Literature DB >> 24431667

Comparative study of efficacy and safety of oral versus vaginal misoprostol for induction or labour.

Varsha Laxmikant Deshmukh1, Kanan Avinash Yelikar1, Vandana Waso1.   

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: To compare the efficacy of oral with vaginal misoprostol for induction of labour.
DESIGN: A randomized trial.
SETTING: Tertiary care hospital. PARTICIPANTS: Two hundred women requiring induction of labour.
METHODS: Group A received oral misoprostol 50 mcg 6 hourly maximum 4 doses to 100 patients and Group B received vaginal misoprostol 50 mcg 6 hourly maximum 4 doses to 100 patients. When the patient entered active stage of labour i.e. clinically adequate constractions of 3/10 min of >40 s duration, and cervical dilatation of with 4 cm, further doses of misoprostol were not administered. Statistical analysis was done using chi-square test and t test. RESULT: Both groups were comparable with respect to maternal age, gestational age, indication of induction and initial modified Bishops score Mean number of dosage required for successful induction were significantly less in vaginal group than oral group (in oral groups A were 2.73 + 0.58, and in vaginal Group B 2.26 + 0.52, P value < 0.0001 highly significant). The induction delivery interval was significantly less in vaginal group than oral group (Group A 15.24 + 3.47 h Group B 12.74 + 2.60 h, P < 0.0001 highly significant). Oxytocin augmentation required was less in vaginal group. 26 caesarean sections were performed in oral group and 17 caesarean sections were done in vaginal group (P value 0.06 NS). APGAR score, birth weight, NICU admissions showed no difference between the two groups.
CONCLUSION: This study shows that vaginal route of administration of misoprostol is preferable to oral route for induction of labour when used in equivalent dosage of 50 mcg 6 hourly.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Induction delivery interval; Induction of labour; Misoprostol vaginal route

Year:  2013        PMID: 24431667      PMCID: PMC3798443          DOI: 10.1007/s13224-012-0337-3

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


  10 in total

Review 1.  Oral misoprostol for induction of labour.

Authors:  Z Alfirevic; A Weeks
Journal:  Cochrane Database Syst Rev       Date:  2006-04-19

Review 2.  Oral, vaginal and sublingual misoprostol for induction of labor.

Authors:  A Bartusevicius; E Barcaite; R Nadisauskiene
Journal:  Int J Gynaecol Obstet       Date:  2005-10       Impact factor: 3.561

Review 3.  Induction of labour at the start of the new millennium.

Authors:  I Z Mackenzie
Journal:  Reproduction       Date:  2006-06       Impact factor: 3.906

Review 4.  Labor induction with misoprostol.

Authors:  D A Wing
Journal:  Am J Obstet Gynecol       Date:  1999-08       Impact factor: 8.661

5.  A comparison of oral and vaginal misoprostol for induction of labour at term: a randomised trial.

Authors:  J S Kwon; G A Davies; V P Mackenzie
Journal:  BJOG       Date:  2001-01       Impact factor: 6.531

6.  A comparison of orally administered misoprostol with vaginally administered misoprostol for cervical ripening and labor induction.

Authors:  D A Wing; D Ham; R H Paul
Journal:  Am J Obstet Gynecol       Date:  1999-05       Impact factor: 8.661

Review 7.  Vaginal misoprostol for cervical ripening and induction of labour.

Authors:  G J Hofmeyr; A M Gülmezoglu
Journal:  Cochrane Database Syst Rev       Date:  2003

8.  Preinduction cervical ripening: a comparison of intracervical prostaglandin E2 gel versus the Foley catheter.

Authors:  R D St Onge; G T Connors
Journal:  Am J Obstet Gynecol       Date:  1995-02       Impact factor: 8.661

9.  Oral versus vaginal misoprostol for labour induction.

Authors:  Rozina Rasheed; Azra Ahsan Alam; Shehnaz Younus; Farahnaz Raza
Journal:  J Pak Med Assoc       Date:  2007-08       Impact factor: 0.781

10.  Mechanism of misoprostol stabilization in hydroxypropyl methylcellulose.

Authors:  T T Kararli; T Catalano; T E Needham; P M Finnegan
Journal:  Adv Exp Med Biol       Date:  1991       Impact factor: 2.622

  10 in total
  3 in total

1.  Comparison Between Use of Oral Misoprostol Versus Vaginal Misoprostol for Induction of Labour at Term.

Authors:  Kavya D Sharma
Journal:  J Obstet Gynaecol India       Date:  2017-04-26

Review 2.  Oral misoprostol for induction of labour.

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

3.  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
  3 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.