Literature DB >> 20144171

Sublingual versus vaginal misoprostol for induction of labor at term: a randomized prospective placebo-controlled study.

Kamal M Zahran1, Ahmed Y Shahin, Mohamad S Abdellah, Khalid I Elsayh.   

Abstract

AIMS: To assess the effectiveness and safety of sublingual misoprostol (50 microg), compared with the same dose administered vaginally every 6 h for cervical ripening and labor induction in women with a viable fetus in the third trimester of pregnancy.
METHODS: This double-blind randomized prospective placebo-controlled trial included 480 women with medical or obstetric indications for labor induction and undilated, uneffaced cervices. The patients were assigned randomly to receive 50 microg of sublingual or 50 microg of vaginal misoprostol every 6 h for 24 h. Maternal and neonatal outcome were analyzed.
RESULTS: A total of 169 (70.4%) patients delivered vaginally in the sublingual group compared to 160 (66.7%) in the vaginal group. The main indications for cesarean section in both groups were fetal distress (33/71 [46.4%] vs 38/80 [47.5%]), followed by failure of labor progress. Thirty three (13.8%) patients in the sublingual group had meconium staining of the amniotic fluid compared to 39 (16.3%) in the vaginal group. There was no difference between the groups regarding the induction-to-delivery interval, duration of labor, neonatal outcome or maternal side-effects.
CONCLUSION: Sublingual misoprostol is as effective as vaginal misoprostol for induction of labor at term. Moreover, the sublingual route is associated with a significantly higher patient satisfaction rate than vaginal misoprostol.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2009        PMID: 20144171     DOI: 10.1111/j.1447-0756.2009.01030.x

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Obstet Gynaecol Res        ISSN: 1341-8076            Impact factor:   1.730


  6 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

2.  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

3.  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

4.  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

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.

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

6.  Vaginal versus sublingual misoprostol for labor induction at term and post term: a randomized prospective study.

Authors:  Sedigheh Ayati; Fatemeh Vahidroodsari; Farnoosh Farshidi; Masoud Shahabian; Monavar Afzal Aghaee
Journal:  Iran J Pharm Res       Date:  2014       Impact factor: 1.696

  6 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.