Inducción del parto en gestaciones gemelares: estudio comparativo de oxitocina vs dinoprostona

IF 0.1 Q4 OBSTETRICS & GYNECOLOGY Clinica e Investigacion en Ginecologia y Obstetricia Pub Date : 2023-04-01 DOI:10.1016/j.gine.2023.100847
E. Rodríguez González, A. Olalla Gómez, M.J. Cuerva González, J.L. Bartha Rasero, M. de la Calle Fernández-Miranda
{"title":"Inducción del parto en gestaciones gemelares: estudio comparativo de oxitocina vs dinoprostona","authors":"E. Rodríguez González,&nbsp;A. Olalla Gómez,&nbsp;M.J. Cuerva González,&nbsp;J.L. Bartha Rasero,&nbsp;M. de la Calle Fernández-Miranda","doi":"10.1016/j.gine.2023.100847","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><h3>Introduction</h3><p>In the last few years the number of twin gestations that reach term has increased. Although vaginal delivery route has proven to be a safe alternative to caesarean section when first foetus is in cephalic presentation, available evidence on induction methods applied to this type of pregnancies is limited.</p></div><div><h3>Methods</h3><p>Retrospective observational study conducted in a tertiary hospital. Forty-four pregnant twins, with gestational age greater than 34<!--> <!-->weeks, and with the first twin in cephalic presentation, who underwent induction of labour, were included. Vaginal prostaglandins (dinoprostone) were used in 17 cases and intravenous oxytocin in 27 cases, indication was randomised according to daily clinical practice. Results of both groups were compared in terms of safety and efficacy.</p></div><div><h3>Results</h3><p>No significant differences were found in the rate of caesarean section due to induction failure between oxytocin and prostaglandins (42.9% vs. 57.1%; <em>P</em> <!-->=<!--> <!-->.3). No differences were found either in terms of neonatal or maternal complications. Two pregnant women presented obstetric haemorrhage, the only maternal complication described, both in oxytocin group. Higher risk of caesarean section was found in women with BMI &gt;<!--> <!-->30<!--> <!-->kg/m<sup>2</sup> (<em>P</em> <!-->=<!--> <!-->.001) and pre-induction Bishop's index ≤<!--> <!-->6 (RR: 2.06) (<em>P</em> <!-->=<!--> <!-->.005).</p></div><div><h3>Conclusions</h3><p>Both vaginal prostaglandins and intravenous oxytocin are similar in efficacy, maternal and neonatal safety when used in twin gestations. Bishop's index ≤<!--> <!-->6 and BMI &gt;<!--> <!-->30 are associated with higher probability of induction failure.</p></div>","PeriodicalId":41294,"journal":{"name":"Clinica e Investigacion en Ginecologia y Obstetricia","volume":"50 2","pages":"Article 100847"},"PeriodicalIF":0.1000,"publicationDate":"2023-04-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Clinica e Investigacion en Ginecologia y Obstetricia","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0210573X23000175","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"OBSTETRICS & GYNECOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Introduction

In the last few years the number of twin gestations that reach term has increased. Although vaginal delivery route has proven to be a safe alternative to caesarean section when first foetus is in cephalic presentation, available evidence on induction methods applied to this type of pregnancies is limited.

Methods

Retrospective observational study conducted in a tertiary hospital. Forty-four pregnant twins, with gestational age greater than 34 weeks, and with the first twin in cephalic presentation, who underwent induction of labour, were included. Vaginal prostaglandins (dinoprostone) were used in 17 cases and intravenous oxytocin in 27 cases, indication was randomised according to daily clinical practice. Results of both groups were compared in terms of safety and efficacy.

Results

No significant differences were found in the rate of caesarean section due to induction failure between oxytocin and prostaglandins (42.9% vs. 57.1%; P = .3). No differences were found either in terms of neonatal or maternal complications. Two pregnant women presented obstetric haemorrhage, the only maternal complication described, both in oxytocin group. Higher risk of caesarean section was found in women with BMI > 30 kg/m2 (P = .001) and pre-induction Bishop's index ≤ 6 (RR: 2.06) (P = .005).

Conclusions

Both vaginal prostaglandins and intravenous oxytocin are similar in efficacy, maternal and neonatal safety when used in twin gestations. Bishop's index ≤ 6 and BMI > 30 are associated with higher probability of induction failure.

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
双胎引产:催产素与迪诺前列酮的比较研究
在过去的几年中,达到足月的双胎妊娠的数量有所增加。虽然阴道分娩已被证明是首胎头位分娩时剖腹产的安全选择,但现有的引产方法用于这类妊娠的证据有限。方法在某三级医院进行回顾性观察研究。44对胎龄大于34周的怀孕双胞胎,其中第一个双胞胎为头位,接受引产。采用阴道前列腺素(迪诺前列酮)治疗17例,静脉注射催产素治疗27例,适应证根据临床实际随机选择。比较两组患者的安全性和有效性。结果催产素与前列腺素诱导失败剖宫产率差异无统计学意义(42.9% vs 57.1%;p = .3)。在新生儿或产妇并发症方面没有发现差异。两名孕妇出现产科出血,唯一的产妇并发症描述,在催产素组。BMI指数为>的女性剖腹产的风险较高;30 kg/m2 (P = .001),诱导前Bishop指数≤6 (RR: 2.06) (P = .005)。结论阴道前列腺素与静脉注射催产素用于双胎妊娠的疗效、母婴安全性相似。Bishop指数≤6,BMI >30个与感应失败的高概率相关。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
0.20
自引率
0.00%
发文量
54
期刊介绍: Una excelente publicación para mantenerse al día en los temas de máximo interés de la ginecología de vanguardia. Resulta idónea tanto para el especialista en ginecología, como en obstetricia o en pediatría, y está presente en los más prestigiosos índices de referencia en medicina.
期刊最新文献
Uso de plasma rico en plaquetas en el campo de la reproducción humana asistida Bases fisiológicas, técnicas y principales indicaciones de preservación de la fertilidad en la paciente oncológica Diagnostic rentability of IOTA models for differentiating between benign and malignant complex adnexal masses Fisioterapia en el dolor tras cesárea Violencia obstétrica: primera, segunda y tercera víctima
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1