A retrospective comparative study to evaluate the efficacy and safety of mifepristone with misoprostol over misoprostol alone in induction in labor
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.18203/2320-1770.ijrcog20184981Keywords:
Bishop’s score, Induction-delivery interval, Mifepristone, MisoprostolAbstract
Background: The aim is to compare the improvement in pre-induction Bishop’s score, proportion of patients going in labor and induction–delivery interval after using the Misoprostol versus Mifepristone and Misoprostol as cervical ripening and labor inducing agent.
Methods: It is retrospective comparative study conducted on 110 women. Women were randomized in group A and in group B of 55 patients in each group. Group A received tab Mifepristone 200 mg orally on day 1 followed by Misoprostol 25 ug after 48 hours and continued 6 hourly till maximum four tablets and group B patients received tablet Misoprostol 25ug and continued 25ug 6hrly maximum 4 doses. Women observed for improvement in Bishop‟s score, induction-delivery interval and requirement of subsequent doses of Misoprostol.
Results: Present study concluded that tablet Mifepristone is an efficient cervical ripening and inducing agent of labor as pre-induction Bishop’s score was improved. 36.4%patients went into labor only with tablet Mifepristone. The mean induction-delivery interval was,19±12.2hrs in Group 1 as compare to 13.1±13.0 hrs in Group 2. Mean Bishop’s score observed in Group 1 were 2.5±1.78 and 1.67±1.25 in Group 2. It was observed that there was significant improvement in the Bishop’s score after giving Mifepristone to the patients; mean Bishop’s 24hrs after mifepristone were 4.03±1.80. Repeated dose of Misoprostol required in Group 1 was observed to be higher than group 2 as shown in table 8. Mean misoprostol doses required in group 1 was 2.56±1.15 as compared to 1.71±1.58 in group 2.
Conclusions: Mifepristone with Misoprostol reduce the induction delivery interval and more potent in combination for induction of labour as compared to Misoprostol alone.
Metrics
References
Osis MJD, Padua KS, Duarte GA, Souza TR, Faúndes A. The opinion of Brazilian women regarding vaginal labor and cesarean section. Int J Obstet Gynecol 2001;75:S59-66.
Hannah ME, Hannah WJ, Hellman J, Hewson S, Milner R, Willan A. the Canadian Multicenter Post-term Pregnancy Trial Group: Induction of labour as compared with serial antenatal monitoring in post-term pregnancy. N Engl J Med. 1992;326(24):1587-92.
Crowley P. Interventions for preventing or improving the outcome of delivery at or beyond term (Cochrane Review). In: The Cochrane Library, Issue 3, 2000. Oxford: Update Software.
Bishop EH. Pelvic scoring for elective induction. Obstet Gynecol. 1964;24(2):266-8.
Mastrogiannis DS, Knuppel RA. Labor induced using methods that do not involve oxytocin. Clinical obstetrics and gynecology. 1995 Jun 1;38(2):259-66.
Frydman R, Baton C, Lelaidier C, Vial M, Bourget P, Fernandez H. Mife prostone for induction of labour. Lancet.1991;337(8739):488-9.
Bygdeman M, Swahn ML. Progesterone receptor blockage, Effect on uterine contractility and early pregnancy. Contraception. 1985;32(1):45-51.
Li L, Gao W, Chen S. Labour induction in women at term with Mifepristone and Misoprostol. Zhoghua Fu Chan Ke Za Zhi. 1996;31(11):681-4.
Elliot CL, Brennand JE, Calder AA. The effects of Mifepristone on cervical ripening and labor induction in primigravidae. Obstet Gynecol. 1998;92(5):804-9.
Wing DA, Fassett Michael J, Mishell Daniel R, Mifepristone for Preinduction Cervical Ripening Beyond 41 Weeks' Gestation: A Randomized Controlled Trial, Obstet Gynecol. 2000;96(4):543-8.
Su H, Li E, Weng L. Mifepristone for labour induction. Zhonghua Fu Chan Ke Za Zhi.1996;31 (11):676-80.
J McGill, Shetty A. Mifepristone and Misoprostol in the induction of labour at term. Int J Gynaecol Obstet. 2007;96(2):80-4.
Downloads
Published
How to Cite
Issue
Section
