A comparison of sublingual with vaginal administration of misoprostol for induction of labor at term

Authors

  • Monika D. Akare Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Medical College and Shree Sayaji General Hospital, Baroda, Gujarat, India
  • Purvi K. Patel Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Medical College and Shree Sayaji General Hospital, Baroda, Gujarat, India

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.18203/2320-1770.ijrcog20171398

Keywords:

Induction of labour, Misoprostol, Sublingual

Abstract

Background: To compare the efficacy and safety of sublingual route of misoprostol with vaginal route of administration.

Methods: This study was conducted at Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Medical College, Baroda, Gujarat, India. 50 cases each with a singleton term pregnancy and a live fetus requiring induction of labor were allocated to sublingual and vaginal administration of misoprostol. Outcome measures related to labor and maternal and fetal side effects were compared between the 2 groups and evaluated using Chi square test and relative risk (RR) with 95% confidence intervals (CI).

Results: The sublingual route of misoprostol was associated with a reduced risk of failed induction, reduced time from initiation to induction, reduced induction to delivery interval and a higher incidence of maternal and fetal side effects. However, the differences were not statistically significant.

Conclusions: The sublingual route of administration of misoprostol is comparable in efficacy and safety to the vaginal route for induction.

References

Tang OS, Schweer H, Seyberth HW, Lee SW, Chung Ho P. Pharmacokinetics of different routes of administration of misoprostol. Hum. Reprod. 2002;17(2):332-6.

Tang OS, Gemzell-Danielsson K, Ho P C. Misoprostol: Pharmacokinetic profiles, effects on the uterus and side effects. Int J Gynaecol Obstet. 2007;99:160-7.

Aronsson A, Bygdeman M, Gemzell-Danielsson K. Effects of misoprostol on uterine contractility following different routes of administration. Hum Reprod. 2004;19(1):81-4.

Tang OS, Schweer H, Seyberth HW, Lee SW, Chung Ho P. Pharmacokinetics of repeated doses of misoprostol. Hum. Reprod. 2009;24(8):1862-9.

Bartusevicius A, Barcaite E, Nadisauskiene R. Oral, vaginal and sublingual misoprostol for induction of labor. Int J Gynaecol Obstet. 2005;91(1):2-9.

Feitosa FEL, Sampaio ZS, Alencar CA Jr, Amorim MMR, Passini R Jr. Sublingual versus vaginal misoprostol for induction of labour. Int J Gynaecol Obstet. 2006;94:91-5.

Bartusevicius A, Barcaite E, Krikstolaitis R, Gintautas V, Nadisauskiene R. Sublingual compared with vaginal misoprostol for labour induction at term: a randomised controlled trial. BJOG. 2006;113:1431-7.

Nassar AH, Awwad J, Khalil AM, Abu-Musa A, Mehio G, Usta IM. A randomized comparison of patient satisfaction with vaginal and sublingual misoprostol for induction of labour at term. BJOG. 2007;114:1215-21.

Muzonzini G, Hofmeyr GJ. Buccal or sublingual misoprostol for cervical ripening and induction of labour. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews. 2004;4.Art. No.: CD004221.

Downloads

Published

2017-03-30

Issue

Section

Original Research Articles