A comparison of buccal versus vaginal misoprostol for induction of labour at term to correlate maternal and foetal outcome

Jasvir Kaur; Satwant Kaur

doi:10.18203/2320-1770.ijrcog20242796

Authors

Jasvir Kaur Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Adesh Medical College and Hospital, Kurukshetra, Haryana, India
Satwant Kaur Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Adesh Medical College and Hospital, Kurukshetra, Haryana, India

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.18203/2320-1770.ijrcog20242796

Keywords:

Induced labor, Misoprostol, Pre-induction cervical ripening, Apgar score

Abstract

Background: Induction of labour with prostaglandins offers the advantage of promoting cervical ripening with stimulation of myometrial contractility. The use of prostaglandin preparations with or without oxytocin infusion, widely recognized and accepted as a standard method of labour induction, has been shown to reduce induction time and the risk of failed induction.

Methods: The present study was a prospective observational study undertaken in the obstetrics and gynaecology department of Adesh Medical College and Hospital, Kurushetra, Haryana, India from 01 June 2023 to 30 November 2023. Total 100 patents were randomly allocated to either group A (n=50) who receive 25 µg misoprostol buccally four hourly upto maximum of four doses, group B (n=50) who receive 25 µg misoprostol vaginally four hourly upto maximum of four doses. Various parameters noted were time interval from induction to vaginally delivery, mode of delivery, maternal adverse effect, and neonatal outcome.

Results: The mean induction delivery interval in group I was 14.17 hours and 12.9 hours in group II. The mean number of doses in group I was 1.58±0.36 and 1.26±0.28 in group II. The mode of delivery in group I (buccal) patients was full-term vaginal delivery (FTVD) in 33 of patients, instrumental (forceps) 2 of patients and lower segment caesarean section (LSCS) in 15 of patients. While as in group II (vaginal) patients 35 of patients had FTVD, 1 had instrumental (forceps) and 14 had LSCS. The results of present study were indicated that participants who were treated with buccal misoprostol were suffering from gastrointestinal experiences and tachysystole which was the result of misoprostol dosage.

Conclusions: Misoprostol in either buccal or vaginal route has proven to be equally effective for inducing labour in women at term pregnancy. This study found that the women who are treated with buccal misoprostol are suffering from gastrointestinal experiences more than vaginal misoprostol. However, easy intake is observed if the drug is administered buccally outweighs its advantages over the vaginal misoprostol.

Metrics

Metrics Loading ...

References

Ayati S, Vahidroodsari F, Farshidi F, Shahabian M, Aghaee MA. Vaginal versus sublingual misoprostol for labor induction at term and post term: a randomized prospective study. Iran J Pharm Res. 2014;13(1):299.

Komala K, Reddy M, Quadri IJ, Suneetha B, Ramya V. Comparative study of oral and vaginal misoprostol for induction of labour, maternal and foetal outcome. J Clin Diagnost Res. 2013;7(12):2866.

Kelly AJ, Kavanagh J, Thomas J. Vaginal prostaglandin (PGE2 and PGF2a) for induction of labour at term. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2003;(4):CD003101.

Muzonzini G, Hofmeyr GJ. Buccal or sublingual misoprostol for cervical ripening and induction of labour. Cochrane Database Systematic Rev. 2004(4).

Margulies M, Pérez GC, Voto L. Misoprostol to induce labour. The Lancet. 1992;339(8784):64.

Hofmeyr GJ, Gülmezoglu AM, Pileggi C. Vaginal misoprostol for cervical ripening and induction of labour. Cochrane Database of Systematic Rev. 2010;10:CD000941.

Redling K, Schaedelin S, Huhn EA, Hoesli I. Efficacy and safety of misoprostol vaginal insert vs. oral misoprostol for in666duction of labor. J Perinat Med. 2019;47(2):176-82.

Handal-Orefice RC, Friedman AM, Chouinard SM, Eke AC, Feinberg B, Politch J, et al. Oral or vaginal misoprostol for labor induction and cesarean delivery risk. Obstet Gynecol. 2019;134(1):10-6.

Carlan SJ, Blust D, O'Brien WF. Buccal versus intravaginal misoprostol administration for cervical ripening. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2002;186(2):229-33.

Zahran KM, Shahin AY, Abdellah MS, Elsayh KI. Sublingual versus vaginal misoprostol for induction of labor at term: A randomized prospective placebo‐controlled study. J Obstet Gynaecol Res. 2009;35(6):1054-60.

Kreft M, Krähenmann F, Roos M, Kurmanavicius J, Zimmermann R, Ochsenbein-Kölble N. Maternal and neonatal outcome of labour induction at term comparing two regimens of misoprostol. J Perinat Med. 2014;42(5):603-9.

Akbari R, Haj-Seyed Javadi ES, Panahi Z. A Comparative Study of Vaginal, Sublingual, and Buccal Misoprostol in Induction of Labor in Term Pregnancy. J Obstet Gynecol Cancer Res. 2024;9(2):131-6.

Dadashaliha M, Fallah S, Mirzadeh M. Labor induction with randomized comparison of cervical, oral and intravaginal misoprostol. BMC Pregnancy Childbirth. 2021;21:1-9.