Furthermore, the vaginal route has the advantage of an easier technique of administration and obviously lower risk for inadvertent extraamnial instillation.
                We recommend the use of multiple applications of 2 mg intravaginal prostaglandin E2 gel as a safe, effective and easy method for preinduction cervical ripening in high-risk pregnancies. More than three gel applications hardly increase the efficacy. The purpose of this study was to compare the effectiveness and safety of vaginally administered 5 mg prostaglandin E2 gel prepared in our hospital pharmacy with a commercially available 0.5 mg intracervical prostaglandin E2 gel.
                Eighty-three patients undergoing labor induction were randomly assigned to one of two groups for cervical ripening. Either a preparation of 5 mg of prostaglandin E2 was placed vaginally or a commercially available 0.5 mg of prostaglandin E2 was placed intracervically. A maximum of three doses at 6-hour intervals was administered before oxytocin was begun.
                Among the 83 patients evaluated, 44 were given vaginal gel and 39 were given intracervical gel. No statistically significant differences were observed between the two treatment groups with respect to the incidence of spontaneous versus induced labor, need for oxytocin augmentation, gel-to-induction interval, Bishop score change, maximum oxytocin dose, maximum dilatation rate, length of labor, cesarean section rate, fetal Apgar scores, fetal umbilical vein pH, or fetal umbilical artery pH.
                The two prostaglandin E2 formulations appear equivalent in efficacy and safety. Constraints placed on intracervical prostaglandin E2 gel make the vaginal preparation a desirable choice. To compare the effectiveness of intravaginal and intracervical prostaglandin E2 (PGE2) gel for cervical ripening, defined as an increase of 3 or greater in the Bishop score, and for induction of labor.
                Women with Bishop score 4 or less were assigned randomly to receive either 2 mg PGE2 intravaginally (n = 125) or 0.5 mg intracervically (n = 122). If the Bishop score was 4 or less, another dose of PGE2 was given after 6 hours, and up to two additional doses were given 6 hours apart on the second day. An oxytocin infusion was begun when the Bishop score was 5 or greater in absence of spontaneous labor, or if labor had not begun on the third day.
                Baseline characteristics of the two groups were similar. Survival analysis showed that time from PGE2 application, to obtain an increase of 3 or greater in the Bishop score, to vaginal delivery was significantly shorter with intravaginal PGE2 (logrank test: P = .003 and < .001 after stratification for parity, respectively). Thirty-one percent of women in the intravaginal gel group required oxytocin for labor induction compared with 63% in the intracervical group (P < .001). There were no significant differences in relation to cesarean delivery rate, Apgar scores at 5 minutes, and arterial umbilical cord pH, although the power of our study was limited to detect differences in proportions of adverse outcomes.
                Vaginal PGE2 gel is more effective than intracervical gel for cervical ripening and labor induction. Our purpose was to compare the safety and efficacy of intravaginal misoprostol versus intracervical prostaglandin E2 gel (dinoprostone) for preinduction cervical ripening and induction of labor.
                Two hundred seventy-six patients with indications for induction of labor and unfavorable cervices were randomly assigned to receive either intravaginal misoprostol or intracervical dinoprostone. Twenty-five micrograms of misoprostol were placed in the posterior vaginal fornix every 3 hours, with a potential maximum of eight doses. Prostaglandin E2 in gel form, 0.5 mg, was placed in the endocervix every 6 hours, with a maximum of three doses. Further medication was withheld with the occurrence of spontaneous rupture of membranes, entry into active phase of labor, or a "prolonged contraction response."
                Among those evaluated, 138 received misoprostol and 137 received dinoprostone. The average interval from start of induction to vaginal delivery was shorter in the misoprostol group (1323.0 +/- 844.4 minutes) than in the dinoprostone group (1532.4 +/- 706.5 minutes) (p < 0.05). Need for oxytocin augmentation of labor occurred more commonly in the dinoprostone group (72.6%) than in the misoprostol group (45.7%) (p < 0.0001). There were no significant differences in the routes of delivery. Twenty-eight of the misoprostol-treated patients (20.3%) and thirty-eight of the dinoprostone-treated patients (27.7%) required abdominal delivery. Complications such as uterine tachysystole and thick meconium passage occurred with similar frequency in the two treatment groups.
                Intravaginal administration of misoprostol appears to be as effective as intracervical dinoprostone for cervical ripening and labor induction. Complications associated with prostaglandin administration were not statistically different between the two treatment groups. The cost of misoprostol ($0.36/100 micrograms) is much less than that of dinoprostone ($75/0.5 mg). One hundred and nineteen women with singleton pregnancy and cephalic presentation requiring induction of labour in the presence of an unfavourable cervix (Bishop score < or = 4) were studied. Five patients were excluded because of failure to comply with the protocol. Cervical ripening was carried out using 3 different methods; 36 used the Atad Ripener Device, 39 received 0.5 mg PGE2 intracervical gel and 39 received at least one 3 mg PGE2 intravaginal pessary. There were no differences in the demographic characteristics and the indications for induction. Five patients developed complications during the ripening period necessitating intervention; 3 required emergency Caesarean section and 2 delivered vaginally. Although statistically there were no differences among the 3 methods of cervical ripening, the power of the study is probably not large enough to show the differences. The PGE2 pessary appears to be more effective with 68% of patients either going into labour during cervical ripening or succeeding in the cervical ripening compared to around 50% in the Atad and PGE2 gel groups. The vaginal delivery rate was 87.2% in the pessary group compared to 72.2% in the Atad group and 84.6% in the gel group. The duration of labour was also shorter in the pessary group with 73.5% delivered within 24 hours compared to 57.7% in the Atad group and 57.6% in the gel group. Although the results of the Atad device seem to be inferior, the risk of uterine hyperstimulation from the use of the device is probably lower than that of the PGE2 and may therefore be preferable in women with fetuses at high risk of fetal hypoxia. 66 primigravid women were allocated at random to receive either intravaginal application of the prostaglandin El analogue, gemeprost, or intracervical insertion of 1 of 2 osmotic dilators, Lamicel or Dilapan, 3 hours before legal abortion at 7-14 weeks gestation. Insertion of the dilators was not possible in 5 patients. All 3 methods were otherwise equally effective in achieving cervical dilatation and there was no difference in the need for or resistance to further dilatation between the 3 groups. Gemeprost was the most easily administered, and would be the most appropriate for routine preoperative use.
Intracervical prostaglandins are effective compared to placebo, but appear inferior when compared to intravaginal prostaglandins.