DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.18203/2320-1770.ijrcog20183341

I. V. Oxytocin versus oral Misoprostol for augmentation of labour, associated complications and effect on neonatal wellbeing

Swapnil Wilson, Subrata Das

Abstract


Background: The complications of prolonged labor are well recognized and the caesarean section has been used liberally. But even then, prolonged labor continues to be a problem. This could be due to weak uterine contractions or poor cervical dilatation. The problem can be overcome with the use of oxytocic drugs. The aim of the study was to compare the efficacy, adverse effects, safety, and feto-maternal outcome of the ARM and oral misoprostol with Artificial Rupture of Membrane (ARM) and oxytocin infusion for labor augmentation.

Methods: This prospective study was conducted in the labor room of NRS Medical College and Hospital Kolkata and included 100 primigravidae women carrying singleton pregnancy at term with spontaneous onset of labor.

Results: The result findings of the present study show that the prolonged labor was the major indication for LSCS in both the groups. There was a significantly higher subjects (P <0.05*) had fetal distress or fetal bradycardia, meconium staining of liquor, Tachysystole in the misoprostol group, compared to oxytocin group. No significant difference was observed among the groups with respect to neonatal wellbeing.

Conclusions: Both the agents i.e. oral misoprostol and I.V. oxytocin shortens the duration of labor effectively and are effective for augmentation of labor. Apart from Tachysystole and meconium staining of liquor and fetal distress the incidence of any other complication was not significantly more in the oral misoprostol group when compared with oxytocin group. Status of the neonate was almost similar in both the groups.


Keywords


ARM, Labor, Misoprostol, Oxytocin

Full Text:

PDF

References


O'Driscoll K, Foley M, MacDonald D. Active management of labor as an alternative to cesarean section for dystocia. Obstet Gynecol. 1984;63(4):485-90.

Rogers R, Gilson GJ, Miller AC, Izquierdo LE, Curet LB, Qualls CR. Active management of labor: does it make a difference? Am J Obstet Gynecol. 1997;177(3):599-605.

Brown HC, Paranjothy S, Dowswell T, Thomas J. Package of care for active management in labour for reducing caesarean section rates in low-risk women. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2008;4.

Nicholson JM, Parry S, Caughey AB, Rosen S, Keen A, Macones GA. The impact of the active management of risk in pregnancy at term on birth outcomes: a randomized clinical trial. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2008;198(5):511-e1.

Thornton JG, Lilford RJ. Active management of labour: current knowledge and research issues. BMJ. 1994;309(6951):366-9.

Sadler LC, Davison T, McCowan LM. A randomised controlled trial and meta‐analysis of active management of labour. BJOG. 2000;107(7):909-15.

Cunningham, Leveno, Hauth B, Rouse, Spong. Williams Obstetrics. 23rd edition. Mc. Graw Hill; 2009;21:490-499.

Clark SL, Belfort MA, Dildy GA, Herbst MA, Meyers JA, Hankins GD. Maternal death in the 21st century: causes, prevention, and relationship to cesarean delivery. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2008;199(1):36-e1.

Friedman E. The graphic analysis of labor. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 1954;68:1568-75.

Friedman EA. Primigravid labor: a graphicostatistical analysis. Obstet Gynecol. 1955;6:567-89.

Orji E. Evaluating progress of labor in nulliparas and multiparas using the modified WHO partograph. Int J Gynecol Obstet. 2008;102(3):249-52.

Philpott RH, Castle WM. Cervicographs in the management of labour in primigravidae: I. The alert line for detecting abnormal labour. BJOG: An Int J Obstet Gynaecol. 1972 Jul;79(7):592-8.

World Health Organization. Coverage of Maternity Care. A listing of available information. 4th edition. Geneva: World Health Organization. 1997. Available at http://apps.who.int/iris/bitstream/handle/10665/63878/WHO_RHT_MSM_96.28_%28part1%29.pdf?sequence=1&isAllowed=y

World Health Organization. The partograph. Sections 1,2,3,4. WHO/MCH/88.4. Geneva: WHO;1988.

Ho M, Cheng SY, Li TC. Titrated oral Misoprostol solution compared with intravenous oxytocin for labor augmentation: a randomized controlled trial. Obstet Gynecol. 2010;116(3):612-8.

Villano KS, Lo JY, Alexander JM, McIntire DD, Leveno KJ. A dose-finding study of oral misoprostol for labor augmentation. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2011;204(6):560-e1.

Bleich AT, Alexander JM, McIntire DD, Leveno KJ. An analysis of second-stage labor beyond 3 hours in nulliparous women. Am J Perinatol. 2012;29(09):717-22.

Winikoff B, Dabash R, Durocher J, Darwish E, Ngoc NT, León W, et al. Treatment of post-partum haemorrhage with sublingual misoprostol versus oxytocin in women not exposed to oxytocin during labour: a double-blind, randomised, non-inferiority trial. The Lancet. 2010;375(9710):210-6.

Tolosa JE, Salati J. Third stage of labor. In: Obstetric Evidence Based Guidelines. 3rd Ed. CRC Press; 2017;27:121-8.