Induction of labor with dinoprostone in hypertensive disorders of pregnancy comparative analysis with normotensive pregnant women
Article Sidebar
Main Article Content
Objective
To describe the obstetric outcomes associated with the use of dinoprostone and its effectiveness in cervical ripening in pregnant women with hypertensive disorders of pregnancy compared to normotensive pregnant women.
Methods
A retrospective cohort study was conducted at a tertiary-level hospital in Medellín, Colombia (March 2020 – October 2024). The study included pregnant women with singleton pregnancies, beyond 30 weeks of gestation, with a live fetus in cephalic presentation, and undergoing cervical ripening with dinoprostone vaginal insert. Women were excluded if they had used other ripening methods, had a cervical dilation greater than 5 cm at admission, or had an unclassified hypertensive disorder. Demographic variables, maternal comorbidities, indication for induction, and classification of the hypertensive disorder were analyzed. Primary outcomes included successful cervical ripening, vaginal delivery, time to favorable Bishop score and delivery, and indications for cesarean section. Adverse events considered were placental abruption, non-reassuring fetal status, tachysystole, and worsening of hypertensive condition.
Results
A total of 400 patients were included (200 with hypertensive disorders, of whom 100 had severe preeclampsia). The success rate of cervical ripening was similar between patients with hypertensive disorders and healthy women (crude RR 0.95, 95% CI 0.88–1.03; adjusted RR for gestational age, maternal age, and parity 0.96, 95% CI 0.88–1.04). The vaginal delivery rate was also similar (44% vs. 55%, p = 0.16). The median time to a favorable Bishop score and delivery was comparable between normotensive and hypertensive groups, even in severe cases. Cesarean delivery was mainly due to failed ripening and medical decision. Except for tachysystole, adverse events were more frequent in the hypertensive group but did not reach statistical significance.
Conclusion
Dinoprostone is effective in hypertensive pregnant women, including those receiving magnesium sulfate, with no significant differences compared to normotensive women.
- cervical ripening
- dinoprostone
- magnesium sulfate
- Hypertension, Pregnancy-Induced
- Pre-Eclampsia
- Labor, Induced
- Misoprostol
Laura Camila Molina-Barrera, Universidad de Antioquia
https://orcid.org/0009-0007-4773-991X
Universidad de Antioquia, Departamento de Obstetricia y Ginecología, Especialización Ginecología y Obstetricia, Medellín, Colombia
María Sady Bustamante-De la Ossa , Universidad de Antioquia
https://orcid.org/0000-0002-7927-2513
Universidad de Antioquia, Departamento de Obstetricia y Ginecología, Especialización Ginecología y Obstetricia, Medellín, Colombia
John Jairo Zuleta-Tobón , Universidad de Antioquia
https://orcid.org/0000-0001-5407-7714
Universidad de Antioquia, Departamento de Obstetricia y Ginecología, Medellín, Colombia
Garovic VD, Dechend R, Easterling T, Karumanchi SA, McMurtry Baird S, Magee LA, et al. Hypertension in pregnancy: diagnosis, blood pressure goals, and pharmacotherapy: a scientific statement from the American Heart Association. Hypertension. 2022; 79(2): e21-41. https://doi.org/10.1161/HYP.0000000000000208PMid:34905954 PMCid:PMC9031058
Instituto Nacional de Salud. Mortalidad. Boletín epidemiológico. 2023; semana 52. https://doi.org/10.33610/23576189.2023.52
American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists' Committee on Obstetric Practice, Society for Maternal-Fetal Medicine. Medically indicated late-preterm and early-term deliveries: ACOG Committee Opinion, Number 831. Obstet Gynecol. 2021; 138(1): e35-9. https://doi.org/10.1097/AOG.0000000000004447 PMid:34259491
Gestational Hypertension and Preeclampsia: ACOG Practice Bulletin Summary, Number 222. Obstet Gynecol. 2020; 135(6): 1492-5 https://doi.org/10.1097/AOG.0000000000003892 PMid:32443077
Tsakiridis I, Giouleka S, Arvanitaki A, Giannakoulas G, Papazisis G, Mamopoulos A, et al. Gestational hypertension and preeclampsia: an overview of national and international guidelines. Obstet Gynecol Surv. 2021; 76(10): 613. https://doi.org/10.1097/OGX.0000000000000942PMid:34724074
Koopmans CM, Bijlenga D, Groen H, Vijgen SM, Aarnoudse JG, Bekedam DJ, et al. 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(9694): 979-88. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(09)60736-4 PMid:19656558
Taliento C, Manservigi M, Tormen M, Cappadona R, Piccolotti I, Salvioli S, et al. Safety of misoprostol vs dinoprostone for induction of labor: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol. 2023; 289: 108-28. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejogrb.2023.08.382 PMid:37660506
Grobman WA, Rice MM, Reddy UM, Tita ATN, Silver RM, Mallett G, et al. Labor Induction versus Expectant Management in Low-Risk Nulliparous Women. N Engl J Med. 2018; 379(6): 513-23. https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJMoa1800566 PMid:30089070 PMCid:PMC6186292
de Paiva MRMC, Souza ASR, de Lucena FFE, da Costa AAR, Amorim MMR. Maternal and perinatal outcomes in women with and without hypertensive syndromes submitted to induction of labor with misoprostol. Hypertens Pregnancy. 2017; 36(1): 1-7. https://doi.org/10.1080/10641955.2016.1197935 PMid:27420285
Gofton EN, Capewell V, Natale R, Gratton RJ. Obstetrical intervention rates and maternal and neonatal outcomes of women with gestational hypertension. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2001; 185(4): 798-803. https://doi.org/10.1067/mob.2001.117314 PMid:11641654
Gornisiewicz T, Huras H, Kusmierska-Urban K, Galas A. Pregnancy-related comorbidities and labor induction - the effectiveness and safety of dinoprostone compared to misoprostol. Ginekol Pol. 2021; 92(9): 647-58. https://doi.org/10.5603/GP.a2021.0092 PMid:34105752
Xenakis EM, Piper JM, Field N, Conway D, Langer O. Preeclampsia: is induction of labor more successful? Obstet Gynecol. 1997; 89(4): 600-3. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0029-7844(97)00043-4 PMid:9083320
Penfield CA, Nageotte MP, Wing DA. Disparate Rates of Cesarean Delivery in Term Nulliparous Women with Hypertensive Disorders of Pregnancy. Am J Perinatol. 2019; 36: 997-1001. https://doi.org/10.1055/s-0039-1681057 PMid:30822801
Hagans MJ, Stanhope KK, Boulet SL, Jamieson DJ, Platner MH. Delivery outcomes after induction of labor among women with hypertensive disorders of pregnancy. J Matern Fetal Neonatal Med. 2022; 35(25): 9215-21. https://doi.org/10.1080/14767058.2021.2022645 PMid:34978243
Park KH, Cho YK, Lee CM, Choi H, Kim BR, Lee HK. Effect of Preeclampsia, Magnesium Sulfate Prophylaxis, and Maternal Weight on Labor Induction: A Retrospective Analysis. Gynecol Obstet Invest. 2006; 61(1): 40-4. https://doi.org/10.1159/000088424 PMid:16179789
Arrowsmith S, Neilson J, Wray S. The combination tocolytic effect of magnesium sulfate and an oxytocin receptor antagonist in myometrium from singleton and twin pregnancies. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2016; 215(6): 789.e1-789.e9. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajog.2016.08.015 PMid:27555315
Mei JY, Lee D, Negi M. Duration of labor induction in nulliparous women receiving magnesium sulfate and maternal and neonatal outcomes. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 1 de enero de 2023;228(1):S662. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajog.2022.11.1112
Sheibani L, Raymond K, Rugarn O, Wing DA. Associations of hypertensive disorders of pregnancy and outcomes of labor induction with prostaglandin vaginal inserts. Hypertens Pregnancy. 2018; 37(1): 51-7. https://doi.org/10.1080/10641955.2017.1420800 PMid:29291357
Gornisiewicz T, Kusmierska-Urban K, Huras H, Galas A. Comparison of Misoprostol versus Dinoprostone for delivery induction among pregnant women without concomitant disease. Ginekol Pol. 2020; 91(12): 726-32. https://doi.org/10.5603/GP.2020.0119 PMid:33447991
Robinson D, Campbell K, Hobson SR, MacDonald WK, Sawchuck D, Wagner B. Guideline No. 432a: Cervical Ripening and Induction of Labour - General Information. J Obstet Gynaecol Can. 2023; 45(1): 35-44.e1. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jogc.2022.11.005 PMid:36725128
Sanchez-Ramos L, Levine LD, Sciscione AC, Mozurkewich EL, Ramsey PS, Adair CD, et al. Methods for the induction of labor: efficacy and safety. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2024; 230(3): S669-95. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajog.2023.02.009 PMid:38462252
WHO Consultation on Obesity. Obesity: preventing and managing the global epidemic. report of a WHO consultation. World Health Organization; 2000. Citado: 25 de diciembre de 2024. Disponible en: https://iris.who.int/handle/10665/42330
Ananth CV, Schisterman EF. Confounding, causality, and confusion: the role of intermediate variables in interpreting observational studies in obstetrics. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2017; 217(2): 167-75. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajog.2017.04.016 PMid:28427805 PMCid:PMC5545051
López Jiménez N, García Sánchez F, Pailos RH, Rodrigo Álvaro V, Pascual Pedreño A, Moreno Cid M, et al. Prediction of an effective cervical ripenning in the induction of labour using vaginal dinoprostone. Sci Rep. 2023; 13(1): 6855. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-023-33974-7 PMid:37100837 PMCid:PMC10133331
Chang TA, Li YR, Ding DC. Oxytocin and vaginal dinoprostone in labor induction: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Int J Gynecol Obstet. 2024; 166(2): 626-38. https://doi.org/10.1002/ijgo.15443 PMid:38404054
Cañadas JV, González MT, Limón NP, Alguacil MS, Prieto MGL, Riaza RC, et al. Intracervical double-balloon catheter versus dinoprostone for cervical ripening in labor induction in pregnancies with a high risk of uterine hyperstimulation. Arch Gynecol Obstet. 2021; 304(6): 1475-84. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00404-021-06071-1 PMid:33904957
Yan M, Li L, Wang J. Impact of dinoprostone versus cook cervical ripening balloon on induction in pregnancies complicated by small-for-gestational-age fetuses at term. J Matern Fetal Neonatal Med. 2024; 37(1): 2381584. https://doi.org/10.1080/14767058.2024.2381584 PMid:39034273
Levast F, Legendre G, Hachem HE, Saulnier P, Descamps P, Gillard P, et al. A mathematical model to predict mean time to delivery following cervical ripening with dinoprostone vaginal insert. Sci Rep. 2019; 9(1): 9910. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-019-46101-2 PMid:31289277 PMCid:PMC6616328
Wing DA, Brown R, Plante LA, Miller H, Rugarn O, Powers BL. Misoprostol Vaginal Insert and Time to Vaginal Delivery: A Randomized Controlled Trial. Obstet Gynecol. 2013; 122(2 PART 1): 201. https://doi.org/10.1097/AOG.0b013e31829a2dd6 PMid:23857539
Lapaire O, Zanetti-Dällenbach R, Weber P, Hösli I, Holzgreve W, Surbek D. Labor induction in preeclampsia: Is misoprostol more effective than dinoprostone? 2007; 35(3): 195-9. https://doi.org/10.1515/JPM.2007.028
Huang F, Chen H, Wu X, Li J, Guo J, Zhang X, et al. A model to predict delivery time following induction of labor at term with a dinoprostone vaginal insert: a retrospective study. Ir J Med Sci. 2024; 193(3): 1343-50. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11845-023-03568-3 PMid:37947994 PMCid:PMC11128390
Wolfe KB, Rossi RA, Warshak CR. The effect of maternal obesity on the rate of failed induction of labor. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2011; 205(2): 128.e1-128.e7. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajog.2011.03.051 PMid:21621187
Ellis JA, Brown CM, Barger B, Carlson NS. Influence of Maternal Obesity on Labor Induction: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. J Midwifery Womens Health. 2019; 64(1): 55-67. https://doi.org/10.1111/jmwh.12935 PMid:30648804 PMCid:PMC6758543
Yenuberi H, Mathews J, George A, Benjamin S, Rathore S, Tirkey R, et al. The efficacy and safety of 25 μg or 50 μg oral misoprostol versus 25 μg vaginal misoprostol given at 4- or 6-hourly intervals for induction of labour in women at or beyond term with live singleton pregnancies: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Int J Gynaecol Obstet. 2024; 164(2): 482-98. https://doi.org/10.1002/ijgo.14970 PMid:37401143
Weeks AD, Lightly K, Mol BW, Frohlich J, Pontefract S, Williams MJ, et al. Evaluating misoprostol and mechanical methods for induction of labour: Scientific Impact Paper No. 68 April 2022. BJOG Int J Obstet Gynaecol. 2022; 129(8): e61-5. https://doi.org/10.1111/1471-0528.17136 PMid:35478481
Morikawa M, Cho K, Yamada T, Yamada T, Sato S, Minakami H. Do uterotonic drugs increase risk of abruptio placentae and eclampsia? Arch Gynecol Obstet. 2014; 289(5): 987-91. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00404-013-3101-8 PMid:24292106
Martinez de Tejada B, Martillotti G, Lapaire O, Hoesli I, Irion O. The risk of placental abruption when using prostaglandins for cervical ripening in women with preeclampsia: Comparing misoprostol versus dinoprostone. J Matern Fetal Neonatal Med. 2010; 23(9): 988-93. https://doi.org/10.3109/14767050903443475 PMid:19941444
Downloads
Accepted 2025-05-27
Published 2025-03-30
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License.
The copy rights of the articles published in Colombia Médica belong to the Universidad del Valle. The contents of the articles that appear in the Journal are exclusively the responsibility of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the opinions of the Editorial Committee of the Journal. It is allowed to reproduce the material published in Colombia Médica without prior authorization for non-commercial use