Comparison of titrated oral misoprostol solution versus vaginal misoprostol for induction of labour in term obstetric patients for obstetric and neonatal outcomes: a randomized controlled trial

Puneeta Mahajan; Rajendra Popatrao Shitole

doi:10.18203/2320-1770.ijrcog20182346

Authors

Puneeta Mahajan Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Dr. Babasaheb Ambedkar Hospital, Rohini, New Delhi, India
Rajendra Popatrao Shitole Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Dr. D. Y. Patil Medical College and Research Hospital, Pimpri, Pune, Maharashtra, India

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.18203/2320-1770.ijrcog20182346

Keywords:

Apgar, Cervical ripening, Cesarean, Induction, Titrated misoprostol solution, Vaginal misoprostol

Abstract

Background: With more than 15% of all gravid women requiring prostaglandins in cervical ripening and labour induction. However, evidence is not clear about the preferred route or dose of the drug. So this study was designed with objectives to compare the induction delivery interval and safety of titrated oral misoprostol solution with vaginal misoprostol for labour induction in term primigravida women.

Methods: In this randomised controlled trial out of 576 eligible women, 220 women as per inclusion criteria between 37 and 42 weeks of gestation with an unfavourable cervix (Bishop score <6) with indication for labour induction were randomly assigned (110each) to receive titrated oral solution of 20 mL misoprostol solution (1 mcg/mL) every 1 hour for four doses and then were titrated against individual uterine response or vaginal misoprostol 25 mcg every 4 hours. Vaginal delivery within 12 hours was the primary outcome. The data were analyzed by intention-to-treat.

Results: Vaginal delivery occurred within 12 hours in 56 (50.9%) women in the titrated oral group and 24 (21.8%) women in the vaginal group with significant p-value (<0.001). The incidence of caesarean, hyper stimulation, low apgar score was less in the titrated oral group. More women experienced nausea in the titrated oral group.

Conclusions:Titrated oral misoprostol is safe and effective for labour induction in primigravida patients with unfavourable cervix.

Metrics

Metrics Loading ...

References

Martin JA, Hamilton BE, Sutton PD ET (2005): AL Births: final data for 2003: National vital statistics Reports: 54 (2).Hyattsville, MD:National center for Health Statistics.

American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, Committee on Obstetrics. Induction of labour. ACOG Technical Bulletin 217. Washington (DC): ACOG;1995.

Shi-Yann Cheng, MD, Ho Ming, MD, and Jui-Chi Lee, MD. Titrated oral compared with vaginal misoprostol for labour induction. Obstet Gynecol 2008;111:119-25.

Kelly AJ, Kavanagh, Thomas J. vaginal PGE2 gel for induction of labour at term, Cochrane database systemic review2003(4):CD003101.

Sanchez-Ramos L, Kaunitz AM, Del Valle GO, Delke I, Schroeder PA, Briones DK. Labour induction with prostaglandin E1 methyl analogue misoprostol versus oxytocin: a randomized trial. Obstet Gynecol 1993;81:332-6.

Hofmeyr GJ, Gulmezoglu AM, Alfirevic Z. Misoprostol for the induction of labour: a systemic review. Br J Obstet Gynecol. 1999;106:798-803.

Wing DA. Labour induction with misoprostol. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 1999;180:339-45.

Keirse MJNC. Prostaglandins in preinduction cervical ripening. Meta-analysis of worldwide clinical experience. J Reprod Med. 1993;38 suppl:89-98.

Wing DA, Park MR, Paul RH. A randomized comparison of oral and intravaginal misoprostol for labour induction. Obstet Gynecol. 2000;95:905-8.

Alfirevic Z, Weeks A. Oral misoprostol for induction of labour. Cochrane Database Sys Rev. 2006;(2):CD001338.

Weeks A, Alfirevic Z. Oral misoprostol administration for labour induction. Clin Obstet Gynecol. 2006;49:658-71.

Wing DA, Gaffaney CA. Vaginal misoprostol administration for cervical ripening and labour induction. Clin Obstet Gynecol. 2006;49:627-41.

Hofmeyr GJ, Gulmezoglu AM. Vaginal misoprostol for cervical ripening and labour induction in late pregnancy (Cochrane Review). In: The Cochrane Library, Issue 2, 2001. Oxford: Update Software.

Alfirevic Z, Howarth G, Gausmann A. Oral misoprostol for induction of labour with a viable fetus (Cochrane Review). In: The Cochrane Library, Issue 2, 2001. Oxford: Update Software.

Zieman M, Fong SK, Benowitz NL, Banskter D, Darney PD. Absorption kinetics of misoprostol with oral or vaginal administration. Obstet Gynecol. 1997;90:88-92.

Bennett KA, Butt K, Crane JM, Hutchens D, Young DC. A masked randomized comparison of oral and vaginal administration of misoprostol for labour induction. Obstet Gynecol. 1998;92:481-6.

Wing DA, Ham D, Paul RH. A comparison of orally administered misoprostol with vaginally administered misoprostol for cervical ripening and labour induction. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 1999;180:1155-60.

Shetty A, Martin R, Danielian P, Templeton A. A comparison of two dosage regimens of oral misoprostol for labour induction at term. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand. 2002;81:337-42.

Danielsson KG, Marions L, Rodriguez A, Spur BW, Wong PY, Bygdeman M. Comparison between oral and vaginal administration of misoprostol on uterine contractility. Obstet Gynecol. 1999;93:275-80.

Aalami-Harandi R, Karamali M, Moeini A. Induction of labor with titrated oral misoprostol solution versus oxytocin in term pregnancy: randomized controlled trial. Rev Bras Gyanecol Obstet. 2013;35(2):60-5

Ashalatha Shetty, Peter Danielian, Allan Templeton. A comparison of oral and vaginal misoprostol tablets in induction of labour at term. Br J Obstet Gynaecol. 2001;108:238-243.

Rasheed R, Alam AA, Younus S, Raza F. Oral versus vaginal Misoprostol for labour induction. J Pak Med Assoc. 2007;57(8):404-7.