DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.18203/2320-1770.ijrcog20174131

Can prostaglandin E1 (Misoprostol) be an alternative to prostaglandin E2 (PGE2) for induction of labor in prelabor rupture of membranes (PROM) after 34 weeks period of gestation

Jitendra D. Mane, Anil K. Singh

Abstract


Background: To compare efficacy and safety of prostaglandin E1 (misoprostol) to prostaglandin E2 (PGE2) for induction of labor in prelabor rupture of membranes (PROM) after 34 weeks period of gestation and its use as an alternative to PGE1.

Methods: 80 women were recruited in this prospective interventional study who was admitted with PROM after 34 weeks of period of gestation for delivery. These women who were planned for induction of labor were alternately assign into two groups i.e. Misoprostol group (n = 40) who received Tab misoprostol 50 mcg orally 4 hourly (h) maximum of five doses and PGE2 group (n = 40) received PGE2 gel intracervically every 6 h for maximum of 3 doses. Analysis regarding safety and efficacy of the drugs was done with regards to maternal and perinatal outcome.

Results: Out of 80 women, 40 received misoprostol and 40 received PGE2 gel. The intervention to induction interval was significantly less in PGE2 group (p-0.004) whereas the induction to delivery interval was similar in both groups (p- 0.628). Significant number of women delivered vaginally without need for oxytocin in misoprostol group, (p- 0.039) however there was no statistical difference in both groups as far as overall vaginal deliveries and caesarean section are concerned. Comparable neonatal and maternal morbidities were noted in both groups.

Conclusions: Oral misoprostol can be used as an alternative to PGE2 gel for induction of labor after 34 weeks of period of gestation in women with PROM as it was found to be safe and effective in achieving vaginal deliveries with reduced need for oxytocin, without increasing maternal and neonatal morbidity.

 


Keywords


Beyond 34 weeks period of gestation of pregnancy, Induction of labor, PGE1(Misoprostol), PGE2 gel, PROM

Full Text:

PDF

References


Royal college of obstetricians and gynecologists (rcog). induction of labour, evidence-based clinical guideline number 9. rcog clinical effectiveness support unit. London: RCOG press; 2001.

Amjad N, Rasheed F, Imran T. Comparison of the response of oxytocin versus prostaglandin E2 vaginal pessary for labour induction in pre labour rupture of membranes. Annals. 2009;15:80-4.

Hannah ME, Ohlsson A, Farine D, Hewson SA, Hodnett ED, Myhr TL, et al. Induction of labour compared with expectant management for pre labour rupture of membranes at term PROM study group. N Engl J Med. 1996;334:1005-10.

Jazayeri A, Galan H. Premature rupture of membranes; 2006. Available from: URL: http://www.emedicine.com/med/topic3246.htm.

Kelly AJ, Kavanagh J, Thomas J. Vaginal prostaglandin (PGE2 and PGF2a) for induction of labor at term. Cocharane Database Syst Rev. 2003; 4:CD003101.

Hannah ME. Induction of labor compared with expectant management for pre labour rupture of the membranes at term. New England J Med. 1996;334:1005-10.

Alfirevic Z, Aflaifel N, Weeks A. Oral misoprostol of induction of labour (Review). Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews 2014;6:CD001338.

Weeks A, Alfirevic Z, Faundes A, Hofmeyr GJ. Misoprostol for induction of labor with a live fetus. Int J of Gynaecol Obstet. 2007;99:5194-7.

Gupta A, Kumari S. Prostaglandin E1 tablet versus prostaglandin E2 gel for induction of labor in prelabor rupture of membrane at term. International journal of enhanced research in medicines and dental care. 2015;2(6):1-7.

Chaudhary S, Mitra SN, Benerjee PK, Biswas PK, Bhattacharya S. Comparison of vaginal misoprostol tablets and prostaglandin E2 gel for the induction of labor in premature rupture of membrane at term: A randomized comparative trial. J Obstet Gynecol Res. 2011;37:1564-71.

Abraham C, Meirowitz N, Kohn N. Labor induction for premature rupture of membranes using vaginal misoprostol versus dinoprostone vaginal insert. Am J Perinatol. 2014;31(3):181-6.

Frohn WE, Simmons S, Carlan SJ. Prostaglandin E2 gel versus misoprostol for cervical ripening in patients with premature rupture of membranes after 34 weeks. Obstet Gynecol. 2002;99:206-10.

Oza A, Shah JM, Mewada B, Thaker R. A comparative study between PGE1 and PGE2 for induction of labour in premature rupture of membrane at term. Int J Reprod Contracept Obstet Gynecol. 2016;5:202-5

Deodhar P, Rai S. Comparative study of misoprostol versus dinoprostone for induction of labour. Ind Med Gaz. 2013:2:454-7.

Nagpal MB, Raghunandan C, Saili A. Oral misoprostol versus intracervical prostaglandin E2 gel for active active management of premature rupture of membranes at term. Int J Gynaecol Obstet. 2009;106(1):23-6.

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

Shah K, Doshi H. Premature Rupture of Membrane at Term: Early Induction Versus Expectant Management. J Obstet Gynaecol India. 2012;62(2):172-5.