TY - JOUR
T1 - A comparison of obstetrical outcomes and costs between misoprostol and dinoprostone for induction of labor
AU - Nadia Bennett, Kunzier
AU - Park, Hyein
AU - Cioffi, Joseph
AU - Calixte, Rose
AU - Vintzileos, Anthony
N1 - Publisher Copyright:
© 2016 Taylor & Francis.
PY - 2016/11/16
Y1 - 2016/11/16
N2 - Objective: The objective of this study is to compare resource utilization (efficiency) and obstetrical/cost outcomes of single dose misoprostol versus dinoprostone for induction of labor (IOL) at term. Methods: Retrospective cohort of induced deliveries 37–41 weeks gestation presenting with a Bishop score ≤4 using single-dose-50 mcg vaginal misoprostol or 10 mg-dinoprostone vaginal-inserts. Dinoprostone patients were compared (5:1) with misoprostol patients. The primary outcome variable was length of L&D stay (proxy for resource utilization). Baseline characteristics, clinical outcomes, and costs were compared. Results: Three-hundred thirty-one patients were included, 276 received dinoprostone and 55 received misoprostol. The misoprostol group had statistically significant decreased time to active labor [median 8 h (1.6,24) versus 12(0.8,52)], time-to-delivery [median 11 h (4,31) versus 17(2.8,56)] and L&D stay [median 16 h (13,28) versus 24(18,30)]. Differences remained significant after adjustment for race, method of delivery, birth weight, gravidity/parity, gestational age, and BMI (adjusted p values <0.001, <0.01, and < 0.05, respectively). There were no statistical differences in Apgar scores, tachysystole rate, cesarean section rate, and composite maternal/neonatal morbidity. A policy of using misoprostol would result in annual cost savings of approximately $242 500 at our institution as compared with dinoprostone. Conclusion: Single-dose misoprostol is more efficient in IOL at term with respect to L&D utilization and cost and its use is not associated with increased adverse obstetrical outcomes.
AB - Objective: The objective of this study is to compare resource utilization (efficiency) and obstetrical/cost outcomes of single dose misoprostol versus dinoprostone for induction of labor (IOL) at term. Methods: Retrospective cohort of induced deliveries 37–41 weeks gestation presenting with a Bishop score ≤4 using single-dose-50 mcg vaginal misoprostol or 10 mg-dinoprostone vaginal-inserts. Dinoprostone patients were compared (5:1) with misoprostol patients. The primary outcome variable was length of L&D stay (proxy for resource utilization). Baseline characteristics, clinical outcomes, and costs were compared. Results: Three-hundred thirty-one patients were included, 276 received dinoprostone and 55 received misoprostol. The misoprostol group had statistically significant decreased time to active labor [median 8 h (1.6,24) versus 12(0.8,52)], time-to-delivery [median 11 h (4,31) versus 17(2.8,56)] and L&D stay [median 16 h (13,28) versus 24(18,30)]. Differences remained significant after adjustment for race, method of delivery, birth weight, gravidity/parity, gestational age, and BMI (adjusted p values <0.001, <0.01, and < 0.05, respectively). There were no statistical differences in Apgar scores, tachysystole rate, cesarean section rate, and composite maternal/neonatal morbidity. A policy of using misoprostol would result in annual cost savings of approximately $242 500 at our institution as compared with dinoprostone. Conclusion: Single-dose misoprostol is more efficient in IOL at term with respect to L&D utilization and cost and its use is not associated with increased adverse obstetrical outcomes.
KW - Clinical outcomes
KW - cost analysis
KW - induction of labor
KW - prostaglandin
KW - term gestation
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=84959232260&partnerID=8YFLogxK
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=84959232260&partnerID=8YFLogxK
U2 - 10.3109/14767058.2016.1142965
DO - 10.3109/14767058.2016.1142965
M3 - Article
C2 - 26782646
AN - SCOPUS:84959232260
SN - 1476-7058
VL - 29
SP - 3732
EP - 3736
JO - Journal of Maternal-Fetal and Neonatal Medicine
JF - Journal of Maternal-Fetal and Neonatal Medicine
IS - 22
ER -