PREINDUCTION CERVICAL RIPENING WITH COMMERCIALLY AVAILABLE PROSTAGLANDIN E(2) GEL - A RANDOMIZED, DOUBLE-BLIND COMPARISON WITH A HOSPITAL-COMPOUNDED PREPARATION
L. Sanchezramos et al., PREINDUCTION CERVICAL RIPENING WITH COMMERCIALLY AVAILABLE PROSTAGLANDIN E(2) GEL - A RANDOMIZED, DOUBLE-BLIND COMPARISON WITH A HOSPITAL-COMPOUNDED PREPARATION, American journal of obstetrics and gynecology, 173(4), 1995, pp. 1079-1084
OBJECTIVE: Our purpose was to compare the efficacy, safety, and cost o
f commercially available dinoprostone cervical gel 0.5 mg with a hospi
tal-compounded formulation. STUDY DESIGN: One hundred thirty-four pati
ents undergoing labor induction were randomly assigned to one of two c
ervical ripening groups. Commercially available dinoprostone gel 0.5 m
g or a compounded formulation of 0.5 mg of prostaglandin E(2) gel was
administered endocervically. On the basis of cervical scores, gel was
reapplied at 6-hour intervals for a maximum of three doses. Physicians
managing labor were blinded as to treatment group allocation. RESULTS
: Among 134 patients evaluated, 70 were allocated to the commercially
available gel and 54 to the compounded gel. No statistically significa
nt differences were noted between the treatment groups with respect to
start-to-delivery interval, number of doses, amount of oxytocin, or n
eonatal adverse outcomes. However, cesarean delivery was performed les
s frequently in patients in the group receiving the commercially avail
able gel (12.9%) than in the grouup receiving the compounded gel (28.1
%) (p = 0.03). Because of the higher cesarean delivery rate in the com
pounded group, use of this formulation was not associated with cost sa
vings. CONCLUSIONS: The two prostaglandin E(2) formulations appeared e
quivalent with respect to efficacy. An unexplained higher cesarean sec
tion rate, however, was associated with the use of the compounded prep
aration.