The Experts below are selected from a list of 7008 Experts worldwide ranked by ideXlab platform
Yair J. Blumenfeld - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
Oral misoprostol versus vaginal dinoprostone for Labor Induction in nulliparous women at term
Journal of Perinatology, 2014Co-Authors: Allison Faucett, Kay Daniels, Yasser Y. El-sayed, Yair J. BlumenfeldAbstract:Objective: To compare the efficacy of oral misoprostol to vaginal dinoprostone for Labor Induction in nulliparous women. Study design: Admissions for Labor Induction from January 2008 to December 2010 were reviewed. Patients receiving oral misoprostol were compared with those receiving vaginal dinoprostone. The primary outcome was time from Induction agent administration to vaginal delivery. Secondary outcomes included vaginal delivery within 24 h, mode of delivery and maternal and fetal outcomes. Result: A total of 680 women were included: 483 (71%) received vaginal dinoprostone and 197 (29%) received oral misoprostol. Women who received oral misoprostol had a shorter interval to vaginal delivery (27.2 vs 21.9 h, P
-
Oral misoprostol versus vaginal dinoprostone for Labor Induction in nulliparous women at term.
Journal of Perinatology, 2013Co-Authors: Allison Faucett, Kay Daniels, Yasser Y. El-sayed, Yair J. BlumenfeldAbstract:Oral misoprostol versus vaginal dinoprostone for Labor Induction in nulliparous women at term
Allison Faucett - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
Oral misoprostol versus vaginal dinoprostone for Labor Induction in nulliparous women at term
Journal of Perinatology, 2014Co-Authors: Allison Faucett, Kay Daniels, Yasser Y. El-sayed, Yair J. BlumenfeldAbstract:Objective: To compare the efficacy of oral misoprostol to vaginal dinoprostone for Labor Induction in nulliparous women. Study design: Admissions for Labor Induction from January 2008 to December 2010 were reviewed. Patients receiving oral misoprostol were compared with those receiving vaginal dinoprostone. The primary outcome was time from Induction agent administration to vaginal delivery. Secondary outcomes included vaginal delivery within 24 h, mode of delivery and maternal and fetal outcomes. Result: A total of 680 women were included: 483 (71%) received vaginal dinoprostone and 197 (29%) received oral misoprostol. Women who received oral misoprostol had a shorter interval to vaginal delivery (27.2 vs 21.9 h, P
-
Oral misoprostol versus vaginal dinoprostone for Labor Induction in nulliparous women at term.
Journal of Perinatology, 2013Co-Authors: Allison Faucett, Kay Daniels, Yasser Y. El-sayed, Yair J. BlumenfeldAbstract:Oral misoprostol versus vaginal dinoprostone for Labor Induction in nulliparous women at term
Kay Daniels - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
Oral misoprostol versus vaginal dinoprostone for Labor Induction in nulliparous women at term
Journal of Perinatology, 2014Co-Authors: Allison Faucett, Kay Daniels, Yasser Y. El-sayed, Yair J. BlumenfeldAbstract:Objective: To compare the efficacy of oral misoprostol to vaginal dinoprostone for Labor Induction in nulliparous women. Study design: Admissions for Labor Induction from January 2008 to December 2010 were reviewed. Patients receiving oral misoprostol were compared with those receiving vaginal dinoprostone. The primary outcome was time from Induction agent administration to vaginal delivery. Secondary outcomes included vaginal delivery within 24 h, mode of delivery and maternal and fetal outcomes. Result: A total of 680 women were included: 483 (71%) received vaginal dinoprostone and 197 (29%) received oral misoprostol. Women who received oral misoprostol had a shorter interval to vaginal delivery (27.2 vs 21.9 h, P
-
Oral misoprostol versus vaginal dinoprostone for Labor Induction in nulliparous women at term.
Journal of Perinatology, 2013Co-Authors: Allison Faucett, Kay Daniels, Yasser Y. El-sayed, Yair J. BlumenfeldAbstract:Oral misoprostol versus vaginal dinoprostone for Labor Induction in nulliparous women at term
Yasser Y. El-sayed - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
Oral misoprostol versus vaginal dinoprostone for Labor Induction in nulliparous women at term
Journal of Perinatology, 2014Co-Authors: Allison Faucett, Kay Daniels, Yasser Y. El-sayed, Yair J. BlumenfeldAbstract:Objective: To compare the efficacy of oral misoprostol to vaginal dinoprostone for Labor Induction in nulliparous women. Study design: Admissions for Labor Induction from January 2008 to December 2010 were reviewed. Patients receiving oral misoprostol were compared with those receiving vaginal dinoprostone. The primary outcome was time from Induction agent administration to vaginal delivery. Secondary outcomes included vaginal delivery within 24 h, mode of delivery and maternal and fetal outcomes. Result: A total of 680 women were included: 483 (71%) received vaginal dinoprostone and 197 (29%) received oral misoprostol. Women who received oral misoprostol had a shorter interval to vaginal delivery (27.2 vs 21.9 h, P
-
Oral misoprostol versus vaginal dinoprostone for Labor Induction in nulliparous women at term.
Journal of Perinatology, 2013Co-Authors: Allison Faucett, Kay Daniels, Yasser Y. El-sayed, Yair J. BlumenfeldAbstract:Oral misoprostol versus vaginal dinoprostone for Labor Induction in nulliparous women at term
William A. Grobman - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
Failed Labor Induction
Obstetrics & Gynecology, 2020Co-Authors: Dwight J. Rouse, Steven J. Weiner, Steven L. Bloom, Michael W. Varner, Catherine Y. Spong, Susan M. Ramin, Steve N. Caritis, William A. Grobman, Yoram Sorokin, Anthony SciscioneAbstract:OBJECTIVE: To evaluate maternal and perinatal outcomes in women undergoing Labor Induction with an unfavorable cervix according to duration of oxytocin administration in the latent phase of Labor after ruptured membranes.\ud \ud METHODS: This was a secondary analysis of a randomized multicenter trial in which all cervical examinations from admission were recorded. Inclusion criteria: nulliparas at or beyond 36 weeks of gestation undergoing Induction with a cervix of 2 cm or less dilated and less than completely effaced. The latent phase of Labor was defined as ending at a cervical dilation of 4 cm and effacement of at least 90%, or at a cervical dilation of 5 cm regardless of effacement.\ud \ud RESULTS: A total of 1,347 women were analyzed. The overall vaginal delivery rate was 63.2%. Most women had exited the latent phase after 6 hours of oxytocin and membrane rupture (n=939; 69.7%); only 5% remained in the latent phase after 12 hours. The longer the latent phase, the lower the vaginal delivery rate. Even so, 39.4% of the 71 women who remained in the latent phase after 12 hours of oxytocin and membrane rupture were delivered vaginally. Chorioamnionitis, endometritis, or both, and uterine atony were the only maternal adverse outcomes related to latent-phase duration: adjusted odds ratios (95% confidence intervals) of 1.12 (1.07, 1.17) and 1.13 (1.06, 1.19), respectively, for each additional hour. Neonatal outcomes were not related to latent-phase duration.\ud \ud CONCLUSION: Almost 40% of the women who remained in the latent phase after 12 hours of oxytocin and membrane rupture were delivered vaginally. Therefore, it is reasonable to avoid deeming Labor Induction a failure in the latent phase until oxytocin has been administered for at least 12 hours after membrane rupture.To evaluate maternal and perinatal outcomes in women undergoing Labor Induction with an unfavorable cervix according to duration of oxytocin administration in the latent phase of Labor after ruptured membranes.This was a secondary analysis of a randomized multicenter trial in which all cervical examinations from admission were recorded. Inclusion criteria: nulliparas at or beyond 36 weeks of gestation undergoing Induction with a cervix of 2 cm or less dilated and less than completely effaced. The latent phase of Labor was defined as ending at a cervical dilation of 4 cm and effacement of at least 90%, or at a cervical dilation of 5 cm regardless of effacement.A total of 1,347 women were analyzed. The overall vaginal delivery rate was 63.2%. Most women had exited the latent phase after 6 hours of oxytocin and membrane rupture (n=939; 69.7%); only 5% remained in the latent phase after 12 hours. The longer the latent phase, the lower the vaginal delivery rate. Even so, 39.4% of the 71 women who remained in the latent phase after 12 hours of oxytocin and membrane rupture were delivered vaginally. Chorioamnionitis, endometritis, or both, and uterine atony were the only maternal adverse outcomes related to latent-phase duration: adjusted odds ratios (95% confidence intervals) of 1.12 (1.07, 1.17) and 1.13 (1.06, 1.19), respectively, for each additional hour. Neonatal outcomes were not related to latent-phase duration.Almost 40% of the women who remained in the latent phase after 12 hours of oxytocin and membrane rupture were delivered vaginally. Therefore, it is reasonable to avoid deeming Labor Induction a failure in the latent phase until oxytocin has been administered for at least 12 hours after membrane rupture.III
-
maternal and neonatal outcomes associated with amniotomy among nulliparous women undergoing Labor Induction at term
American Journal of Perinatology, 2020Co-Authors: Ashley N. Battarbee, Dwight J. Rouse, William A. Grobman, Uma M Reddy, Alan T N Tita, Robert M Silver, Yasser Y Elsayed, Grecio Sandoval, Ronald J Wapner, George R SaadeAbstract:OBJECTIVE: The aim of the study is to evaluate the association between amniotomy at various time points during Labor Induction and maternal and neonatal outcomes among term, nulliparous women. STUDY DESIGN: Secondary analysis of a randomized trial of term Labor Induction versus expectant management in low-risk, nulliparous women (2014-2017) was conducted. Women met inclusion criteria if they underwent Induction >/=38 weeks' gestation using oxytocin with documented time and type of membrane rupture. Women with antepartum stillbirth or fetal anomaly were excluded. The primary outcome was cesarean delivery. Secondary outcomes included maternal and neonatal complications. Maternal and neonatal outcomes were compared among women with amniotomy versus women with intact membranes and no amniotomy at six 2-hour time intervals: before oxytocin initiation, 0 to /=4 hours after oxytocin was associated with lower odds of Labor duration >24 hours. Amniotomy at time intervals >/=2 hours and 3 days. Amniotomy was not associated with postpartum or neonatal complications. CONCLUSION: Among a contemporary cohort of nulliparous women undergoing term Labor Induction, amniotomy was associated with either lower or similar odds of cesarean delivery and other adverse outcomes, compared with no amniotomy.
-
Labor Induction versus expectant management in low risk nulliparous women
The New England Journal of Medicine, 2018Co-Authors: William A. Grobman, Madeline Murguia Rice, Uma M Reddy, Alan T N Tita, Robert M Silver, G Mallett, Kim Hill, Elizabeth Thom, Yasser Y Elsayed, Annette PerezdelboyAbstract:Abstract Background The perinatal and maternal consequences of Induction of Labor at 39 weeks among low-risk nulliparous women are uncertain. Methods In this multicenter trial, we randomly assigned low-risk nulliparous women who were at 38 weeks 0 days to 38 weeks 6 days of gestation to Labor Induction at 39 weeks 0 days to 39 weeks 4 days or to expectant management. The primary outcome was a composite of perinatal death or severe neonatal complications; the principal secondary outcome was cesarean delivery. Results A total of 3062 women were assigned to Labor Induction, and 3044 were assigned to expectant management. The primary outcome occurred in 4.3% of neonates in the Induction group and in 5.4% in the expectant-management group (relative risk, 0.80; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.64 to 1.00). The frequency of cesarean delivery was significantly lower in the Induction group than in the expectant-management group (18.6% vs. 22.2%; relative risk, 0.84; 95% CI, 0.76 to 0.93). Conclusions Induction of l...
-
failed Labor Induction toward an objective diagnosis
Obstetrics & Gynecology, 2011Co-Authors: Dwight J. Rouse, Steven J. Weiner, Steven L. Bloom, Michael W. Varner, Catherine Y. Spong, Susan M. Ramin, Steve N. Caritis, William A. Grobman, Yoram Sorokin, Anthony SciscioneAbstract:OBJECTIVE:To evaluate maternal and perinatal outcomes in women undergoing Labor Induction with an unfavorable cervix according to duration of oxytocin administration in the latent phase of Labor after ruptured membranes.METHODS:This was a secondary analysis of a randomized multicenter trial in which