Objective: To compare efficiency for slow release vaginal insert and vaginal gel in current practice.
Methods: This retrospective historical study included 171 women: 85 with vaginal insert (Propess, Ferring) and 86 with vaginal gel (Prostine 2mg, Pharmacia). Inclusion criterion were Bishop score 5, singleton pregnancy, vertex presentation, unruptured membranes, and patients with only one prior cesarean delivery were not excluded. Indications for cervical ripening were post-term pregnancy, maternal or fetal pathologies, convenience. The outcomes were vaginal delivery within 12 and 24 hours, cesarean section rate, mean time to delivery, uterine hyperstimulation rate and cost. The statistical analysis was done with Pearson chi2, Student test exact Fisher and U Mann-Whitney tests.
Results: Comparing vaginal insert to vaginal gel, no significant differences appeared for vaginal delivery by 24 hours (53% versus 58%), cesarean section (17.6% versus 19.7%) and mean time to delivery (23.8h versus 22.4h). Labor induction rate within the primipara subgroup was significantly reduced with vaginal gel (39% versus 63.6%; p=0.03) but the rate and time of vaginal delivery were similar. In the same population, the rate of uterine hyperstimulation was higher (9.8% versus 0%; p=0.05) with vaginal gel. Cost of treatment was lowered with vaginal insert.
Conclusion: The dinoprostone vaginal insert for cervical ripening seems to have the same efficiency as vaginal 2mg gel. The cost of treatment appears to be lower, probably because only a single dose is necessary. Use of prostaglandine gel after vaginal insert is not accepted as a gold standard for cervical ripening though our conclusions only concern this retrospective study.