DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.18203/2320-1770.ijrcog20175239

Efficacy of 25 mcg sublingual versus vaginal misoprostol for induction of labor

Sonal Dewangan, Mithlesh Dewangan, Noor Afshan Sabzposh, Imam Bano, Syed Manazir Ali

Abstract


Background: Currently, to decrease the incidence of contractility disturbances and neonatal complications, 25 mcg of vaginal misoprostol is recommended for induction of labor. American College of Obstetrics and Gynecology suggested 25 mcg every 4-6 hourly by vaginal route. But till date, there is no consensus either for route or dosage. The present study was to compare the efficacy and suitability of low dose (25 μg) sublingual misoprostol for induction of labor in term pregnancy as compared with the same dose given vaginally.

Methods: This was a hospital based unblinded randomized prospective study conducted in the Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology in collaboration with the Department of Pediatrics, Jawaharlal Nehru Medical College, Aligarh Muslim University, Aligarh from February 2015 to November 2016.The study involved pregnant women attending O.P.D. or admitted in the labor room. Patients were randomly allocated into two groups: Group 1 received 25 mcg of misoprostol sublingually and Group 2 received 25 mcg of misoprostol 4 hourly vaginally to a maximum of 5 doses. Maternal and neonatal outcomes were analysed.

Results: There is no difference between groups for indications for induction of labor, mean induction to the onset of contraction interval and mean interval from the initiation of induction to the delivery. No significant difference in indication for caesarean section and number of doses. No significant differences in neonatal outcomes.

Conclusions: 25µg misoprostol administered by sublingual route is equally efficacious as by vaginal route for induction of labor at term. 


Keywords


Efficacy, Induction of labour, Misoprostol, Maternal and perinatal outcome, Pregnancy, Sublingual Misoprostol, Vaginal

Full Text:

PDF

References


WHO. WHO Global survey on maternal and perinatal health. Induction of labour data. Geneva; World health Organization: 2010.

Margulies M, Pérez GC, Voto L. Misoprostol to induce labour. The Lancet. 1992;339(8784):64.

Caliskan E, Bodur H, Ozeren S, Corakci A, Ozkan S, Yucesoy I. Misoprostol 50 μg sublingually versus vaginally for labor induction at term: a randomized study. Gynecologic and Obstetric Investigation. 2005;59(3):155-61.

Bartusevicius A, Barcaite E, Krikstolaitis R, Gintautas V, Nadisauskiene R. Sublingual compared with vaginal misoprostol for labour induction at term: a randomised controlled trial. Int J Obstet Gynaecol. 2006;113(12):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. Int J Obstet Gynaecol. 2007;114(10):1215-21.

Zahran KM, Shahin AY, Abdellah MS, Elsayh KI. Sublingual versus vaginal misoprostol for induction of labor at term: A randomized prospective placebo‐controlled study. J Obstet Gynaecol Res. 2009;35(6):1054-60.

Filho M, Olímpio Barbosa de, Albuquerque, Rivaldo Mendes de, Pacheco, Álvaro José Correia, et al. Sublingual versus vaginal misoprostol for labor induction of term pregnancies. Rev Bras Ginecol Obstet. 2005;27:24-31.

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.

Siwatch S, Kalra J, Bagga R, Jain V. Sublingual versus vaginal misoprostol for labor induction. J Postgraduate Med Education Res. 2012;46(3):138-43.

Ayati S, Vahidroodsari F, Farshidi F, Shahabian M, Aghaee MA. Vaginal Versus sublingual misoprostol for labor induction at term and post term: a randomized prospective study. Iranian J Pharm Res. 2014;13(1):299.

Jahromi BN, Poorgholam F, Yousefi G, Salarian L. Sublingual versus vaginal misoprostol for the induction of labor at term: a randomized, triple-blind, placebo-controlled clinical trial. Iranian J Med Sci. 2016;41(2):79.

Sharami SH, Milani F, Faraji R, Bloukimoghadam K, Momenzadeh S, Ebrahimi H. Comparison of 25 [mu] g Sublingual and 50 [mu] g intravaginal Misoprostol for cervical ripening and labor: a randomized controlled equivalence trial. Arch Iranian Med. 2017;17(10):652.

Tayyba A, Mehreen, Nosheen. Comparison between Sublingual and Vaginal Misoprostol for Labor Induction at Term. PJMHS. 2013;7(4):1038-41.