Prostaglandin E2 labour induction with intravaginal (Minprostin) versus intracervical (Prepidil) administration at term: randomized study of maternal and neonatal outcome and patient's perception using the osgood semantic differential scales.

AIM: To compare the efficacy, safety, and patient's perception of two prostaglandin E2 application methods for induction of labour. METHOD: Above 36th weeks of gestation, all women, who were admitted to hospital for induction of labour, were prospectively randomised to intravaginal 1 mg or intracervical 0.5 mg irrespective of cervical Bishop score. The main outcome variables were induction-to-delivery interval, number of foetal blood samples, PDA rate, rate of oxytocin augmentation, rate of vaginal delivery, and patient's perception using semantic differential questionnaire. RESULTS: Thirty-nine patients were enrolled in this study. There was no statistical significant difference between the two groups in regard to perceptions of induction. The median induction delivery time using intravaginal versus intracervical administration was 29.9 versus 12.8 hours, respectively (P = 0.04). No statistically difference between the groups was detected in regard to parity, gestation age, cervical Bishop score, number of foetal blood samples, PDA rate, rate of oxytocin augmentation, and mode of birth. SUMMARY: Irrespective of the cervical Bishop Score, intracervical gel had a shorter induction delivery time without impingement on the women's perception of induction.

Whole-heart coronary magnetic resonance angiography at 1.5 Tesla: does a blood-pool contrast agent improve diagnostic accuracy?

OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the impact of the blood-pool contrast agent gadofosveset trisodium on diagnostic accuracy of whole-heart coronary magnetic resonance angiography (CMRA) at 1.5 Tesla. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Thirty consecutive patients with suspected coronary artery disease underwent free-breathing whole-heart CMRA at 1.5 Tesla. CMRA was performed with a T2-prepared steady-state free precession sequence (unenhanced CMRA) and an inversion-recovery-prepared steady-state free precession sequence after administration of gadofosveset trisodium (contrast-enhanced CMRA). Two readers independently performed a per-segment evaluation of CMRA (8 proximal and mid coronary segments) for detection of significant stenosis (≥50%) using invasive coronary angiography as reference. Disagreement was settled by consensus reading and interobserver variability was assessed using an unweighted kappa statistic. RESULTS: Whole-heart CMRA was successfully performed in 27 patients. The percentage of assessable segments was significantly lower on unenhanced CMRA compared with contrast-enhanced CMRA (Reader 1: 79% [170/216] vs. 89% [192/216], respectively; Reader 2: 73% [157/216] vs. 87% [188/216], respectively; P < 0.001). Intention-to-diagnose analysis of the consensus reading yielded sensitivity, specificity, and diagnostic accuracy of unenhanced versus contrast-enhanced CMRA as follows: 73.1% versus 73.1% (P = 1.0), 68.3% versus 80.2% (P = 0.002), and 68.9% versus 79.3% (P = 0.004), respectively. The kappa value for interobserver agreement was 0.61 (95% confidence interval = 0.50-0.72) for unenhanced CMRA and 0.72 (95% confidence interval = 0.62-0.82) for contrast-enhanced CMRA. CONCLUSIONS: The blood-pool contrast agent gadofosveset trisodium increased the number of assessable coronary segments on whole-heart CMRA in comparison to unenhanced whole-heart CMRA. The impact of gadofosveset trisodium on diagnostic accuracy, however, was only minor.