Literature DB >> 23024525

A Comparison of Vaginal vs. Oral Misoprostol for Induction of Labor-Double Blind Randomized Trial.

Promila Jindal1, Kumkum Avasthi, Maninder Kaur.   

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: To compare efficacy and safety of 50 μgm misoprostol vaginal with oral for labor induction.
METHODS: 110 women at term gestation, Bishop score ≤4, with various indications for labor induction were randomized and double blinded. After decoding 51 women had received misoprostol orally and 52 vaginally, four hourly (maximum six doses) or till woman went into active labor.
RESULTS: Statistical analysis was done with SPSS 11.0. In vaginal misoprostol group induction delivery interval was significantly less (9.79 vs. 16.47 h) and successful induction was significantly higher (90.38 vs. 74.51%) than oral group, with in 24 h of induction. As for as dose required is concerned in vaginal group 40.38% women needed two doses for delivery, in contrast 35.29% in oral group maximum six doses were required.
CONCLUSION: Vaginal route of misoprostol is more effective labor inducing agent than oral.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Induction of labor; Oral misoprostol; Vaginal misoprostol

Year:  2011        PMID: 23024525      PMCID: PMC3257338          DOI: 10.1007/s13224-011-0081-0

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Obstet Gynaecol India        ISSN: 0975-6434


  11 in total

1.  A comparison of various routes and dosages of misoprostol for cervical ripening and the induction of labor.

Authors:  H Y How; L Leaseburge; J C Khoury; T A Siddiqi; J A Spinnato; B M Sibai
Journal:  Am J Obstet Gynecol       Date:  2001-10       Impact factor: 8.661

2.  A comparison of differing dosing regimens of vaginally administered misoprostol for preinduction cervical ripening and labor induction.

Authors:  D A Wing; R H Paul
Journal:  Am J Obstet Gynecol       Date:  1996-07       Impact factor: 8.661

3.  Misoprostol: an old drug, new indications.

Authors:  B More
Journal:  J Postgrad Med       Date:  2002 Oct-Dec       Impact factor: 1.476

4.  Labour characteristics and uterine activity: misoprostol compared with oxytocin in women at term with prelabour rupture of the membranes.

Authors:  S W Ngai; Y M Chan; S W Lam; T T Lao
Journal:  BJOG       Date:  2000-02       Impact factor: 6.531

5.  Labor induction with intravaginal misoprostol versus intracervical prostaglandin E2 gel (Prepidil gel): randomized comparison.

Authors:  F J Chuck; B J Huffaker
Journal:  Am J Obstet Gynecol       Date:  1995-10       Impact factor: 8.661

6.  Comparison of the safety and efficacy of intravaginal misoprostol (prostaglandin E1) with those of dinoprostone (prostaglandin E2) for cervical ripening and induction of labor in a community hospital.

Authors:  H A Blanchette; S Nayak; S Erasmus
Journal:  Am J Obstet Gynecol       Date:  1999-06       Impact factor: 8.661

7.  A randomized comparison of oral misoprostol versus Foley catheter and oxytocin for induction of labor at term.

Authors:  D Abramovici; S Goldwasser; B C Mabie; B M Mercer; R Goldwasser; B M Sibai
Journal:  Am J Obstet Gynecol       Date:  1999-11       Impact factor: 8.661

8.  A comparison of oral and vaginal misoprostol tablets in induction of labour at term.

Authors:  A Shetty; P Danielian; A Templeton
Journal:  BJOG       Date:  2001-03       Impact factor: 6.531

9.  A randomised trial comparing low dose vaginal misoprostol and dinoprostone for labour induction.

Authors:  N van Gemund; S Scherjon; S LeCessie; J H Schagen van Leeuwen; J van Roosmalen; H H H Kanhai
Journal:  BJOG       Date:  2004-01       Impact factor: 6.531

10.  A comparison of orally administered misoprostol to intravenous oxytocin for labor induction in women with favorable cervical examinations.

Authors:  Deborah A Wing; Michael J Fassett; Cristiane Guberman; Susan Tran; Antigone Parrish; Debra Guinn
Journal:  Am J Obstet Gynecol       Date:  2004-06       Impact factor: 8.661

View more
  6 in total

1.  Oral Misoprostol for the Induction of Labor: Comparison of Different Dosage Schemes With Respect to Maternal and Fetal Outcome in Patients Beyond 34 Weeks of Pregnancy.

Authors:  Oana Ratiu; Dominik Ratiu; Peter Mallmann; Alexander DI Liberto; A Kubilay Ertan; Bernd Morgenstern; Michael R Mallmann; Sebastian Ludwig; Berthold Grüttner; Christian Eichler; Fabinshy Thangarajah; Elena Gilman; Judith S Abel
Journal:  In Vivo       Date:  2022 May-Jun       Impact factor: 2.406

2.  Comparison of Vaginal and Oral Doses of Misoprostol for Labour Induction in Post-Term Pregnancies.

Authors:  Masomeh Rezaie; Fariba Farhadifar; Susan Mirza Mohammadi Sadegh; Morteza Nayebi
Journal:  J Clin Diagn Res       Date:  2016-03-01

3.  Sublingual Misoprostol (PGE1) Versus Intracervical Dinoprostone (PGE2) Gel for Induction of Labour: A Randomized Control Trail.

Authors:  Braganza Veena; Rajinish Samal; Leeberk R Inbaraj; Carolin Elizabeth George
Journal:  J Obstet Gynaecol India       Date:  2015-12-29

Review 4.  Oral misoprostol for induction of labour.

Authors:  Zarko Alfirevic; Nasreen Aflaifel; Andrew Weeks
Journal:  Cochrane Database Syst Rev       Date:  2014-06-13

5.  Oral or Vaginal Misoprostol for Labor Induction and Cesarean Delivery Risk.

Authors:  Roxane C Handal-Orefice; Alexander M Friedman; Sujata M Chouinard; Ahizechukwu C Eke; Bruce Feinberg; Joseph Politch; Ronald E Iverson; Christina D Yarrington
Journal:  Obstet Gynecol       Date:  2019-07       Impact factor: 7.623

6.  Low-dose oral misoprostol for induction of labour.

Authors:  Robbie S Kerr; Nimisha Kumar; Myfanwy J Williams; Anna Cuthbert; Nasreen Aflaifel; David M Haas; Andrew D Weeks
Journal:  Cochrane Database Syst Rev       Date:  2021-06-22
  6 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.