{"status":"ok","message-type":"work","message-version":"1.0.0","message":{"indexed":{"date-parts":[[2026,10,3]],"date-time":"2026-10-03T16:43:24Z","timestamp":1791045804687,"version":"4.1.0"},"reference-count":26,"publisher":"MDPI AG","issue":"11","license":[{"start":{"date-parts":[[2025,11,17]],"date-time":"2025-11-17T00:00:00Z","timestamp":1763337600000},"content-version":"vor","delay-in-days":0,"URL":"https:\/\/creativecommons.org\/licenses\/by\/4.0\/"}],"content-domain":{"domain":[],"crossmark-restriction":false},"short-container-title":["Clinics and Practice"],"abstract":"<jats:p>Objectives: The aim of our study was to assess the efficacy and safety of two different labor induction methods in patients after fetal demise beyond 28 weeks, with an unfavorable cervix: misoprostol\u2014prostaglandin E1 analog (PGE1) and dinoprostone\u2014prostaglandin E2 analog (PGE2). Methods: This retrospective single-center cohort study included all labor cases after fetal demise (intrauterine fetal death or termination of pregnancy with feticide) from 28 to 40 weeks of gestation, where labor was induced by either PGE1 or PGE2. The primary outcome was the induction-to-delivery time interval. Secondary outcomes included the proportion of patients who delivered within 24 h, the failed induction rate, the length of labor, pain during induction, the adverse outcome rate, and the post-labor hospital stay. Results: The induction-to-delivery time interval was shorter in the PGE1 group (p = 0.048). There was no statistically significant difference in the proportion of patients who delivered within 24 h (p = 0.651) and failed inductions (p = 0.18) between groups. The duration of labor was longer in the PGE2 group (p = 0.01). Oxytocin augmentation was more common in the PGE2 group (p &lt; 0.001). Pain during induction was greater in women in the PGE1 group (p &lt; 0.001). There were no statistically significant differences in adverse effects between groups. There was no significant difference in induction to delivery interval between the two methods when comparing lower and higher gestational ages (28 to 34 weeks, p = 0.18; 35 to 40 weeks, p = 0.343). Conclusions: Our findings support the use of a PGE1 regimen for third-trimester labor induction after fetal demise, when no contraindications exist. This approach appears to improve the efficiency of induction and may enhance overall patient care by reducing intervention needs.<\/jats:p>","DOI":"10.3390\/clinpract15110210","type":"journal-article","created":{"date-parts":[[2025,11,17]],"date-time":"2025-11-17T14:04:07Z","timestamp":1763388247000},"page":"210","update-policy":"https:\/\/doi.org\/10.3390\/mdpi_crossmark_policy","source":"Crossref","is-referenced-by-count":1,"title":["Induction of Labor After Fetal Demise in Third Trimester\u2014A Retrospective Cohort Study"],"prefix":"10.3390","volume":"15","author":[{"ORCID":"https:\/\/orcid.org\/0009-0007-1199-8573","authenticated-orcid":false,"given":"Sara","family":"Vodopivec","sequence":"first","affiliation":[{"name":"Faculty of Medicine, University of Ljubljana, 1000 Ljubljana, Slovenia"},{"name":"Department of Perinatology, Division of Obstetrics and Gynecology, University Medical Centre Ljubljana, 1000 Ljubljana, Slovenia"}],"role":[{"vocabulary":"crossref","role":"author"}]},{"ORCID":"https:\/\/orcid.org\/0000-0001-5223-7008","authenticated-orcid":false,"given":"Gorazd","family":"Kav\u0161ek","sequence":"additional","affiliation":[{"name":"Department of Perinatology, Division of Obstetrics and Gynecology, University Medical Centre Ljubljana, 1000 Ljubljana, Slovenia"}],"role":[{"vocabulary":"crossref","role":"author"}]},{"ORCID":"https:\/\/orcid.org\/0000-0001-9793-3453","authenticated-orcid":false,"given":"Polona","family":"Pe\u010dlin","sequence":"additional","affiliation":[{"name":"Faculty of Medicine, University of Ljubljana, 1000 Ljubljana, Slovenia"},{"name":"Department of Perinatology, Division of Obstetrics and Gynecology, University Medical Centre Ljubljana, 1000 Ljubljana, Slovenia"}],"role":[{"vocabulary":"crossref","role":"author"}]},{"given":"Mirjam","family":"Dru\u0161kovi\u010d","sequence":"additional","affiliation":[{"name":"Faculty of Medicine, University of Ljubljana, 1000 Ljubljana, Slovenia"},{"name":"Department of Perinatology, Division of Obstetrics and Gynecology, University Medical Centre Ljubljana, 1000 Ljubljana, Slovenia"}],"role":[{"vocabulary":"crossref","role":"author"}]}],"member":"1968","published-online":{"date-parts":[[2025,11,17]]},"reference":[{"key":"ref_1","unstructured":"(2024, November 08). Health Statistical Yearbook of Slovenija 2021. Available online: https:\/\/nijz.si\/publikacije\/zdravstveni-statisticni-letopis-2021\/."},{"key":"ref_2","doi-asserted-by":"crossref","first-page":"152","DOI":"10.1016\/j.ajog.2024.05.042","article-title":"Stillbirth: We can do better","volume":"231","author":"Silver","year":"2024","journal-title":"Am. J. Obs. Gynecol."},{"key":"ref_3","doi-asserted-by":"crossref","first-page":"51","DOI":"10.1080\/13625180500035231","article-title":"Accessibility and availability of abortion in six European countries","volume":"10","author":"Pinter","year":"2005","journal-title":"Eur. J. Contracept. Reprod. Health Care"},{"key":"ref_4","doi-asserted-by":"crossref","first-page":"1036","DOI":"10.1002\/ijgo.15150","article-title":"The hyper-regulation of abortion care in Italy","volume":"163","author":"Caruso","year":"2023","journal-title":"Int. J. Gynaecol. Obstet."},{"key":"ref_5","doi-asserted-by":"crossref","unstructured":"American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, and Society for Maternal-Fetal Medicine (2020). Management of Stillbirth: Obstetric Care Consensus No, 10. Obstet. Gynecol., 135, e110\u2013e132.","DOI":"10.1097\/AOG.0000000000003719"},{"key":"ref_6","doi-asserted-by":"crossref","first-page":"10530","DOI":"10.1080\/14767058.2022.2134768","article-title":"Labor induction in third trimester non-viable fetus","volume":"35","author":"Attali","year":"2022","journal-title":"J. Matern.-Fetal Neonatal Med."},{"key":"ref_7","doi-asserted-by":"crossref","first-page":"203","DOI":"10.1016\/j.ijgo.2013.06.023","article-title":"Labor induction outcomes in third-trimester stillbirths","volume":"123","author":"Gawron","year":"2013","journal-title":"Int. J. Gynaecol. Obstet."},{"key":"ref_8","first-page":"35","article-title":"Misoprostol (PGE1) versus dinorostone gel (PGE\u201d) in induction of labour in late intra uterine fetal death with unfavourable cervix: A prospective comparative study","volume":"4","author":"Biswas","year":"2017","journal-title":"Int. J. Reprod. Contracept. Obstet. Gynecol."},{"key":"ref_9","first-page":"177","article-title":"Role of Combination OF Mifepristone and Misoprostol Verses Misoprostol alone in Induction of Labour in Late Intrauterine Fetal Death: A Prospective Study","volume":"7","author":"Panda","year":"2013","journal-title":"J. Fam. Reprod. Health"},{"key":"ref_10","doi-asserted-by":"crossref","first-page":"1884","DOI":"10.1111\/jog.12815","article-title":"Mifepristone and misoprostol compared with misoprostol alone for induction of labor in intrauterine fetal death: A randomized trial","volume":"41","author":"Chaudhuri","year":"2015","journal-title":"J. Obstet. Gynaecol. Res."},{"key":"ref_11","unstructured":"WHO (2011). Recommendations for Induction of Labour, World Health Organization. Available online: https:\/\/iris.who.int\/bitstream\/handle\/10665\/44531\/9789241501156_eng.pdf."},{"key":"ref_12","first-page":"193","article-title":"Termination of pregnancy with mifepristone and misoprostol after the 11th week of pregnancy","volume":"81","author":"Vrhkar","year":"2012","journal-title":"Zdr. Vestn."},{"key":"ref_13","doi-asserted-by":"crossref","first-page":"16","DOI":"10.1016\/j.ejogrb.2003.12.012","article-title":"Medical management for termination of second and third trimester pregnancies: A comparison of strategies","volume":"116","author":"Graziosi","year":"2004","journal-title":"Eur. J. Obstet. Gynecol. Reprod. Biol."},{"key":"ref_14","doi-asserted-by":"crossref","first-page":"1297","DOI":"10.3109\/14767058.2015.1046828","article-title":"Efficacy and safety of misoprostol compared with the dinoprostone for labor induction at term: A meta-analysis","volume":"29","author":"Wang","year":"2016","journal-title":"J. Matern. Fetal Neonatal Med."},{"key":"ref_15","doi-asserted-by":"crossref","first-page":"3","DOI":"10.1016\/j.ejogrb.2005.10.021","article-title":"Misoprostol versus cervagem for the induction of labour to terminate pregnancy in the second and third trimester: A systematic review","volume":"125","author":"Dodd","year":"2006","journal-title":"Eur. J. Obstet. Gynecol. Reprod. Biol."},{"key":"ref_16","doi-asserted-by":"crossref","first-page":"37","DOI":"10.1007\/s13224-017-1085-1","article-title":"Current Practices of Cervical Ripening and Induction of Labour in Intrauterine Foetal Demise: An Observational Study","volume":"69","author":"Amin","year":"2019","journal-title":"J. Obstet. Gynaecol. India"},{"key":"ref_17","doi-asserted-by":"crossref","first-page":"176","DOI":"10.1515\/jpm-2018-0128","article-title":"Efficacy and safety of misoprostol vaginal insert vs. oral misoprostol for induction of labor","volume":"47","author":"Redling","year":"2019","journal-title":"J. Perinat. Med."},{"key":"ref_18","first-page":"1294","article-title":"A comparison of oral misoprostol with vaginal misoprostol administration in second-trimester pregnancy termination for fetal abnormality","volume":"101","author":"Dickinson","year":"2003","journal-title":"Obstet. Gynecol."},{"key":"ref_19","unstructured":"Pe\u010dlin, P., Dru\u0161kovi\u010d, M., Verdenik, I., and Kav\u0161ek, G. (2015). Mechanical vs. pharmacological methods for labour induction: Impact on pain perception and satisfaction. Abstract Book: ECIC 2015, MCA Scientific Events."},{"key":"ref_20","doi-asserted-by":"crossref","first-page":"45","DOI":"10.1016\/S0301-2115(03)00363-4","article-title":"Uterine rupture associated with misoprostol labor induction in women with previous cesarean delivery","volume":"113","author":"Aslan","year":"2004","journal-title":"Eur. J. Obstet. Gynecol. Reprod. Biol."},{"key":"ref_21","doi-asserted-by":"crossref","first-page":"18","DOI":"10.1097\/01.AOG.0000109148.23082.C1","article-title":"Cervical ripening with transcervical foley catheter and the risk of uterine rupture","volume":"103","author":"Bujold","year":"2004","journal-title":"Obstet. Gynecol."},{"key":"ref_22","doi-asserted-by":"crossref","first-page":"501","DOI":"10.1053\/j.semperi.2015.07.016","article-title":"Management of stillbirth delivery","volume":"39","author":"Chakhtoura","year":"2015","journal-title":"Semin. Perinatol."},{"key":"ref_23","doi-asserted-by":"crossref","first-page":"2671","DOI":"10.1111\/jog.15772","article-title":"Randomized controlled trial comparing efficacy of a combination regime containing two cervical sensitizers (mifepristone\u2009+\u2009Foley\u2019s catheter) versus single agent mifepristone or Foley\u2019s catheter for labor induction in women attempting TOLAC at late third trimester with a dead fetus in utero","volume":"49","author":"Dasgupta","year":"2023","journal-title":"J. Obstet. Gynaecol. Res."},{"key":"ref_24","doi-asserted-by":"crossref","first-page":"1505","DOI":"10.1136\/bmj.312.7045.1505","article-title":"Psychological complications after stillbirth--influence of memories and immediate management: Population based study","volume":"312","author":"Steineck","year":"1996","journal-title":"BMJ"},{"key":"ref_25","doi-asserted-by":"crossref","first-page":"681","DOI":"10.1097\/GRF.0b013e3181eb3297","article-title":"Stillbirth workup and delivery management","volume":"53","author":"Silver","year":"2010","journal-title":"Clin. Obstet. Gynecol."},{"key":"ref_26","doi-asserted-by":"crossref","first-page":"755","DOI":"10.1016\/j.ajog.2003.09.037","article-title":"Randomized controlled trial of misoprostol for second-trimester pregnancy termination associated with fetal malformation","volume":"190","author":"Akoury","year":"2004","journal-title":"Am. J. Obstet. Gynecol."}],"container-title":["Clinics and Practice"],"original-title":[],"language":"en","link":[{"URL":"https:\/\/www.mdpi.com\/2039-7283\/15\/11\/210\/pdf","content-type":"unspecified","content-version":"vor","intended-application":"similarity-checking"}],"deposited":{"date-parts":[[2025,11,17]],"date-time":"2025-11-17T14:49:01Z","timestamp":1763390941000},"score":1,"resource":{"primary":{"URL":"https:\/\/www.mdpi.com\/2039-7283\/15\/11\/210"}},"subtitle":[],"short-title":[],"issued":{"date-parts":[[2025,11,17]]},"references-count":26,"journal-issue":{"issue":"11","published-online":{"date-parts":[[2025,11]]}},"alternative-id":["clinpract15110210"],"URL":"https:\/\/doi.org\/10.3390\/clinpract15110210","relation":{},"ISSN":["2039-7283"],"issn-type":[{"value":"2039-7283","type":"electronic"}],"subject":[],"published":{"date-parts":[[2025,11,17]]}}}