Literature DB >> 18823486

Comparison of sublingual versus vaginal misoprostol for the induction of labour: a systematic review.

A S R Souza1, M M R Amorim, F E L Feitosa.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: The induction of full-term labour in women with a live fetus remains a major challenge in modern obstetrics.
OBJECTIVES: To determine, using the best level of evidence available, the efficacy and safety of sublingual administration of misoprostol compared with vaginal misoprostol in the third trimester of pregnancy for the induction of labour, according to initial doses, in women with a live, full-term fetus and an unripe cervix. SEARCH STRATEGY: Pubmed/Medline, Lilacs and Scielo databases were consulted, as well as clinical trials registered in the Cochrane Register from January 1996 to February 2008, using the keywords 'misoprostol', 'labour, obstetric', 'delivery, obstetric', 'induced labour' and 'parturition' with the search limits of 'clinical trials' and 'randomised clinical trials'. SELECTION CRITERIA: This review contains randomised clinical trials in which the sublingual and vaginal routes of administration of misoprostol were compared. Participants were pregnant women with an indication for induction of labour and a live fetus more than 37 weeks of gestational age. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: The primary analysis compared sublingual and vaginal routes of administration of misoprostol. Secondary analyses compared different routes and initial doses of misoprostol. Statistical analysis included odds ratios and their respective 95% CI. To evaluate the heterogeneity of the studies, the I-squared test was used, studies being considered heterogeneous when I 2 was greater than 50%. MAIN
RESULTS: Five good quality clinical trials involving a total of 740 women were eligible, and all were included. No statistically significant difference was found between the sublingual and the vaginal misoprostol groups with respect to the rate of vaginal delivery not achieved within 24 hours (OR 1.27, 95% CI 0.87-1.84), uterine hyperstimulation syndrome (OR 1.20, 95% CI 0.61-2.33) or caesarean section (OR 1.33, 95% CI 0.96-1.85). An increased risk of uterine tachysystole was found in the sublingual misoprostol group (OR 1.70, 95% CI 1.02-2.83). When the studies were grouped according to the initial dose of misoprostol, no significant difference was found between sublingual or vaginal groups. AUTHOR'S
CONCLUSIONS: The sublingual route of administration is as effective as the vaginal route in inducing labour in full-term pregnancies with live fetuses. However, the safety, adverse effects, optimal dose and perinatal outcome related to this route of administration remain to be established, and it cannot be recommended for routine use in obstetric practice.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2008        PMID: 18823486     DOI: 10.1111/j.1471-0528.2008.01872.x

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  BJOG        ISSN: 1470-0328            Impact factor:   6.531


  8 in total

1.  A comparison of vaginal versus buccal misoprostol for cervical ripening in women for labor induction at term (the IMPROVE trial): a triple-masked randomized controlled trial.

Authors:  David M Haas; Joanne Daggy; Kathleen M Flannery; Meredith L Dorr; Carrie Bonsack; Surya S Bhamidipalli; Rebecca C Pierson; Anthony Lathrop; Rachel Towns; Nicole Ngo; Annette Head; Sarah Morgan; Sara K Quinney
Journal:  Am J Obstet Gynecol       Date:  2019-05-07       Impact factor: 8.661

Review 2.  Methods of induction of labour: a systematic review.

Authors:  Ellen L Mozurkewich; Julie L Chilimigras; Deborah R Berman; Uma C Perni; Vivian C Romero; Valerie J King; Kristie L Keeton
Journal:  BMC Pregnancy Childbirth       Date:  2011-10-27       Impact factor: 3.007

3.  Sublingual versus Vaginal Misoprostol for the Induction of Labor at Term: A Randomized, Triple-Blind, Placebo-Controlled Clinical Trial.

Authors:  Bahia Namavar Jahromi; Foroogh Poorgholam; Gholamhossein Yousefi; Leila Salarian
Journal:  Iran J Med Sci       Date:  2016-03

4.  Survey of Provider Preferences Regarding the Route of Misoprostol for Induction of Labor at Term.

Authors:  Rachel Towns; Sara K Quinney; Rebecca C Pierson; David M Haas
Journal:  AJP Rep       Date:  2017-07-25

5.  Misoprostol administered sublingually at a dose of 12.5 μg versus vaginally at a dose of 25 μg for the induction of full-term labor: a randomized controlled trial protocol.

Authors:  Daniele Sofia Moraes Barros Gattás; José Roberto da Silva Junior; Alex Sandro Rolland Souza; Francisco Edson Feitosa; Melania Maria Ramos de Amorim
Journal:  Reprod Health       Date:  2018-04-18       Impact factor: 3.223

6.  Induction of labour in nulliparous women- quick or slow: a cohort study comparing slow-release vaginal insert with low-dose misoprostol oral tablets.

Authors:  Axelina Eriksson; Sarah Jeppesen; Lone Krebs
Journal:  BMC Pregnancy Childbirth       Date:  2020-02-07       Impact factor: 3.007

7.  Misoprostol administered sublingually at a dose of 12.5 μg versus vaginally at a dose of 25 μg for the induction of full-term labor: a randomized controlled trial.

Authors:  Daniele S M B Gattás; Melania M R de Amorim; Francisco E L Feitosa; José R da Silva-Junior; Lívia C G Ribeiro; Gustavo F A Souza; Alex S R Souza
Journal:  Reprod Health       Date:  2020-04-10       Impact factor: 3.223

8.  Sublingual misoprostol vs. oral misoprostol solution for induction of labor: A retrospective study.

Authors:  Mahdi Amini; Dag Wide-Swensson; Andreas Herbst
Journal:  Front Surg       Date:  2022-09-15
  8 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.