Clinical Insights for Cervical Ripening and Labor Induction Using Prostaglandins

Stephanie Pierce, Ronan Bakker, Dean A Myers, Rodney K Edwards, Stephanie Pierce, Ronan Bakker, Dean A Myers, Rodney K Edwards

Abstract

Cervical ripening is often the first component of labor induction and is used to facilitate the softening and thinning of the cervix in preparation for labor. Common methods used for cervical ripening include both mechanical (e.g., Foley or Cook catheters) and pharmacologic (e.g., prostaglandins) methods. The choice of method(s) for ripening should take into account the patient's medical and obstetric history, clinical characteristics, and risk of adverse effects if uterine tachysystole were to occur. In this narrative review, we highlight the differences between the prostaglandins dinoprostone and misoprostol with respect to pharmacology and pharmacokinetics, efficacy, and potential safety concerns. Practical guidance on choosing an appropriate prostaglandin agent for cervical ripening and labor induction is provided via the use of clinical vignettes. Considering the advantages and disadvantages of each preparation allows clinicians to individualize treatment, depending on the indications for induction and unique characteristics of each patient.

Keywords: cervical ripening; dinoprostone; labor induction; misoprostol; prostaglandins.

Conflict of interest statement

Conflict of Interest R.K.E. has received research support from and has served as a scientific advisor for Ferring Pharmaceuticals. S.P., R.B., and D.A.M. have nothing to disclose.

Figures

Fig. 1
Fig. 1
Effect of prostaglandins on smooth muscle cells according to receptor subtypes. Abbreviations: ATP, adenosine triphosphate; cAMP, cyclic adenosine monophosphate; EP, E prostanoid; PGE, prostaglandin E; PLC, phospholipase C.

References

    1. Osterman M J, Martin J A. Recent declines in induction of labor by gestational age. NCHS Data Brief. 2014;(155):1–8.
    1. Hamilton B E, Martin J A, Osterman M J, Curtin S C, Matthews T J. Births: Final Data for 2014. Natl Vital Stat Rep. 2015;64(12):1–64.
    1. ACOG Committee on Practice Bulletins -- Obstetrics.ACOG Practice Bulletin No. 107: Induction of labor Obstet Gynecol 2009114(2, Pt 1):386–397.
    1. Leppert P C. Anatomy and physiology of cervical ripening. Clin Obstet Gynecol. 1995;38(02):267–279.
    1. Goldberg A E.Cevical RipeningMedscape Womens Health 2018. Available at:. Accessed October 17, 2018
    1. Alfirevic Z, Kelly A J, Dowswell T.Intravenous oxytocin alone for cervical ripening and induction of labour Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2009;04CD003246.
    1. Wing D A, Sheibani L. Pharmacotherapy options for labor induction. Expert Opin Pharmacother. 2015;16(11):1657–1668.
    1. WHO recommendations for induction of labour. Available from:; accessed on October 6, 2018
    1. Robinson B, Nelson L. A review of the proceedings from the 2008 NICHD workshop on standardized nomenclature for cardiotocography: update on definitions, interpretative systems with management strategies, and research priorities in relation to intrapartum electronic fetal monitoring. Rev Obstet Gynecol. 2008;1(04):186–192.
    1. Chen W, Xue J, Peprah M K et al.A systematic review and network meta-analysis comparing the use of Foley catheters, misoprostol, and dinoprostone for cervical ripening in the induction of labour. BJOG. 2016;123(03):346–354.
    1. Levine L D, Downes K L, Elovitz M A, Parry S, Sammel M D, Srinivas S K. Mechanical and pharmacologic methods of labor induction: a randomized controlled trial. Obstet Gynecol. 2016;128(06):1357–1364.
    1. Sciscione A C. Methods of cervical ripening and labor induction: mechanical. Clin Obstet Gynecol. 2014;57(02):369–376.
    1. Edwards R K, Szychowski J M, Bodea-Braescu A V, Biggio J R, Lin M G. Foley catheter for induction of labor: potential barriers to adopting the technique. J Perinatol. 2015;35(12):996–999.
    1. Patabendige M, Jayawardane A. Foley catheter for cervical priming in induction of labour at University Obstetrics Unit, Colombo, Sri Lanka: a clinical audit with a patient satisfaction survey. BMC Res Notes. 2017;10(01):155.
    1. Bakker R, Pierce S, Myers D. The role of prostaglandins E1 and E2, dinoprostone, and misoprostol in cervical ripening and the induction of labor: a mechanistic approach. Arch Gynecol Obstet. 2017;296(02):167–179.
    1. Stephenson M L, Wing D A. A novel misoprostol delivery system for induction of labor: clinical utility and patient considerations. Drug Des Devel Ther. 2015;9:2321–2327.
    1. Prepidil. PREPIDIL® (dinoprostone cervical gel) [package insert]. New York, NY; Pharmacia & Upjohn Company;2017
    1. Williams M C, Tsibris J C, Davis G, Baiano J, O'brien W F. Dose variation that is associated with approximated one-quarter tablet doses of misoprostol. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2002;187(03):615–619.
    1. Yount S M, Lassiter N.The pharmacology of prostaglandins for induction of labor J Midwifery Womens Health 20135802133–144., quiz 238–239
    1. Blesson C S, Sahlin L. Prostaglandin E and F receptors in the uterus. Receptors Clin Investig. 2014;1:e115.
    1. Breyer R M, Bagdassarian C K, Myers S A, Breyer M D. Prostanoid receptors: subtypes and signaling. Annu Rev Pharmacol Toxicol. 2001;41:661–690.
    1. Sooranna S R, Grigsby P, Myatt L, Bennett P R, Johnson M R. Prostanoid receptors in human uterine myocytes: the effect of reproductive state and stretch. Mol Hum Reprod. 2005;11(12):859–864.
    1. CERVIDIL. CERVIDIL® (dinoprostone vaginal insert) [package insert]. Parsippany, NJ; Ferring Pharmaceuticals Inc; 2016
    1. Church S, Van Meter A, Whitfield R. Dinoprostone compared with misoprostol for cervical ripening for induction of labor at term. J Midwifery Womens Health. 2009;54(05):405–411.
    1. Facchinetti F, Fontanesi F, Del Giovane C. Pre-induction of labour: comparing dinoprostone vaginal insert to repeated prostaglandin administration: a systematic review and meta-analysis. J Matern Fetal Neonatal Med. 2012;25(10):1965–1969.
    1. Cytotec. Cytotec® (misoprostol oral tablets) [package insert]. New York, NY; G.D. Searle Inc; 2016
    1. Zieman M, Fong S K, Benowitz N L, Banskter D, Darney P D. Absorption kinetics of misoprostol with oral or vaginal administration. Obstet Gynecol. 1997;90(01):88–92.
    1. Lyons C, Beharry K, Akmal Y, Attenello F, Nageotte M vitro response of prostaglandin E2 receptor (EP3) in the term pregnant rat uterus and cervix to misoprostol Prostaglandins Other Lipid Mediat 200370(3,4):317–329.
    1. Chioss G, Costantine M M, Bytautiene E et vitro myometrial contractility profiles of different pharmacological agents used for induction of labor. Am J Perinatol. 2012;29(09):699–704.
    1. Chiossi G, Costantine M M, Bytautiene E et al.The effects of prostaglandin E1 and prostaglandin E2 on in vitro myometrial contractility and uterine structure. Am J Perinatol. 2012;29(08):615–622.
    1. Rugarn O, Tipping D, Powers B, Wing D A. Induction of labour with retrievable prostaglandin vaginal inserts: outcomes following retrieval due to an intrapartum adverse event. BJOG. 2017;124(05):796–803.
    1. Hofmeyr G J, Gülmezoglu A M, Pileggi C.Vaginal misoprostol for cervical ripening and induction of labour Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2010;10CD000941.
    1. Rouse D J.The misoprostol vaginal insert: déjà vu all over again Obstet Gynecol 2013122(2, Pt 1):193–194.
    1. Grobman W A, Rice M M, Reddy U M et al.Labor induction versus expectant management in low-risk nulliparous women. N Engl J Med. 2018;379(06):513–23.
    1. Ozkan S, Calişkan E, Doğer E, Yücesoy I, Ozeren S, Vural B. Comparative efficacy and safety of vaginal misoprostol versus dinoprostone vaginal insert in labor induction at term: a randomized trial. Arch Gynecol Obstet. 2009;280(01):19–24.
    1. Ramsey P S, Meyer L, Walkes B A et al.Cardiotocographic abnormalities associated with dinoprostone and misoprostol cervical ripening. Obstet Gynecol. 2005;105(01):85–90.
    1. Wing D A, Brown R, Plante L A, Miller H, Rugarn O, Powers B L.Misoprostol vaginal insert and time to vaginal delivery: a randomized controlled trial Obstet Gynecol 2013122(2, Pt 1):201–209.
    1. Mayer R B, Oppelt P, Shebl O, Pömer J, Allerstorfer C, Weiss C. Initial clinical experience with a misoprostol vaginal insert in comparison with a dinoprostone insert for inducing labor. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol. 2016;200:89–93.
    1. Heuser C C, Knight S, Esplin M S et al.Tachysystole in term labor: incidence, risk factors, outcomes, and effect on fetal heart tracings. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2013;209(01):320–3.2E7.
    1. Byun Y J, Kim H S, Yang J I, Kim J H, Kim H Y, Chang S J. Umbilical artery Doppler study as a predictive marker of perinatal outcome in preterm small for gestational age infants. Yonsei Med J. 2009;50(01):39–44.
    1. Bruner J B, Levy D W, Arger P H. Doppler ultrasonography of the umbilical cord in complicated pregnancies. South Med J. 1993;86(04):418–422.
    1. American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists Committee on Obstetric Practice.ACOG committee opinion no. 342: induction of labor for vaginal birth after cesarean delivery Obstet Gynecol 200610802465–468.
    1. ACOG Committee on Practice Bulletins-Obstetrics.ACOG practice bulletin no. 188: prelabor rupture of membranes Obstet Gynecol 201813101e1–e14.
    1. Hannah M E, Ohlsson A, Farine D et al.Induction of labor compared with expectant management for prelabor rupture of the membranes at term. N Engl J Med. 1996;334(16):1005–1010.
    1. Mackeen A D, Durie D E, Lin M et al.Foley plus oxytocin compared with oxytocin for induction after membrane rupture: a randomized controlled trial. Obstet Gynecol. 2018;131(01):4–11.
    1. Word R A, Li X H, Hnat M, Carrick K. Dynamics of cervical remodeling during pregnancy and parturition: mechanisms and current concepts. Semin Reprod Med. 2007;25(01):69–79.
    1. Alfirevic Z, Aflaifel N, Weeks A.Oral misoprostol for induction of labour Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2014;06CD001338.
    1. Liu A, Lv J, Hu Y, Lang J, Ma L, Chen W. Efficacy and safety of intravaginal misoprostol versus intracervical dinoprostone for labor induction at term: a systematic review and meta-analysis. J Obstet Gynaecol Res. 2014;40(04):897–906.
    1. Nadia Bennett K, Park H, Cioffi J, Calixte R, Vintzileos A. A comparison of obstetrical outcomes and costs between misoprostol and dinoprostone for induction of labor. J Matern Fetal Neonatal Med. 2016;29(22):3732–3736.

Source: PubMed

Sponsorer og samarbeidspartnere

Medisinsk tilstand

Legemiddelintervensjoner

3
Abonnere