Efficacy of oral and vaginal misoprostol for pre-induction cervical ripening in term primigravida undergoing induction of labor: a prospective study

Pallavi V. Khairnar; Vaibhav S. Khairnar; Rahul B. Chavan; Payal S. Bobade

doi:10.18203/2320-1770.ijrcog20242496

Authors

Pallavi V. Khairnar Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, Deenanath Mangeshkar Hospital, Pune, Maharashtra, India
Vaibhav S. Khairnar Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, PCMC's PGI & YCMH, Pimpri, Pune, Maharashtra, India
Rahul B. Chavan Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, PCMC's PGI & YCMH, Pimpri, Pune, Maharashtra, India
Payal S. Bobade Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, PCMC's PGI & YCMH, Pimpri, Pune, Maharashtra, India

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.18203/2320-1770.ijrcog20242496

Keywords:

Misoprostol, Cervical ripening, Labor induction, Primigravida

Abstract

Background: Induction of labor, traditionally used for fetal demise, now utilizes various mechanical and pharmacological methods like Misoprostol for cervical ripening, crucial for successful induction. This study compares oral and vaginal Misoprostol (25µg) for pre-induction cervical ripening at term, evaluating their efficacy, safety, and associated maternal and neonatal outcomes.

Methods: This study assesses and compares the effectiveness of oral and vaginal misoprostol for pre-induction cervical ripening in full-term primigravida women undergoing labor induction. It primarily evaluates the improvement in the Modified Bishop's score, aiming for a score above 6, and secondarily examines induction-to-delivery interval and required misoprostol dosage. Conducted at tertiary care in Pune, this prospective comparative observational study spans from August 2021 to July 2022. Eligible women, divided into two groups based on the obstetrician's preference, receive either oral or vaginal misoprostol, with labor management and outcomes closely monitored and analyzed using IBM SPSS Statistics 26.0.

Results: Both oral and vaginal Misoprostol groups, comprising exclusively primigravida patients, had similar mean gestational ages and induction to delivery intervals (21 hours). The oral group achieved a favourable Bishop score (>6) faster (8 hours) than the vaginal group (12 hours), despite requiring more frequent dosing, and both groups showed comparable modes of delivery and indications for Caesarean sections.

Conclusion: This study found oral and vaginal Misoprostol equally effective for preinduction cervical ripening, with both showing similar delivery times and modes, despite more frequent dosing in the oral group.

Metrics

Metrics Loading ...

References

Cunningham F, Leveno K, Bloom S, Hauth J, Gilstrp L, Wanstrom K. Williams Obstetrics. 22nd ed. New York: McGraw Hill Medical Publishing Division. 2005;5:35-42.

Jindal P, Avasthi K, Kaur M. A comparison of vaginal vs. oral misoprostol for induction of labor–double blind randomized trial. J Obstet Gynaecol India. 2011;61(5):538-42.

Danielsson KG, Marions L, Rodriguez A, Spur BW, Wong PY, Bygdeman M. Comparison between oral and vaginal administration of misoprostol on uterine contractility. Obstet Gynecol. 1999;93(2):275–80.

Kaur P, Goel P, Thakkar N, Huria A. Randomised controlled trial to compare safety and efficacy of vaginal versus oral route of misoprostol for induction of labour in term pregnancy with unfavourable cervix. Int J Reprod Contracept Obstet Gynecol. 2015;4(6):1982-8.

Durie D, Lawal A, Zegelbone P. Other mechanical methods for pre-induction cervical ripening. Semin Perinatol. 2015;39(6):444-9.

Morris JL, Winikoff B, Dabash R, Weeks A, Faundes A, Gemzell-Danielsson K, et al. FIGO’s updated recommendations for misoprostol used alone in gynecology and obstetrics. Int J Gynaecol Obstet Off Organ Int Fed Gynaecol Obstet. 2017;138(3):363-6.

Alfirevic Z, Keeney E, Dowswell T, Welton NJ, Dias S, Jones LV, et al. Labour induction with prostaglandins: a systematic review and network meta-analysis. BMJ. 2015;350:217.

Alfirevic Z, Weeks A. Oral misoprostol for induction of labour. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2006;(2):13-38.

Soni S, Pappas K, Lesser ML, Blitz MJ, Augustine SA, Rochelson B. Is vaginal misoprostol more effective than oral misoprostol for cervical ripening in obese women? J Matern-Fetal Neonatal Med Off J Eur Assoc Perinat Med Fed Asia Ocean Perinat Soc Int Soc Perinat Obstet. 2020;33(20):3476-83.

Wing DA, Ham D, Paul RH. A comparison of orally administered misoprostol with vaginally administered misoprostol for cervical ripening and labor induction. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 1999;180(5):1155-60.

Colón I, Clawson K, Hunter K, Druzin ML, Taslimi MM. Prospective randomized clinical trial of inpatient cervical ripening with stepwise oral misoprostol vs vaginal misoprostol. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2005;192(3):747-52.

How HY, Leaseburge L, Khoury JC, Siddiqi TA, Spinnato JA, Sibai BM. A comparison of various routes and dosages of misoprostol for cervical ripening and the induction of labor. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2001;185(4):911-5.

Adam I, Hassan OA, Elhassan EM. Oral misoprostol vs vaginal misoprostol for cervical ripening and labor induction. Int J Gynaecol Obstet Off Organ Int Fed Gynaecol Obstet. 2005;89(2):142-3.