DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.18203/2320-1770.ijrcog20181995

A study of effect of oral PGE1 and cervical PGE2 on induction of labor and mode of delivery

Sukanya Mukherjee, H. Valson, Balaji K.

Abstract


Background: Induction of labor is one of the most important procedures done by the Obstetricians. Induction of labor with the help of prostaglandins offer the advantage of promoting cervical ripening along with stimulating the contractility of the myometrium.

Methods: 200 pregnant women with singleton pregnancy both nulliparous and multiparous, were included in the study at term gestation (>39weeks) with Bishop’s score <6, and reactive NST. The subjects were divided in to two groups Group A including patients who were given oral PGE1 - 50 mcg Tab, and Group B with cervical PGE2, 0.5 mg, gel. The outcome indicators were recorded in both Group A and Group B and analyzed. The mean time taken from induction to vaginal delivery in Group A was 628±67 minutes and in Group B was 839±118 minutes. Incidence of LSCS in Group B when compared to Group A (p value <0.005).

Results: Incidence of LSCS in Primi’s in Group B compared to Primi’s in Group A was statistically significant (p value 0.009). Non-progression of labor was observed to be the major indication for LSCS in Group B. Meconium stained labor was found to be the major indication for LSCS in Group A.

Conclusions: The study concludes that using 50 mcg oral misoprostol, is an effective and safe mode of induction of labor in comparison to PGE2 gel. Vaginal deliveries are more with the use of oral misoprostol and the induction to delivery interval is also lesser than that in cervical PGE2 use.


Keywords


Induction, Labor, Prostaglandin

Full Text:

PDF

References


Crane JM, Butler B, Young DC, Hannah ME. Misoprostol compared with prostaglandin E2 for labour induction in women at term with intact membranes and unfavourable cervix: A systematic review. BJOG. 2006;113(6):1366-76.

Lamichhane S, Subedi S, Banerjee B, Bhattara R. Outcome of induction of labor. A prospective study. Ann Int Med Dent Res. 2016;2(6):1-5.

Lawani OL, Onyebuchi AK, Iyoke CA, Okafo CN, Ajah LO. Obstetric outcome and significance of labour induction in a health resource poor setting. Obstet Gynecol Int. 2014;2014.

Donald I. Management of labour. 7th edition, New Delhi. BI publication Pvt Ltd. 2014;24.

Vrouenraets FP1, Roumen FJ, Dehing CJ, van den Akker ES, Aarts MJ, Scheve EJ. Bishop score and risk of cesarean delivery after induction of labor in nulliparous women. Obstet Gynecol. 2005 Apr;105(4):690-7.

Wing DA, Jones MM, Rahall A, Goodwin TM, Paul RH; A comparison of misoprostol and prostaglandin E2 gel for preinduction cervical ripening and labour induction. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 1995;172(6):1804-1810.

Jacobsson B, Ladfors L, Milsom I. Advanced maternal age and adverse perinatal outcome. Obstet Gynecol. 2004;104:727-33.

Joseph KS, Allen AC, Dodds L, Turner LA, Scott H, Liston R. The perinatal effects of delayed childbearing. Obstet Gynecol. 2005;105:1410-8.

Centre for Maternal and Child Enquiries (CMACE) perinatal mortality 2009: United Kingdom. London: CMACE, 2011.

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.

Raio L, Ghezzi F, Di Naro E, Brühwiler H, Lüscher KP. Shorter delivery time after induction with misoprostol. Zeitschrift fur Geburtshilfe und Neonatologie. 2001;205(4):147-51.

Khan NB, Ahmed I, Malik A, Sheikh L. Factors associated with failed induction of labour in a secondary care hospital. J Pak Med Assoc. 2012 Jan;62(1):6-10.

Kundodyiwa TW, Alfirevic Z, Weeks AD. Low-dose oral misoprostol for induction of labor: a systematic review. Obstet Gynecol. 2009;113:374-83.

Kwon JS, Davies GA, Mackenzie VP. A comparison of oral and vaginal misoprostol for induction of labour at term: a randomised trial. BJOG. 2001 Jan 1;108(1):23-6.