A randomized comparison between misoprostol and dinoprostone for cervical ripening and labor induction in patients with unfavorable cervices
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.18203/2320-1770.ijrcog20150678Keywords:
Misoprostol, Dinoprostol, Induction of labour, Cervical ripeningAbstract
Background: The induction of labor remains as one of the major challenges in obstetrics even in this modern era. The ideal priming agent is one that causes cervical change that is most similar to that seen in natural ripening process. This study was aimed to evaluate the safety and efficacy of intravaginal Misoprostol and compare its effects with intracervical dinoprostone gel for cervical ripening and labor induction in patients with unfavourable uterine cervices.
Methods: This was a one-year prospective study conducted in the department of Obstetrics and Gynecology of a 800 bedded premier teaching hospital in Ludhiana. The study population consisted of all pregnant women admitted to the labor ward beyond 37 weeks of gestation and requiring induction of labor for various medical and obstetrical indications. Frequencies, proportions, mean and standard deviation were done while chi square and t-test were used for determination of significance.
Results: A total of 153 mothers fulfilled the criteria to be included in the study of which 81 mothers were induced by misoprostol and 72 mothers by dinoprostone gel respectively. There was no statistical difference in the maternal age, parity and gestation at the onset of study in the two groups. The ANC complications were also statistically similar. There was no significant difference in the mean initial Bishop Score in the two groups. 3.42 in the Misoprostol group and 3.56 in the Dinoprostone group. The mean Bishop Score after 8 hour of the first dose was 7.86 in the Misoprostol group and 6.88 in the Dinoprostone group. The mean time taken from the induction to the onset of labor was 5.57 hours in the misoprostol group and 8.04 hours in the dinoprostone group. There were no cases of tachysystole or hyperstimulation in both the groups.
Conclusions: Misoprostol is a more efficacious cervical ripening and labor inducing agent compared to dinoprostone gel and can be used safely in the North Indian setting.
References
Parikh SC, Parikh NS. Comparison of local PGE2 gel and I.V. oxytocin in induction of labor. J of Obst Gyn of India. 2001;51:57-9.
Fernandes E, Vavilala S. Misoprostol - a miracle drug? Obs & Gynae Today. 2001;6:530-34.
Kleissel HP, VanderRest M, Naftolin F, Glorieux FK, De Leon A. Collagen changes in the human uterine cervix at parturition. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 1978;130:748-53.
Harman JH, Kim A. Current trends in cervical ripening and labor induction. Am Fam Physician. 1999;60:477-84.
Steiner AL, Creasy RK. Methods of cervical ripening. Clin Obstet Gynecol. 1983;26(1):37.
Ramos LS, Peterson S, Delke I, et al. Labor induction with prostaglandin E1 misoprostol
compared with Dinoprostone vaginal insert. A randomized trial. Obstet & Gynecol. 1998;91:401-5.
Nunes F, Rodrigues R, Meirinho M. Randomized comparison between intravaginal misoprostol and dinoprostone for cervical ripening and induction of labor. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 1999;181:626-9.
Wing DA, Jones MM, Rahall A, Goodwin TM, Paul RH. Misoprostol an effective agent for cervical ripening and labor induction. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 1995;172:1811-6.
Buser D, Mora G, Arias F. A randomized comparison between misoprostol and dinoprostone for cervical ripening and labor induction in patients with unfavourable cervices. Obstet Gynecol. 1997;89:581-5.
Kolderup L, McLean L, Grullon K, Safford K, Kilpatrick SJ. Misoprostol is more efficacious for labor induction than prostaglandin E2, but is it associated with more risk? Am J Obstet Gynecol. 1999;180:1543-50.
Danielian P, Porter B, Ferri N, Summers J, Templeton A. Misoprostol for induction of labor at term: a more effective agent than dinoprostone vaginal gel. Br J Obstet Gynecol. 1999;106:793-7.
Agarwal N, Gupta A, Kriplani A, Bhatla N, Parul. Six hourly vaginal misoprostol versus intracervical dinoprostone for cervical ripening and labor induction. J Obstet Gynecol Res. 2003;29(3):147-51.
