Vol 94, No 7 (2023)
Research paper
Published online: 2023-03-27

open access

Page views 1245
Article views/downloads 341
Get Citation

Connect on Social Media

Connect on Social Media

Influence of gestational diabetes mellitus on outcomes of preinduced labour with dinoprostone vaginal insert

Magdalena Kolak1, Katarzyna Skibinska1, Magda Rybak-Krzyszkowska1, Agnieszka Micek2, Tomasz Gora3, Hubert Huras1, Andrzej P. Jaworowski1
Pubmed: 36976868
Ginekol Pol 2023;94(7):539-543.

Abstract

Objectives: The aim of this study was to evaluate the effectiveness of labour preinduction using a dinoprostone vaginal insert in patients with gestational diabetes mellitus versus patients undergoing labour induction for other causes. The second aim of the study was to compare perinatal outcomes in both groups.

Material and methods: The study has a retrospective character, conducted in 2019–2021 in a tertiary reference hospital. The following endpoints were assumed for the analysis: natural childbirth, birth occurring within 12 hours of dinoprostone administration and neonatal outcomes. Furthermore, indications of a caesarean section were analysed.

Results: The percentage of natural childbirths was similar in both groups. Furthermore, in both groups, over 80% of patients gave birth within less than 12 hours following dinoprostone administration. Neonatal outcomes (body weight, Apgar score) did not differ statistically. Analysing indications for a caesarean section, failure in the progress of labour was an indication in 39.5% of cases in the control group, 29.4% of cases in gestational diabetes mellitus (GDM), and 50% of cases in diabetes mellitus (DM). The risk of foetal asphyxia was an indication in 55.8% of cases in the control group, 35.3% of cases in GDM and 50% of cases in DM. Ineffective labour induction — no induction of the contractile function was an indication for a C-section in 4.7% of cases in the control group and 35.3% of cases in GDM; no cases were noted in DM (p = 0.024).

Conclusions: The study demonstrated that patients undergoing labour induction due to GDM using a dinoprostone vaginal insert did not differ in terms of labour duration, oxytocin administration compared to patients undergoing labour induction for other causes. Furthermore, the same rate of caesarean sections was found in the study group; however, these groups differ in terms of indications, including risk of foetal asphyxia (35.3% vs 55.8%), failure in the progress of labour (29.4% vs 39.5%), and no active labour (1.8% vs 1.5%). The neonatal Apgar score at 1.5 and 10 minutes after birth was similar in both groups.

Article available in PDF format

View PDF Download PDF file

References

  1. Nicolosi BF, Souza RT, Mayrink J, et al. Preterm SAMBA Study Group. Incidence and risk factors for hyperglycemia in pregnancy among nulliparous women: A Brazilian multicenter cohort study. PLoS One. 2020; 15(5): e0232664.
  2. Araszkiewicz A, Bandurska-Stankiewicz E, Borys S, et al. 2021 Guidelines on the management of patients with diabetes. A position of diabetes Poland. Clin Diabetol. 2021; 10(1): 1–113.
  3. Bomba-Opoń D, Drews K, Huras H, et al. Polish Gynecological Society Recommendations for Labor Induction. Ginekol Pol. 2017; 88(4): 224–234.
  4. Physical status: the use and interpretation of anthropometry. Report of a WHO Expert Committee. World Health Organ Tech Rep Ser. 1995; 854: 1–452.
  5. ACOG Practice Bulletin No. 107: Induction of Labor. Obstet Gynecol. 2009; 114(2): 386–397.
  6. Rosenstein MG, Cheng YW, Snowden JM, et al. The risk of stillbirth and infant death stratified by gestational age in women with gestational diabetes. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2012; 206(4): 309.e1–309.e7.
  7. 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.
  8. Yildiz Atar H, Baatz JE, Ryan RM. Molecular mechanisms of maternal diabetes effects on fetal and neonatal surfactant. Children (Basel). 2021; 8(4).
  9. Capobianco G, Gulotta A, Tupponi G, et al. Materno-Fetal and neonatal complications of diabetes in pregnancy: a retrospective study. J Clin Med. 2020; 9(9): 2707.
  10. Quach D, Ten Eikelder M, Jozwiak M, et al. Maternal and fetal characteristics for predicting risk of Cesarean section following induction of labor: pooled analysis of PROBAAT trials. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2022; 59(1): 83–92.
  11. Spong CY, Mercer BM, D'Alton M, et al. Timing of indicated late-preterm and early-term birth. Obstet Gynecol. 2011; 118(2 Pt 1): 323–333.
  12. ACOG committee opinion no. 560: Medically indicated late-preterm and early-term deliveries. Obstet Gynecol. 2013; 121(4): 908–910.
  13. Alberico S, Erenbourg A, Hod M, et al. GINEXMAL Group. Immediate delivery or expectant management in gestational diabetes at term: the GINEXMAL randomised controlled trial. BJOG. 2017; 124(4): 669–677.
  14. Lurie S, Insler V, Hagay ZJ. Induction of labor at 38 to 39 weeks of gestation reduces the incidence of shoulder dystocia in gestational diabetic patients class A2. Am J Perinatol. 1996; 13(5): 293–296.
  15. Hawkins JS, Stephenson M, Powers B, et al. Diabetes mellitus: an independent predictor of duration of prostaglandin labor induction. J Perinatol. 2017; 37(5): 488–491.
  16. Bomba-Opoń D, Drews K, Huras H, et al. Polish Gynecological Society Recommendations for Labor Induction. Ginekol Pol. 2017; 88(4): 224–234.
  17. American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists' Committee on Practice Bulletins—Obstetrics. ACOG Practice Bulletin No. 201: Pregestational Diabetes Mellitus. Obstet Gynecol. 2018; 132(6): e228–e248.
  18. Practice Bulletin No. 137. Obstet Gynecol. 2013; 122(2): 406–416.
  19. Sutton AL, Mele L, Landon MB, et al. Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development Maternal-Fetal Medicine Units Network. Delivery timing and cesarean delivery risk in women with mild gestational diabetes mellitus. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2014; 211(3): 244.e1–244.e7.
  20. Mbele AM, Makin JD, Pattinson RC. Can the outcome of induction of labour with oral misoprostol be predicted. S Afr Med J. 2007; 97(4): 289–292.
  21. Yamaguchi M, Takakura S, Enomoto N, et al. Comparison of perinatal outcomes between controlled-release dinoprostone vaginal delivery system (PROPESS) and metreurynter for cervical ripening in labor induction: A retrospective single-center study in Japan. J Obstet Gynaecol Res. 2021; 47(12): 4256–4262.
  22. Coste Mazeau P, Hessas M, Martin R, et al. Is there an interest in repeating the vaginal administration of dinoprostone (Propess®), to promote induction of labor of pregnant women at term? (RE-DINO): study protocol for a randomized controlled trial. Trials. 2020; 21(1): 51.
  23. Timofeev J, Huang CC, Singh J, et al. Spontaneous labor curves in women with pregnancies complicated by diabetes. J Matern Fetal Neonatal Med. 2012; 25(1): 20–26.