DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.18203/2320-1770.ijrcog20200868

Oxytocin versus Misoprostol used as an induction of labour in term in early rupture of Amniotic membranes

Jaydeep J. Bhatu, Ankita B. Chaudhari, Nilesh R. Chauhan

Abstract


Background: Pre labor Rupture of membranes is a common obstetrical problem, significant event as it transforms an ordinary pregnancy into a high risk one. Majority of cases of PROM - of about 60% occur after 37 completed weeks Induction of labour is artificial. Misoprostol is receiving attention as a cervical modifier and labour induction agent. This study compares the safety and efficacy of Misoprostol with Oxytocin in labour induction in term pre labour rupture of membranes. Objective of this study was to compare the safety and efficacy of Misoprostol with that of Oxytocin in labour induction in PROM. The effects were compared between primipara and multipara in a selected sample.

Methods: General condition is assessed by pulse rate, blood pressure, height, weight with particular attention to pedal odema, anemia. Cardiovascular and respiratory systems were examined, rule out cephalo pelvic disproportion and for Bishop’s scoring. USG for foetal maturity, Liquor status and for foetal well-being. Admission CTG.

Results: There is no significant difference was observed between two groups either in vaginal delivery or in incidence of LSCS. Mean induction delivery interval in misoprostol group for nullipara is 8.5 hours. For multipara it is 6.6 hours. And in oxytocin group for nullipara is 10:4 hours. In multipara it is 6.5 for primipara it was significantly reduced in misoprostol group compared to syntocinon group.

Conclusions: Misoprostol is an effective, cheap, safe, stable at room temperature and easy to use if it is used in appropriate dosage for induction of labour in pre-labour rupture of membranes at term.


Keywords


Early rupture of membranes, Induction of labour, Meconium stained liquor, Misoprostol, Neonatal intensive care unit, Oxytocin

Full Text:

PDF

References


Evaldson GR, Malmborg AS - PROM and ascending infection. Brit Obstet Gynaecol. 1982;89:793-801.

Ngai SN, Chan YM. Misoprostol compared with syntocinon in women at term with PROM. RCOG 2000;107(2):222-7.

Karim SMM, Trunall RC, Hilliert K, Patel RC. Induction of labour with PGF2α J. Obstet Gynaecol. 1969;76:769-89.

Fernandiz E, Vaila S. Fernandez E, Vavilala S. Misoprostol-a miracle drug. Obs Gynae Today. 2001;9:530-4.

da Graça Krupa F, Cecatti JG, de Castro Surita FG, Milanez HM, Parpinelli MÂ. Misoprostol versus expectant management in premature rupture of membranes at term. An Inter J Obstet Gynaecol. 2005;112(9):1284-90.

Kadanali S, Küçüközkan T, Zor N, Kumtepe Y. Comparison of labor induction with misoprostol vs. oxytocin/prostaglandin E2 in term pregnancy. Inter J Gynecol Obstet. 1996;55(2):99-104.

Sanchez-Ramos LU, Kaunitz AM, Del GV, Delke IS, Schroeder PA, Briones DK. Labor induction with the prostaglandin E1 methyl analogue misoprostol versus oxytocin: a randomized trial. Obstet Gynecol. 1993;81(3):332-6.

Kramer RL, Gilson GJ, Morrison DS, Martin D, Gonzalez JL, Qualls CR. A randomized trial of misoprostol and oxytocin for induction of labor: safety and efficacy. Obstet Gynecol. 1997;89(3):387-91.

Chuck FJ, Huffaker BJ. Labor induction with intravaginal misoprostol versus intracervical prostaglandin E2 gel (Prepidil gel): randomized comparison. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 1995;173(4):1137-42.

Wing DA, Paul RH. Induction of labor with Misoprostol for PROM beyond 36 Week’s gestation. AMJ Obstet Gynaecol. 1998:179(1):94-9.