Comparative study between 25 µg vaginal misoprostol and PGE2 gel for induction of labour at term
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.18203/2320-1770.ijrcog20253088Keywords:
Misoprostol, PGE2 gel, Labour, Maternal, NeonatalAbstract
Background: Labour induction is a critical aspect of obstetric care, significantly affecting maternal and neonatal outcomes. Prostaglandins such as PGE2 gel facilitate cervical ripening and uterine contractions. Misoprostol, a prostaglandin E1 analogue, has shown promising results in achieving vaginal delivery within 24 hours. This study aims to compare these agents to provide clearer guidance on the safer and more effective option for labour induction. To compare the effectiveness and safety of 25 μg vaginal misoprostol versus 0.5 mg PGE2 gel for induction of labour at or beyond 37 weeks of gestation in terms of efficacy, foeto-maternal outcomes, and complications.
Objectives include comparing induction-to-delivery intervals, caesarean rates, and foeto-maternal outcomes between the two drugs.
Methods: A single-centre, randomised, open-label clinical trial was conducted in a tertiary care centre’s Obstetrics and Gynaecology department. A total of 176 women were randomised: Group A received 25 μg misoprostol every 4 hours (up to five doses), and Group B received 0.5 mg PGE2 gel every 6 hours (up to three doses). Outcomes included induction-to-delivery time, labour onset, need for augmentation, and maternal and neonatal outcomes.
Results: Both groups were similar in age, parity, and Bishop scores. Misoprostol led to quicker labour onset (6.5 vs. 8.5 hours) and required less oxytocin (15.9% vs. 45.5%). Delivery mode and neonatal outcomes were comparable.
Conclusions: Misoprostol proved more effective, with shorter induction-to-delivery intervals and less need for augmentation. It is cost-effective, stable at room temperature and offers similar maternal and neonatal safety compared to PGE2 gel.
Metrics
References
Wang X, Zhang C, Li X, Qi H, Liu Q, Lei J. Safety and efficacy of titrated oral misoprostol solution versus vaginal dinoprostone for induction of labour: A single-centre randomized control trial. International Journal of Gynecology & Obstetrics. 2021;154(3):436-43. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1002/ijgo.13546
McMaster K, Sanchez‐Ramos L, Kaunitz AM. Balancing the efficacy and safety of misoprostol: a meta‐analysis comparing 25 versus 50 micrograms of intravaginal misoprostol for the induction of labour. BJOG: An International Journal of Obstetrics & Gynaecology. 2015;122(4):468-76. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/1471-0528.12935
Loto OM, Ikuomola AA, Ayuba II, Onwudiegwu U. Comparative study of the outcome of induction of labor using 25 µg and 50 µg of vaginal misoprostol. The Journal of Maternal-Fetal & Neonatal Medicine. 2012;25(11):2359-62. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3109/14767058.2012.696160
National Institute for Health and Care Excellence. Inducing labour [B] methods for the induction of labour. NICE guideline [NG207]; 2021 [cited 2022 Jan 28].
Weeks AD, Lightly K, Mol BW, Frohlich J, Pontefract S, Williams MJ. Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists. Evaluating misoprostol and mechanical methods for induction of labour: Scientific Impact Paper No. 68 April 2022. BJOG: An International Journal of Obstetrics & Gynaecology. 2022;129(8):e61-5. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/1471-0528.17136
ACOG Committee on Practice Bulletins – Obstetrics. ACOG Practice Bulletin No. 107: induction of labor. Obstet Gynecol. 2009;114:386-97. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1097/AOG.0b013e3181b48ef5
Tang J, Kapp N, Dragoman M, de Souza JP. WHO recommendations for misoprostol use for obstetric and gynecologic indications. Int J Gynaecol Obstet. 2013;121:186-9. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijgo.2012.12.009
Shannon CS, Winikoff B. Misoprostol: An emerging technology for women's health Report of a seminar; 2004. DOI: https://doi.org/10.31899/rh17.1002
Calder AA, Embrey MP, Hillier K. Extra‐amniotic prostaglandin E2 for the induction of labour at term. BJOG: An International Journal of Obstetrics & Gynaecology. 1974;81(1):39-46. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1471-0528.1974.tb00362.x
Kulshreshtha S, Sharma P, Mohan G, Singh S, Singh S. Comparative study of misoprostol vs dinoprostone for induction of labour. Indian Journal of Physiology and Pharmacology. 2007;51(1):55.
Wing DA, Paul RH. Induction of labor with misoprostol for premature rupture of membranes beyond thirty-six weeks’ gestation. American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology. 1998;179(1):94-9. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/S0002-9378(98)70256-X
Chuck FJ, Huffaker BJ. Labor induction with intravaginal misoprostol versus intracervical prostaglandin E2 gel (Prepidil gel): randomized comparison. American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology. 1995;173(4):1137-42. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/0002-9378(95)91340-8
Langenegger EJ, Odendaal HJ, Grove D. Oral misoprostol versus intracervical dinoprostone for induction of labor. International Journal of Gynecology & Obstetrics. 2005;88(3):242-8. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijgo.2004.12.005
Murthy BK, Arkalgud MS. Misoprostol alone versus a combination of Dinoprostone and Oxytocin for induction of labour. J Obstet Gynaecol India. 2006;56:413-16.
Özkan S, Çalışkan E, Doğer E, Yücesoy İ, Özeren S, Vural B. Comparative efficacy and safety of vaginal misoprostol versus dinoprostone vaginal insert in labor induction at term: a randomized trial. Archives of Gynecology and Obstetrics. 2009;280:19-24. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00404-008-0843-9
Cheng SY. Titrated oral compared with vaginal misoprostol for labor induction: a randomized controlled trial. Obstetrics & Gynecology. 2008;111(6):1445. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1097/AOG.0b013e31817afd5c
Parmar M, Aherwar R, Jahan I. Comparative study of 25 [micro] g vaginal misoprostol v/s cerviprime gel for induction of labour at term. International Journal of Reproduction, Contraception, Obstetrics and Gynecology. 2014;3(4):887-93. DOI: https://doi.org/10.5455/2320-1770.ijrcog20141203
Sheela CN, Mhaskar A, George S. Comparison of vaginal misoprostol and oral misoprostol with intracervical dinoprostone gel for labor induction at term. J Obstet Gynecol India. 2007;57(4):327-0.
Murthy BK, Arkalgud MS. Misoprostol alone versus a combination of Dinoprostone and Oxytocin for induction of labour. J Obstet Gynaecol India. 2006;56:413-16.
Hofmeyr GJ, Gülmezoglu AM, Pileggi C. Vaginal misoprostol for cervical ripening and induction of labour. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews. 2010(10):1. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.CD000941.pub2
Wing DA. A benefit-risk assessment of misoprostol for cervical ripening and labour induction. Drug Safety. 2002;25:665-76. DOI: https://doi.org/10.2165/00002018-200225090-00005
Chittacharoen A, Herabutya Y, Punyavachira P. A randomized trial of oral and vaginal misoprostol to manage delivery in cases of fetal death. Obstetrics & Gynecology. 2003;101(1):70-3. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1097/00006250-200301000-00016
Joy SD, Sanchez-Ramos L, Kaunitz AM. Misoprostol use during the third stage of labor. International Journal of Gynecology & Obstetrics. 2003;82(2):143-52. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/S0020-7292(03)00146-2
Patil KP, Swamy MK, Rao RK. Oral misoprostol vs intra-cervical dinoprostone for cervical ripening and labour induction. J Obstet Gynecol India. 2005;55(2):128-31.
Alfirevic Z, Weeks A. Oral misoprostol for induction of labour. Cochrane database of systematic reviews. 2006(2):1. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.CD001338.pub2
Downloads
Published
How to Cite
Issue
Section
