HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS		QUICK SEARCH:   [advanced] Author: Keyword(s): Year:  Vol:  Page:

This Article Full Text Full Text (PDF) Alert me when this article is cited Alert me if a correction is posted Services Similar articles in this journal Similar articles in PubMed Alert me to new issues of the journal Download to citation manager Citing Articles Citing Articles via HighWire Citing Articles via Google Scholar Google Scholar Articles by RAYBURN, W. F. Articles by MARTIN, M. E. Search for Related Content PubMed PubMed Citation Articles by RAYBURN, W. F. Articles by MARTIN, M. E.

Weekly Administration of Prostaglandin E₂ Gel Compared With Expectant Management in Women With Previous Cesareans

From the Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Health Sciences Center, University of Oklahoma, Oklahoma City, Oklahoma; Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, University of Medicine and Dentistry of New Jersey, Maternal-Fetal Medicine, Newark, New Jersey; Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, the University of Texas, SW Medical Center at Dallas, Dallas, Texas; Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, University of Louisville, Louisville, Kentucky; and St. Peters Medical Center, New Brunswick, New Jersey.

Address reprint requests to: William F. Rayburn, MD Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology University of New Mexico, Health Sciences Center 2211 Lomas Boulevard, NE Albuquerque, NM 87131-5286 E-mail: wrayburn{at}obgyn.unm.edu

Objective: To compare the clinical effectiveness and safety of outpatient administration of intracervical prostaglandin (PG) E₂ gel with expectant treatment for women desiring vaginal births after cesareans.

Methods: This was a randomized, multicenter investigation involving term pregnant women who each had one previous low-transverse cesarean and an unfavorable cervix (Bishop score no more than 6), and who was a candidate for vaginal delivery. They were assigned to receive 0.5 mg of PGE₂, (Prepidil; Pharmacia-Upjohn, Kalamazoo, MI) intracervically at 39 weeks’ gestation, repeated at weekly office visits for up to three doses, or expectant treatment. The main outcome variable was vaginal birth.

Results: Of 294 cases, 143 received gel and 151 were treated expectantly. No differences between groups were found for maternal age, race, or Bishop score. Compared with the expectant treatment group, the PGE₂ gel group was not more likely to deliver sooner or vaginally (57% versus 55%, P = .68). The onset of labor, duration of labor among those delivering vaginally, and 1- and 5-minute Apgar scores were not different between groups. No uterine ruptures occurred, and adverse effects were equally likely in both groups.

Conclusion: Although its safety was confirmed for outpatient use, weekly doses of intracervical PGE₂ did not improve the likelihood of vaginal births after cesareans.

This article has been cited by other articles:

				J.-M. Guise, M. Berlin, M. McDonagh, P. Osterweil, B. Chan, and M. Helfand Safety of Vaginal Birth After Cesarean: A Systematic Review Obstet. Gynecol., January 1, 1989; 103(3): 420 - 429. [Abstract] [Full Text]