A comparative study of the effect of induction of labour with vaginal misoprostol versus prostaglandin E2 gel on the incidence of pathological cardiotocography tracing

Archana Kumari, Nikita Chauhan, Anubha Vidyarthi


Background: The objective of the present study was to compare the two most commonly used agents for induction of labor-vaginal misoprostol and intracervical dinoprostone gel in terms of the incidence of cardiotocography (CTG) abnormalities and its correlation with fetal distress and fetomaternal outcome.

Methods: This is prospective case-control study conducted in department of obstetrics and gynecology, RIMS, Ranchi over a period of 15 months. 112 women requiring induction were randomly assigned to two groups of 56 each, Group M received vaginal misoprostol and Group D received intracervical dinoprostone E2 gel. 56 women with spontaneous labor served as control group. Groups were compared in terms of the incidence of suspicious or pathological CTG tracings, fetal distress, induction to vaginal delivery time, vaginal delivery rates, dose requirements, rate of emergency cesarean.

Results: Misoprostol was associated with shorter induction to delivery time (9.54 hours) than dinoprostone gel (13.54 hours), higher vaginal delivery rates (80.35% versus 62.5%), higher delivery rates (73.9%) with single dose itself unlike Group D, where 47.22% required more than one dose. Incidence of suspicious CTG was higher in group M (15.68%) versus 10.25% in Group D. Incidence of pathological CTG was also highest in Group M (7.8%) followed by Group D (2.56%) and Group C (7.8%). Dinoprostone gel lead to failed induction in 25% women, and hence higher caesarean rates.

Conclusions: While misoprostol is a better agent for induction when compared with dinoprostone E2 gel in terms of induction-delivery time, higher vaginal delivery rates, less dose requirement, it is associated with greater incidence of non-reassuring/pathological CTG. There was justified improvement in perinatal outcome due to preparedness beforehand with use of CTG.


Cardiotocography, Dinoprostone gel, Induction of labour, Prostaglandin E2, Vaginal misoprostol

Full Text:



American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists: Induction of labor. Practice Bulletin No. 107, 2009, Reaffied; 2013.

Cunningham F, Gary. Kenneth J, Leveno. Steven L. Bloom. Spong Yet al; Induction and Augmentation of Labor; Williams Obstetrics, 24th edition; Washington DC, McGraw-Hill; 2014:523-534.

Rayburn WF. Pre-induction cervical ripening: basis and methods of current practice. Obstet Gynecol Surv. 2002;57(10):683-92.

Adamsons K, Myers Re. Late decelerations and brain tolerance of the fetal monkey to intrapartum asphyxia. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 1997;128:893.

American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists. Intrapartum fetal heart rate monitoring. ACOG Pract Bulletin. 2005;105(5):1161-7.

NICE. Interpretation of cardiotocograph traces. Intrapartum Care: NICE Guideline CG; 2014:190.

Sanchez-Ramos L, Kaunitz AM, Wears RL, Delke I, Gaudier FL. Misoprostol for cervical ripening and labor induction: a meta-analysis. Obstet Gynecol. 1997;89:633-42.

American College of Obstetrician and Gynecologists. Response to Searle’s drug warning on misoprostol. Committee opinion 248. Washington, DC: ACOG; 2000.

Miller AM, Rayburn WF, Smith CV. Patterns of uterine activity after intravaginal PGE2 during ppreinduction cervical ripening. Am J Obstet Gynaecol. 1991;165:1006-9.

Perry MY, Leaphart WL. Intracervical versus posterior fornix dinoprostone insert for induction of labor. Am J Obstet Gynaecol. 2004;103:13-7.

Stempel JE, Prins RP, Dean S. Pre-induction cervical ripening: a randomized prospective comparison of the efficacy and safety of intravaginal and intracervical PGE2 gel. Am J Obstet Gynaecol. 1997;176:1305-12.

Goetzl L. Methods of cervical ripening and labor induction: Pharmacologic. Clinical Obstetrics and Gynecol. 2014;57:377-90.

Agarwal N, Gupta A, Kriplani A, Bhatla N, Parul. Six hourly vaginal misoprostol versus intracervical dinoprostone for cervical ripening and labor induction. J Obstet Gynaecol Res. 2003;29:147-51.

Rowlands S, Bell R, Donath S, Morrow S, Trudinger BJ. Misoprostol versus dinoprostone for cervical priming prior to induction of labour in term pregnancy: a randomised controlled trial. Aust N Z J Obstet Gynaecol. 2001;41(2):145-52.

Ozkan S, Çalışkan E, Doğer E, Yücesoy İ, Özeren S, Vural B. Comparative efficacy and safety of vaginal misoprostol versus dinoprostone vaginal insert in labor induction at term: a randomized trial. Arch Gynecol Obstet. 2009;280(1):19-24.

Chitrakar NS. Comparison of Misoprostol versus Dinoprostone for pre-induction cervical ripening at term. J Nepal Health Res Counc. 2012;10(1):10-5.

Wing DA. A comparison of misoprostol and prostaglandin E2 gel for preinduction cervical ripening and labor induction. Am J Obstet Gynecol 1995 Jun;172(6):1811-6.

Ramsey PS, Jones MM, Rahall A, Goodwin TM, Paul RH. Cardiotocographic abnormalities associated with dinoprostone and misoprostol cervical ripening. Obstet Gynecol. 2005;105(1):85-90.

Meyer M, Pflum J, Howard D. Outpatient misoprostol compared with dinoprostone gel for preinduction cervical ripening: A randomized controlled trial. Obstet Gynecol. 2005;105:466-72.