DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.18203/2320-1770.ijrcog20173497

Comparative study of misoprostol sublingually and dinoprostone gel intracervically for cervical ripening and induction of labor

Shikha Yadav, Nootan Chandwaskar

Abstract


Background: Both Prostaglandin E1 and E2 analog are being used for cervical ripening. The aims of study was to compare the efficacy and safety profile of sublingual misoprostol (PGE2) and intracervical dinoprostone (PGE1) for cervical ripening and induction of labor.

Methods: One hundred women with single live fetus and with gestational age of more than 37 weeks admitted for induction of labor were recruited for the study. Patients were randomized to receive either 25μg of misoprostol sublingually or dinaprostone gel (0.5mg) intracervically.

Results: There was shorter induction to active phase, induction to delivery time intervals and less requirement of oxytocin augmentation in misoprostol group than dinoprostone gel group. Incidence of tachysystole was higher in misoprostol group than dinoprostone gel group (22% vs 10%) however this was not statistically significant. Mode of delivery, maternal and neonatal complications were similar in both the groups.

Conclusions: Use of misoprostol in lower dose is a safe and cost-effective method for cervical ripening and induction of labor.


Keywords


Dinaprostone, Labor Induction, Misoprostol, Prostaglandin

Full Text:

PDF

References


Gulmezoglu AM, Crowther CA, Middleton P. Induction of labor for improving birth outcomes for women at or beyond term. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2006;(4):CD004945.

Stock SJ, Ferguson E, Duffy A, Ford I, Chalmers J, Norman JE. Outcomes of elective induction of labor compared with expectant management: population based study. BMJ. 2012;10:344:e2838.

Witter FR. Prostaglandin E2 preparations for preinduction cervical ripening. Clin Obstet Gynecol. 2000;43:469-74.

Thomas J1, Fairclough A, Kavanagh J, Kelly AJ. Vaginal prostaglandin (PGE2 and PGF2a) for induction of labor at term. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2014;(6):CD003101.

Tang OS, Gemzell-Danielsson K, Ho PC Misoprostol: pharmacokinetic profiles, effects on the uterus and side-effects. Int J Gynecol Obstet. 2007;99(2):S160-7.

Weeks A, Faúndes A. Misoprostol in obstetrics and gynecology. Int J Gynecol Obstet. 2007;99(2):S156-9.

Parveen S, Khateeb ZA, Mufti SM, Shah MA, Tandon VR, Hakak S et al. Comparison of sublingual, vaginal, and oral misoprostol in cervical ripening for first trimester abortion. Indian J Pharmacol. 2011;43(2):172-5.

Wing DA, Rahall A, Jones MM, Goodwin TM, Paul RH. Misoprostol: an effective agent for cervical ripening and labor induction. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 1995;172(6):1811-6.

McKenna DS, Ester JB, Proffitt M, Waddell KR. Misoprostol outpatient cervical ripening without subsequent induction of labor: A randomized trial. Obstet Gynecol. 2004;104(3):579-84.

Liu A, Lv J, Hu Y, Lang J, Ma L, Chen W. Efficacy and safety of intravaginal misoprostol versus intracervical dinoprostone for labor induction at term: a systematic review and meta-analysis. J Obstet Gynaecol Res. 2014;40(4):897-906.

Jha N, Sagili H, Jayalakshmi D, Lakshminarayanan S. Comparison of efficacy and safety of sublingual misoprostol with intracervical dinoprostone gel for cervical ripening in prelabor rupture of membranes after 34 weeks of gestation. Arch Gynecol Obstet. 2015;291(1):39-44.

Zhang Y, Wang J, Yu Y, Xie C, Xiao M, Ren L. Misoprostol versus prostaglandin E2 gel for labor induction in premature rupture of membranes after 34 weeks of pregnancy. Int J Gynecol Obstet. 2015;130(3):214-8.

Langenegger EJ, Odendaal HJ, Grove D. Oral misoprostol versus intracervical dinoprostone for induction of labor. Int J Gynecol Obstet 2005;88:242-8.

Patil KP, Swamy MK, Rao RK. Oral misoprostol vs intra-cervical dinoprostone for cervical ripening and labor induction. J Obstet Gynecol India. 2005;55(2):128-131.