Kambhampati Komala1, Meherlatha Reddy1, Iqbal Jehan Quadri2, Suneetha B1, Ramya V3. 1. Senior Resident, Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, Princess Durru Shehvar Children's and General Hospital , Hyderabad, Andhra Pradesh, India . 2. Professor, Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, Princess Durru Shehvar Children's and General Hospital , Hyderabad, Andhra Pradesh, India . 3. Post Graduate, Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, Princess Durru Shehvar Children's and General Hospital , Hyderabad, Andhra Pradesh, India .
Abstract
BACKGROUND:Misoprostol is a new promising agent for cervical ripening and induction of labour .The ideal dose, route and frequency of administration of misoprostol are still under investigation. Although, vaginal application of misoprostol has been validated as a reasonable mean of induction, there is a patient resistance to digital examination and there is a risk of ascending infection. For this reason, oral administration of misoprostol for cervical ripening and labour induction has been tried. AIMS AND OBJECTIVES: To compare 50μg of oral misoprostol versus 25μg of intravaginal misoprostol for induction of labour at term and maternal, foetal outcomes. METHODS:Two hundred women who were at term, with indication for induction of labour and Bishop scores of ≤5 were randomly assigned to receive misoprostol 50μg or 25μg intravaginal, every 4-6 hours, for a maximum of 5 doses. In either group, pregnant females with inadequate uterine contractions despite being given maximum 5 doses of misoprostol, were augmented using oxytocin. The primary outcome measure was time-interval from induction to vaginal delivery and vaginal delivery rate within 24 hours. RESULTS: The median induction to vaginal delivery time in oral group (12.92h) and vaginal group (14.04 h) was not significant. Oral misoprostol resulted in more number of vaginal deliveries as compared to vaginal misoprostol (94% as compared to 86%), which was not significant. There was a significantly higher incidence of uterine tachysystole in the vaginal group, as compared to oral group. There were no significant differences between the groups with respect to oxytocin augmentation, caesarean section rate, analgesic requirement and neonatal outcome. CONCLUSION:Oral misoprostol is as efficacious as vaginal misoprostol because of shorter induction delivery interval, lower caesarean section rates, and lower incidence of failed induction rates. Lower incidence of foetal distress and easy intake are observed if the drug is administered orally.
RCT Entities:
BACKGROUND:Misoprostol is a new promising agent for cervical ripening and induction of labour .The ideal dose, route and frequency of administration of misoprostol are still under investigation. Although, vaginal application of misoprostol has been validated as a reasonable mean of induction, there is a patient resistance to digital examination and there is a risk of ascending infection. For this reason, oral administration of misoprostol for cervical ripening and labour induction has been tried. AIMS AND OBJECTIVES: To compare 50μg of oral misoprostol versus 25μg of intravaginal misoprostol for induction of labour at term and maternal, foetal outcomes. METHODS: Two hundred women who were at term, with indication for induction of labour and Bishop scores of ≤5 were randomly assigned to receive misoprostol 50μg or 25μg intravaginal, every 4-6 hours, for a maximum of 5 doses. In either group, pregnant females with inadequate uterine contractions despite being given maximum 5 doses of misoprostol, were augmented using oxytocin. The primary outcome measure was time-interval from induction to vaginal delivery and vaginal delivery rate within 24 hours. RESULTS: The median induction to vaginal delivery time in oral group (12.92h) and vaginal group (14.04 h) was not significant. Oral misoprostol resulted in more number of vaginal deliveries as compared to vaginal misoprostol (94% as compared to 86%), which was not significant. There was a significantly higher incidence of uterine tachysystole in the vaginal group, as compared to oral group. There were no significant differences between the groups with respect to oxytocin augmentation, caesarean section rate, analgesic requirement and neonatal outcome. CONCLUSION: Oral misoprostol is as efficacious as vaginal misoprostol because of shorter induction delivery interval, lower caesarean section rates, and lower incidence of failed induction rates. Lower incidence of foetal distress and easy intake are observed if the drug is administered orally.
Entities:
Keywords:
Bishop’s score; Labour induction; Oralmisoproptol; Vaginal misoprostol
Authors: K J Leveno; J G Quirk; F G Cunningham; S D Nelson; R Santos-Ramos; A Toofanian; R T DePalma Journal: Am J Obstet Gynecol Date: 1984-11-01 Impact factor: 8.661
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
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