Literature DB >> 27651590

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

Braganza Veena1, Rajinish Samal2, Leeberk R Inbaraj3, Carolin Elizabeth George3.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Prostaglandins are popular agents for induction of labour, owing to their dual action of cervical ripening and inducing uterine contractions. Sublingual misoprostol offers high efficacy as it bypasses first-pass metabolism. Researchers have proved that intracervical PGE1 is as effective as PGE2 except for increased caesarean rate and hyperstimulation. Limited knowledge is available on the efficacy of sublingual PGE1 and intracervical PGE2. This study was designed to compare the effectiveness of sublingual PGE1 with intracervical PGE2.
METHODS: A randomized control trial was conducted in Bangalore Baptist Hospital, Bangalore. One hundred and ninety women with singleton, term pregnancy were equally divided into PGE1 and PGE2 groups, and primary outcome was measured.
RESULTS: Post-induction mean Bishop's score in PGE1 group was statistically significant (t = 6.57, p < 0.05). Failed induction rate (1 vs 13.6 %) and need for augmentation (46.3 vs 62.1 %) were lower with PGE1 than those with PGE2 (p < 0.05). Significant (p < 0.05) maternal and foetal outcomes like higher rate of NVD (35.8 vs 26 %), lower LSCS rate (15.8 vs 32.6 %), lower incidence of foetal complications (7.3 vs 21 %) were noted with PGE1. APGAR scores at 1 and 5 min were not significant. Mean cost of induction with PGE1 was 12.55+/4.15 INR and with PGE2 470.65+/126.5.
CONCLUSION: Sublingual PGE1 is a better cervical ripening agent, faster and more effective, with a shorter induction-to-delivery interval as compared to intracervical PGE2. We also noted lower incidence of caesarean section and foetal distress with sublingual PGE1 compared to oral or vaginally administered PGE1.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Cerviprime gel; Hyperstimulation; IOL; Safe inducing agent; Sublingual misoprostol

Year:  2015        PMID: 27651590      PMCID: PMC5016429          DOI: 10.1007/s13224-015-0820-8

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


  6 in total

1.  Comparison of vaginal misoprostol tablets and prostaglandin E2 gel for the induction of labor in premature rupture of membranes at term: a randomized comparative trial.

Authors:  Snehamay Chaudhuri; Sankar Nath Mitra; Pradip Kumar Banerjee; Pranab Kumar Biswas; Sudipta Bhattacharyya
Journal:  J Obstet Gynaecol Res       Date:  2011-06-16       Impact factor: 1.730

2.  Pharmacokinetics of different routes of administration of misoprostol.

Authors:  Oi Shan Tang; Horst Schweer; H W Seyberth; Sharon W H Lee; Pak Chung Ho
Journal:  Hum Reprod       Date:  2002-02       Impact factor: 6.918

3.  Shortening the induction delivery interval with prostaglandins: a randomized controlled trial of solo or in combination.

Authors:  Rajiv Mahendru; Shweta Yadav
Journal:  J Turk Ger Gynecol Assoc       Date:  2011-06-01

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

Authors:  Promila Jindal; Kumkum Avasthi; Maninder Kaur
Journal:  J Obstet Gynaecol India       Date:  2011-10-26

5.  Oral misoprostol versus vaginal dinoprostone for labor induction in nulliparous women at term.

Authors:  A M Faucett; K Daniels; H C Lee; Y Y El-Sayed; Y J Blumenfeld
Journal:  J Perinatol       Date:  2013-10-24       Impact factor: 2.521

6.  Comparison of efficacy and safety of sublingual misoprostol with intracervical dinoprostone gel for cervical ripening in prelabour rupture of membranes after 34 weeks of gestation.

Authors:  Nivedita Jha; Haritha Sagili; D Jayalakshmi; Subitha Lakshminarayanan
Journal:  Arch Gynecol Obstet       Date:  2014-07-24       Impact factor: 2.344

  6 in total
  2 in total

1.  Labor induction with prostaglandin E1 versus E2: a comparison of outcomes.

Authors:  Hector Mendez-Figueroa; Matthew J Bicocca; Megha Gupta; Stephen M Wagner; Suneet P Chauhan
Journal:  J Perinatol       Date:  2020-12-07       Impact factor: 2.521

2.  Labor induction with randomized comparison of cervical, oral and intravaginal misoprostol.

Authors:  Masoumeh Dadashaliha; Somayeh Fallah; Monirsadat Mirzadeh
Journal:  BMC Pregnancy Childbirth       Date:  2021-10-27       Impact factor: 3.007

  2 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.