A comparative study between cerviprime gel and misoprostol for induction of labour in term pregnancy with unfavourable Bishop’s score: a randomised controlled clinical trial
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.18203/2320-1770.ijrcog20253900Keywords:
Bishop’s score, Cerviprime, Induction of labor, MisoprostolAbstract
Background: Induction of labor (IOL) is a common obstetric intervention performed when benefits outweigh risks of continuing pregnancy. Cervical ripening using prostaglandins like dinoprostone (cerviprime) and misoprostol improves induction outcomes. This study compared their efficacy in term pregnancies with unfavorable Bishop’s score, evaluating induction and need for augmentation.
Methods: This randomized controlled clinical study was conducted over 18 months in the department of obstetrics and gynecology at a tertiary care centre among 100 term pregnant women (≥37 weeks) with an unfavourable Bishop’s score requiring induction of labour. Participants were randomized into two groups: 50 received intravaginal misoprostol (25μg, repeated every 4 hours) and 50 received intracervical dinoprostone gel (0.5 mg, repeated every 6 hours).
Results: A total of 100 pregnant women were studied, divided between the cerviprime and misoprostol groups. The mean age was comparable (33.09±9.56 years vs. 32.54±9.57 years). The time from induction to initiation of labour was significantly shorter in the misoprostol group (≤6 hours in 82% versus 58%; p<0.05). Vaginal delivery occurred in 84% of misoprostol cases and 76% of cerviprime cases. Misoprostol significantly shortened the induction-delivery interval (p<0.02). Oxytocin augmentation was required less often with misoprostol (46% versus 60%; p=0.16).
Conclusions: Vaginal misoprostol demonstrated greater efficacy than intracervical dinoprostone gel (cerviprime) for labour induction in term pregnancies with unfavourable Bishop’s scores, achieving shorter induction-to-delivery intervals without increasing maternal or neonatal complications, making it a safe and effective alternative.
Metrics
References
Martin JA, Hamilton BE, Osterman MJK, Driscoll AK, Drake P. Births: Final Data for 2016. Nat Vital Stat Rep. 2018;67(1):1-55.
Suman D, Singh T, Singh S. A randomised comparative study of vaginal misoprostol and intracervical cerviprime gel for induction of labor. Ann Int Med Den Res. 2021;7(2):OG05-8.
ACOG Committee on Practice Bulletins- Obstetrics. ACOG Practice Bulletin No. 107: Induction of labor. Obstet Gynecol. 2009;114(2 Pt 1):386-97. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1097/AOG.0b013e3181b48ef5
Leduc D, Biringer A, Lee L, Dy J; Clinical Practice Obstetrics Committee; Special Contributors. Induction of labour. J Obstet Gynaecol Can. 2013;35(9):840-57. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/S1701-2163(15)30842-2
Grobman W. Cervical ripening and induction of labor in women with a prior cesarean delivery. In: Post WW, ed. UpToDate. Waltham (MA): UpToDate; 2018.
Chatsis V, Frey N. Misoprostol for cervical ripening and induction of labour: a review of clinical effectiveness, cost-effectiveness and guidelines. Ottawa (ON): Canadian Agency for Drugs and Technologies in Health; 2018. Available from: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK538944/. Accessed on 11 May 2025.
Calder AA, Embrey MP. Comparison of intravenous oxytocin and prostaglandins E2 for induction of labour using automatic and non-automatic infusion techniques. Br J Obstet. 1975;82:728. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1471-0528.1975.tb00713.x
Khatri R, Sharma J, Amatya A. Oral: vaginal misoprostol: which route for induction of term labour? National J Obstet Gynaecol. 2007;2:23-8. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3126/njog.v2i1.1472
Gupta J, Baev O, Gomez JD, Garabedian C, Hellmeyer L, Mahony R, et al. Mechanical methods for induction of labor. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol. 2022;269:138-42. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejogrb.2021.10.023
Robert HH. Spontaneous and induced cervical ripening. Am J Reprod Med. 1993;38:66-72.
Fisher SA, Mockenzie VP. Oral versus vaginal misoprostol for induction of labour. A double blind randomized controlled trial. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2001;185(4):906-10. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1067/mob.2001.117303
British Columbia Reproductive Care Program. Obstetric guideline 1; induction of labour. Br J Obstet Gynaecol. 1998;5:211-7
Sanchez-Ramos L, Levine LD, Sciscione AC, Mozurkewich EL, Ramsey PS, Adair CD, et al. Methods for the induction of labor: efficacy and safety. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2024;230(3):S669-95. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajog.2023.02.009
Ramya D, Jaju PB. Comparative study of intra-vaginal misoprostol with intracervical dinoprostone gel for induction of labour. Obstet Gynecol Int J. 2017;6(5):135-42. DOI: https://doi.org/10.15406/ogij.2017.06.00223
Krithika KS, Aggarwal N, Suri V. Prospective randomised controlled trial to compare safety and efficacy of intravaginal misoprostol with intracervical cerviprime for induction of labour with unfavourable cervix. J Obstet Gynecol. 2008;28(3):294-7. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/01443610802054972
Patil P, Patil A. Misoprostol versus cerviprime gel for induction of labour. Int J Med Res Rev. 2013;1(1):63-70. DOI: https://doi.org/10.17511/ijmrr.2013.i02.04
Swami KS, Sonawane PK. A comparative study between oral misoprostol and intracervical dinoprostone gel for induction of labour at term in primigravida. New Indian J OBGYN. 2023:1-5. DOI: https://doi.org/10.21276/obgyn.20252024.11.1.10
Downloads
Published
How to Cite
Issue
Section
