OBJECTIVE:

To compare the efficacy of intravaginal misoprostol with the dinoprostone extended-release vaginal device in labor induction. In addition, to analyze the safety profile in relation to maternal and perinatal outcomes.

MATERIALS AND METHODS:

Retrospective and comparative study performed in patients attended between 2018 and 2020 in the Health Area of Ferrol, La Coruña, Spain, with deliveries that were initiated with prostaglandin induction. The patients were divided into two cohorts, depending on the synthetic prostaglandin administered (misoprostol vaginally or dinoprostone in intravaginal device). The Mann-Whitney U test was used to compare the two groups. For qualitative variables, the total number and percentage were described and compared with Pearson's 2 test.

RESULTS:

A total of 508 patients undergoing labor induction were analyzed. No differences were found in the indications for induction of labor between one group and the other, although the indication for misoprostol in patients with chronologically prolonged pregnancy (63%) and for dinoprostone in premature rupture of membranes (49%) stood out. In relation to perinatal outcomes, an Apgar of less than 7 at 5 minutes was recorded in 2 patients treated with dinoprostone and 1 with misoprostol; as well as an umbilical arterial pH of less than 7.10 in 8 patients treated with dinoprostone and 7 with misoprostol.

CONCLUSIONS:

The data reported here suggest that both prostaglandins achieve a similar rate of onset of labor, although dinoprostone appears to reduce the time to onset of labor in women indicated for induction.