ABSTRACT
OBJECTIVE: Cervical ripening for induction of labor is often associated with negative patient experience. The debate over the most effective cervical ripening method persist, with a significant gap in research specifically addressing patient satisfaction. Our study aims to compare patient experience with two induction methods, slow-release intravaginal dinoprostone device and orally administered misoprostol. METHOD: We conducted a before-and-after comparative study at a university tertiary hospital, including all patients undergoing cervical ripening with a Bishop score of 3 or lower. Our study compared two separate two-month periods, where the methods for cervical ripening differed. The first period employed an intravaginal dinoprostone slow-release device, while the second period used oral misoprostol. The primary outcome was patient experience, assessed using the EXIT questionnaire, a standardized and validated self-reported measure. Secondary outcomes were efficacy and safety outcomes. RESULTS: A total of 165 patients were included, 81 induced with dinoprostone and 84 induced with misoprostol. The EXIT questionnaire completion rate was 67.9 % (n = 55) in the dinoprostone group and 76.1 % (n = 64) in the misoprostol group (p = 0.23). Patients induced with misoprostol reported higher levels of satisfaction compared to those induced with dinoprostone, which can be attributed to reduced discomfort associated with the induction process (mean satisfaction score 2.26 ± 0.98 versus 2.80 ± 0.85 on a 1 to 5 likert-scale, p-value < 0.01). Adverse effects were reported less frequently with misoprostol compared to dinoprostone (20.2 % vs 48.1 %, p-value < 0.01). Time between cervical ripening and delivery was shorter in the misoprostol group (27.0 ± 10.2 h vs 32.5 ± 10.0, p < 0.01). There were no difference in mode of delivery or other obstetrical and neonatal outcomes. CONCLUSION: For women undergoing cervical ripening, oral misoprostol appears to be a less invasive method for labor induction, associated with higher levels of satisfaction and reduced discomfort compared to the intravaginal dinoprostone slow-release device.
