Induction of labour at term: 25 mcg 2 hourly oral misoprostol or 6 hourly intracervical cerviprime, safety and efficacy
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.18203/2320-1770.ijrcog20196027Keywords:
Comparative study, Cerviprime, Induction of labour, MisoprostolAbstract
Background: There are various methods for induction of labour, both mechanical and pharmacological. Prostaglandins in induction have been commonly used. Studies have been done using vaginal and sublingual use of misoprostol. This study analyses efficacy of both oral misoprostol used in low frequent doses as per FIGO 2017 guidelines and intracervical prostaglandins for induction of labour.
Methods: A total 159 consecutive pregnant term mothers with singleton pregnancy, intact membranes and unfavorable cervix were subdivided into two subgroups, first subgroup was administered 25 mcg oral misoprostol at 2 hourly interval and those in subgroup B were given intracervical PGE2. Both these subgroups were prospectively followed to assess efficacy in induction of labour at term and outcome in foetus and mother. Statistical analysis was done using chi square test.
Results: It was found that the induction to delivery interval was significantly lesser in the cerviprime group (19.31 hours) compared to the misoprostol group (25.19 hours). However, there was no significant difference in the rate of vaginal delivery and mean duration of labour, rates of caesarean section, maternal and neonatal complications in both the groups. More women in the cerviprime group required augmentation with oxytocin. However, on comparing the cost of induction as per the mean doses used, the cost of induction with misoprostol was much lesser than that of cerviprime use.
Conclusions: Oral use of Tab. misoprostol was not more efficacious than the use of cerviprime gel in induction of labour.
References
World Health Organization. WHO Recommendations for Induction of Labour. Geneva: World Health Organization; 2011. Available at: http://apps.who.int/iris/bitstream/10665/44531/1/9789241501156_eng.pdf.
Beischer NA, Mackay EV, Colditz PB. Obstetrics and the Newborn. An Illustrated Textbook; 1997;3:449.
Acharya T, Devkota R, Bhattarai B, Acharya R. Outcome of misoprostol and oxytocin in induction of labour. SAGE Open Med. 2017;5:1-7.
Goldberg AB, Greenberg MB, Darney PD. Misoprostol and pregnancy. N Engl J Med. 2001;344(1):38-48.
Morris JL, Winikoff B, Dabash R, Weeks A, Faundes A, Gemzell-Danielsson K. IJOG FIGO's updated recommendations for misoprostol used alone in gynecology and obstetrics, 2017. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1002/ijgo.12181.
Heffner LJ, Elkin E and Fretts RC. Impact of labor induction, gestational age, and maternal age on cesarean delivery rates. Obstet Gynecol. 2003;102(2):287-93.
Dongol A, Shakya S, Chawla C. Safety and efficacy of misoprostol for induction of labour. J Nepal Health Res Counc. 2010;8(1):27-30.
Wang X, Yang A, Ma Q, Li X, Qin L, He T. Comparative study of titrated oral misoprostol solution and vaginal dinoprostone for labor induction at term pregnancy. Arch Obstet Gynaecol. 2016;294(3):495-503.
Sahu L, Chakravertty B. Comparison of prostaglandin E1 (misoprostol) with prostaglandin E2(dinoprostone) for labor induction. J Obstet Gynecol India. 2004;54(2):139-42.
Patil K, Swamy MK, Rao RK. Oral misoprostol versus intra-cervical dinoprostone for cervical ripening and labour induction. J Obstet Gynec India. 2005;55(2):128-31.
Krishnamurthy MB, Srikantaiah AM. Misoprostol alone versus a combination of Dinoprostone and Oxytocin for induction of labour. J Obstet Gynec India. 2006;56(5):413-6.
Prager M, Eneroth-Grimfors E, Edlund M, Marions L. A randomised controlled trial of intravaginal dinoprostone, intravaginal misoprostol and transcervical balloon catheter for labour induction. BJOG. 2008;115(11):1443-50.
Yawn BP, Wollan P, McKeon K, Field CS.Temporal changes in rates and reasons for induction of term labor, 1980-1996. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2001;184(4):611-9.
Balasubramaniyan RR, Sellathamby GD. Comparative study of cerviprime gel with oral misoprostol in induction of labour for post datism and PIH and IUGR. Indian J Applied Res. 2017;7:9.
Langenegger EJ, Odendaal HJ, Grové D. Clinical article oral misoprostol versus intracervical dinoprostone for induction of labor. International J Gynecol Obstet. 2005;88:242-8.
Windrim R, Bennet K, Mundle W, Young D. Oral administration of misoprostol for labour induction: a randomised controlled trial. Obstet Gynecol. 1997;89:392-7.
Dallenbach P, Boulvain M, Viardot C, Irion O. Oral misoprostol or vaginal dinoprostone for labour induction: a randomized controlled trial. Obstet Gynecol. 2003;188:162-7.
Hofmeyr GJ, Alferivic Z, Matonhodze B, Brocklehurst P, Campbell E, Nikodem VC. Titrated oral misoprostol solution for induction of labour: a multi-centre, randomised trial. Br J Obstet Gynaecol. 2001;108:952-9.
Barrilleaux PS, Bofill JA, Terrone DA, Magann EF, May WL, Morrison JC. Cervical ripening and induction of labour with misoprostol, dinoprostone gel, and a Foley catheter: a randomized trial of 3 techniques. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2002;186:1124-9.
Alfirevic Z. Oral misoprostol for induction of labour. The cochrane database of systemic reviews. Ist Issue, Pub. John Wiley and Sons Ltd. 2006.
Kundodyiwa TW, Alfirevic Z, Weeks AD. Low-dose oral misoprostol for induction of labor: a systematic review. Obstet Gynecol. 2009;113(2 Pt 1):374.
Hofmeyr GJ, Gülmezoglu AM, Pileggi C. Vaginal misoprostol for cervical ripening and induction of labour. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2010;10:CD000941.
Bartha JL, Comino-Delgado R, Garci-Benasach F, Martinez-Del-Fresno P, Moreno-Corral LJ. Oral misoprostol and intracervical dinoprostone for cervical ripening and labor induction: a randomized comparison. Obstet Gynecol. 2000;96:465-9.
Faucett AM, Daniels K, Lee HC, El-Sayed YY, Blumenfeld YJ. Oral misoprostol versus vaginal dinoprostone for labor induction in nulliparous women at term. J Perinatol. 2014;34:95-9.
