PDF herunterladen
Am J Perinatol 2023; 40(15): 1665-1671
DOI: 10.1055/s-0041-1740178
Original Article

The Influence of Diabetes on Labor Induction with Dinoprostone Vaginal Inserts

Jennifer Y. Duffy
1   Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, University of California, San Francisco, California
2   Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, University of California, Irvine School of Medicine, Orange, California
,
Cindy Chau
3   Magella Medical Group, Miller Children's and Women's Hospital, Long Beach, California
,
Kyle Raymond
4   LEO Pharma A/S, Ballerup, Denmark
,
Olof Rugarn
5   Ferring Pharmaceuticals, Copenhagen, Denmark
,
Deborah A. Wing
6   Department of Academic Medicine and Health Sciences Practice, WittKieffer, Oak Brook, Illinois
7   Division of Maternal-Fetal Medicine, Department of Obstetrics-Gynecology, University of California, Orange, California
› Institutsangaben
› Weitere Informationen
Auch verfügbar auf
    Lizenzen und Reprints

Abstract

Objective The aim of this study was to compare duration of labor induction between diabetic and nondiabetic women receiving dinoprostone vaginal insert (10 mg).

Study Design This is a secondary analysis of two large randomized controlled trials using dinoprostone vaginal inserts for labor induction. We compare time to active labor, overall delivery, and vaginal delivery between diabetic and nondiabetic women undergoing induction of labor with a 10-mg dinoprostone vaginal insert.

Results Diabetic women receiving dinoprostone vaginal insert had a longer time to onset of active labor, overall delivery, and vaginal delivery than their nondiabetic counterparts. There was no difference in abnormal labor affecting fetal heart rate pattern in diabetic women compared with nondiabetic women. The rates of neonatal hyperbilirubinemia were higher in diabetic women.

Conclusion Diabetes may represent an independent factor associated with prolonged induction among women undergoing induction of labor with dinoprostone. Dinoprostone is well tolerated in both diabetic and nondiabetic women.

Key Points

  • Diabetic women receiving DVI have slower labor curves than nondiabetic women.

  • Nulliparous diabetic women took longer to achieve active labor, overall delivery, and vaginal delivery than nondiabetic women.

  • Parous diabetic women took longer to achieve vaginal delivery than nondiabetic women.

Key Words

dinoprostone - diabetes - induction - labor - prostaglandin


Publikationsverlauf

Eingereicht: 08. September 2020

Angenommen: 04. Oktober 2021

Artikel online veröffentlicht:
02. Dezember 2021

© 2021. Thieme. All rights reserved.

Thieme Medical Publishers, Inc.
333 Seventh Avenue, 18th Floor, New York, NY 10001, USA

 

  • References

  • 1 Fong A, Serra A, Herrero T, Pan D, Ogunyemi D. Pre-gestational versus gestational diabetes: a population based study on clinical and demographic differences. J Diabetes Complications 2014; 28 (01) 29-34
    CrossrefPubMedSuche in Google Scholar
  • 2 Wu ET, Nien FJ, Kuo CH. et al. Diagnosis of more gestational diabetes lead to better pregnancy outcomes: comparing the International Association of the Diabetes and Pregnancy Study Group criteria, and the Carpenter and Coustan criteria. J Diabetes Investig 2016; 7 (01) 121-126
    CrossrefPubMedSuche in Google Scholar
  • 3 ACOG Practice Bulletin No. 190: gestational diabetes mellitus. Obstet Gynecol 2018; 131 (02) e49-e64
    CrossrefPubMedSuche in Google Scholar
  • 4 Rosenstein MG, Cheng YW, Snowden JM, Nicholson JM, Doss AE, Caughey AB. The risk of stillbirth and infant death stratified by gestational age in women with gestational diabetes. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2012; 206 (04) 309.e1-7
    CrossrefPubMedSuche in Google Scholar
  • 5 Sutton AL, Mele L, Landon MB. et al. Delivery timing and cesarean delivery risk in women with mild gestational diabetes mellitus. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2014; 211 (03) 244.e1-7
    CrossrefPubMedSuche in Google Scholar
  • 6 Vilchez GA, Dai J, Hoyos LR, Gill N, Bahado-Singh R, Sokol RJ. Labor and neonatal outcomes after term induction of labor in gestational diabetes. J Perinatol 2015; 35 (11) 924-929
    CrossrefPubMedSuche in Google Scholar
  • 7 Melamed N, Ray JG, Geary M. et al. Induction of labor before 40 weeks is associated with lower rate of cesarean delivery in women with gestational diabetes mellitus. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2016; 214 (03) 364.1-8
    CrossrefPubMedSuche in Google Scholar
  • 8 Grobman WA, Rice MM, Reddy UM. et al; Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development Maternal–Fetal Medicine Units Network. Labor induction versus expectant management in low-risk nulliparous women. N Engl J Med 2018; 379 (06) 513-523
    CrossrefPubMedSuche in Google Scholar
  • 9 Glazer KB, Danilack VA, Field AE, Werner EF, Savitz DA. Term labor induction and cesarean delivery risk among obese women with and without comorbidities. Am J Perinatol 2022; 39 (02) 154-164
    Thieme ConnectPubMedSuche in Google Scholar
  • 10 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
    CrossrefPubMedSuche in Google Scholar
  • 11 Braems G, Norhausen I. Induction of labor with prostaglandins for medical reasons: determining explanatory variables of the induction to delivery time interval for vaginal deliveries and caesarean section. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol 2007; 135 (02) 164-169
    CrossrefPubMedSuche in Google Scholar
  • 12 Melamed N, Ben-Haroush A, Kremer S, Hod M, Yogev Y. Failure of cervical ripening with prostaglandin-E2 can it be predicted?. J Matern Fetal Neonatal Med 2010; 23 (06) 536-540
    CrossrefPubMedSuche in Google Scholar
  • 13 iang TT, Zhao L, Lin Y. et al. Effects of gestational diabetes mellitus on time to delivery and pregnancy outcomes in full-term pregnancies with dinoprostone labor induction. Clin Exp Hypertens 2019; 41 (01) 44-48
    CrossrefPubMedSuche in Google Scholar
  • 14 Hawkins JS, Stephenson M, Powers B, Wing DA. Diabetes mellitus: an independent predictor of duration of prostaglandin labor induction. J Perinatol 2017; 37 (05) 488-491
    CrossrefPubMedSuche in Google Scholar
  • 15 Wing DA. Misoprostol Vaginal Insert Consortium. Misoprostol vaginal insert compared with dinoprostone vaginal insert: a randomized controlled trial. Obstet Gynecol 2008; 112 (04) 801-812
    CrossrefPubMedSuche in Google Scholar
  • 16 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, Pt 1): 201-209
    CrossrefPubMedSuche in Google Scholar
  • 17 Andersen PK, Geskus RB, de Witte T, Putter H. Competing risks in epidemiology: possibilities and pitfalls. Int J Epidemiol 2012; 41 (03) 861-870
    CrossrefPubMedSuche in Google Scholar
  • 18 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
    CrossrefPubMedSuche in Google Scholar
  • 19 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
    CrossrefPubMedSuche in Google Scholar
  • 20 Chen W, Xue J, Peprah MK. 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
    CrossrefPubMedSuche in Google Scholar
  • 21 Maggi C, Mazzoni G, Gerosa V. et al. Labor induction with misoprostol vaginal insert compared with dinoprostone vaginal insert. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand 2019; 98 (10) 1268-1273
    CrossrefPubMedSuche in Google Scholar
  • 22 Metzger BE, Lowe LP, Dyer AR. et al; HAPO Study Cooperative Research Group. Hyperglycemia and adverse pregnancy outcomes. N Engl J Med 2008; 358 (19) 1991-2002
    CrossrefPubMedSuche in Google Scholar
  • 23 Landon MB, Spong CY, Thom E. et al; Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development Maternal-Fetal Medicine Units Network. A multicenter, randomized trial of treatment for mild gestational diabetes. N Engl J Med 2009; 361 (14) 1339-1348
    CrossrefPubMedSuche in Google Scholar
  • 24 Hay Jr WW. Care of the infant of the diabetic mother. Curr Diab Rep 2012; 12 (01) 4-15
    CrossrefPubMedSuche in Google Scholar
  • 25 Thevarajah A, Simmons D. Risk factors and outcomes for neonatal hypoglycaemia and neonatal hyperbilirubinaemia in pregnancies complicated by gestational diabetes mellitus: a single centre retrospective 3-year review. Diabet Med 2019; 36 (09) 1109-1117
    CrossrefPubMedSuche in Google Scholar
  • 26 Timofeev J, Huang CC, Singh J, Driggers RW, Landy HJ. Spontaneous labor curves in women with pregnancies complicated by diabetes. J Matern Fetal Neonatal Med 2012; 25 (01) 20-26
    CrossrefPubMedSuche in Google Scholar
  • 27 Levast F, Legendre G, Hachem HE. et al. A mathematical model to predict mean time to delivery following cervical ripening with dinoprostone vaginal insert. Sci Rep 2019; 9 (01) 9910
    CrossrefPubMedSuche in Google Scholar
  • 28 Jawerbaum A, Gonzalez E. The role of alterations in arachidonic acid metabolism and nitric oxide homeostasis in rat models of diabetes during early pregnancy. Curr Pharm Des 2005; 11 (10) 1327-1342
    CrossrefPubMedSuche in Google Scholar
  • 29 Vidaeff AC, Ramin SM. Potential biochemical events associated with initiation of labor. Curr Med Chem 2008; 15 (06) 614-619
    CrossrefPubMedSuche in Google Scholar
  • 30 Al-Matubsi HY, Salim MD, El-Sharaky AS. et al. Activities of cyclooxygenases, and levels of prostaglandins E2 and F2alpha, in fetopathy associated with experimental diabetic gestation. Diabetes Metab 2010; 36 (01) 43-50
    CrossrefPubMedSuche in Google Scholar
  • 31 Pevzner L, Powers BL, Rayburn WF, Rumney P, Wing DA. Effects of maternal obesity on duration and outcomes of prostaglandin cervical ripening and labor induction. Obstet Gynecol 2009; 114 (06) 1315-1321
    CrossrefPubMedSuche in Google Scholar
  • 32 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 (01) 55-67
    CrossrefPubMedSuche in Google Scholar
  • 33 Carlson NS, Hernandez TL, Hurt KJ. Parturition dysfunction in obesity: time to target the pathobiology. Reprod Biol Endocrinol 2015; 13: 135
    CrossrefPubMedSuche in Google Scholar