Evaluating the outcomes of sublingual and vaginal misoprostol for  labor induction

Bijal Bhati; Alpesh Patel; Mahejbin Gori; Vaidehi Rana

doi:10.18203/2320-1770.ijrcog20253901

Authors

Bijal Bhati Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Dr. M. K. Shah Medical College and Research Centre, Ahmedabad, Gujarat, India
Alpesh Patel Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Dr. M. K. Shah Medical College and Research Centre, Ahmedabad, Gujarat, India
Mahejbin Gori Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Dr. M. K. Shah Medical College and Research Centre, Ahmedabad, Gujarat, India
Vaidehi Rana Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Dr. M. K. Shah Medical College and Research Centre, Ahmedabad, Gujarat, India

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.18203/2320-1770.ijrcog20253901

Keywords:

Labour, Oxytocin, Sublingual misoprostol, Vaginal misoprostol

Abstract

Background: To evaluate and compare the effectiveness, safety, and outcomes of 25 µg sublingual versus 25 µg vaginal misoprostol used for induction of labor at term.

Methods: This retrospective observational study was conducted from May 2021 to October 2022. To analysed the records of 200 antenatal patients who were in their third trimester, specifically beyond 37 weeks of gestation. The study identified case files of patients who received induction of labor through sublingual versus vaginal misoprostol for various indications. The data collection process involved a thorough examination of the case record form, capturing essential details such as patients age, parity, clinical presentations, examination findings, and results from clinical assessments and ultrasonography. Additionally, it included pre-induction CTG readings, Bishop scores, the method of administering tablet misoprostol, the quantity of tablets utilized, modes of delivery, fetal and maternal outcomes, any complications encountered, and NICU admissions.

Results: Vaginal delivery occurred in 90% of the vaginal group and 88% of the sublingual group. The mean induction-to-delivery interval was slightly shorter in the vaginal group. Oxytocin augmentation was more frequently required with sublingual misoprostol. Adverse effects such as fever, nausea, and diarrhea were occurring slightly more in the sublingual group without statistical significance. Non-reassuring cardiotocography was the leading indication for caesarean section. Neonatal outcomes showed no significant difference.

Conclusions: Both sublingual and vaginal misoprostol are equally effective and safe for term induction. The route may be individualized according to patient preference and clinical suitability.

Metrics

Metrics Loading ...

References

ACOG Committee on Practice Bulletins Obstetrics. Practice Bulletin No. 107: Induction of Labor. Obstet Gynecol.2009;114(2Pt1):386397. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1097/AOG.0b013e3181b48ef5

Cunningham FG, Leveno KJ, Bloom SL, Dashe JS, Hoffman BL, Casey BM, et al. Williams Obstetrics. 27th ed. New York: McGraw-Hill; 2022.

Hofmeyr GJ, Gülmezoglu AM, Pileggi C. Vaginal misoprostol for cervical ripening and induction of labour. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2010;(10):CD000941. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.CD000941.pub2

American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists. ACOG Practice Bulletin No. 222: Induction of Labor. Obstet Gynecol. 2020;135(4):e110–e127.

Tang OS, Gemzell-Danielsson K, Ho PC. Misoprostol: Pharmacokinetic profiles, effects on the uterus and side-effects. Int J Gynaecol Obstet. 2007;99 Suppl 2:S160–S167. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijgo.2007.09.004

Zieman M, Fong SK, Benowitz NL, Banskter D, Darney PD. Absorption kinetics of misoprostol with oral or vaginal administration. Obstet Gynecol. 1997;90(1):88–92. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/S0029-7844(97)00111-7

Caliskan E, Bodur H, Ozeren S, Corakci A, Ozkan S. Misoprostol 25 μg sublingually versus vaginally for labor induction at term: a randomized comparison. Obstet Gynecol. 2005;105(2):366-72.

Parimkayala J, Reddy KM, Chandrashekar R. Comparison of sublingual and vaginal misoprostol for induction of labour at term. Int J Reprod Contracept Obstet Gynecol. 2017;6(5):1941-45. DOI: https://doi.org/10.18203/2320-1770.ijrcog20171398

Malik A, Naz S, Fatima S. Comparison between sublingual and vaginal misoprostol for induction of labour in term pregnancies with PROM. J Ayub Med Coll Abbottabad. 2019;31(1):65-9.

Shetty A, Danielian P, Templeton A. Sublingual misoprostol for the induction of labour at term. BJOG. 2002;109(6):645-50. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1471-0528.2002.01459.x

Deepika K, Jha R, Nanda S. Comparison of sublingual and vaginal misoprostol for induction of labour at term. Int J Clin Obstet Gynaecol. 2019;3(5):142-6.

Dorr V, Sivasankaran S, Rizvi N, Thiruvoth F. Sublingual versus vaginal misoprostol for induction of labour at term: a comparative study. J Obstet Gynaecol India. 2016;66(Suppl 1):S335–S340.

Ayati S, Vahid Roudsari F, Torabian S, Hasanzadeh M, Farshidi F. Sublingual versus vaginal misoprostol for cervical ripening and induction of labour. J Obstet Gynaecol. 2014;34(8):712716.

Deepika K, Jha R, Nanda S. Comparison of sublingual and vaginal misoprostol for induction of labour at term. Int J Clin Obstet Gynaecol. 2019;3(5):142-6.