Alka A Mukherjee1. 1. Mukherjee Multispeciality Hospital, Plot 179, Ayurvedic Lay Out, Bhande Plot Square, Umred Road, Nagpur, Maharashtra State India.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to compare the efficacy and safety of sublingual and vaginal misoprostol in second-trimester termination of pregnancy in 24 and 48 h. STUDY DESIGN: This is a retrospective study of 240 pregnant women seeking termination in second trimester (13-18.5 weeks), in which the patients are subdivided into two groups-first group received 400 mcg of misoprostol sublingually (n = 120), and second group received 400 mcg of misoprostol vaginally (n = 120) every 4 h for a maximum of five doses. The course of misoprostol was repeated if the patient did not abort within 24 h. RESULTS: The mean induction-to-abortion interval was shorter in sublingual group (10.28 ± 3.1 h) versus 14.68 ± 4.2 h in vaginal group in 24 h (p = 0.0001), and 36.9 ± 4.4 h in sublingual versus 29.7 ± 14 in vaginal group in 48 h (p = 0.0933). Mean dose requirement for misoprostol by sublingual route was low as compared to vaginal misoprostol (1048 ± 301 mg versus 1250 ± 375 mg; p = 0.0001 in 24 h and 1110 ± 833 mg versus 1325 ± 536 mg; p = 0.0231 in 48 h). No significant difference was found in the success rate (both at 24 and 48 h) and in side effects among the two comparison groups. CONCLUSION: Misoprostol as such by any route has been proven as an effective abortifacient in second trimester. Both sublingual and vaginal routes are effective for medical abortion. But shorter induction-to-abortion interval in sublingual route, less dose requirement and higher acceptability makes sublingual route as a better choice.
OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to compare the efficacy and safety of sublingual and vaginal misoprostol in second-trimester termination of pregnancy in 24 and 48 h. STUDY DESIGN: This is a retrospective study of 240 pregnant women seeking termination in second trimester (13-18.5 weeks), in which the patients are subdivided into two groups-first group received 400 mcg of misoprostol sublingually (n = 120), and second group received 400 mcg of misoprostol vaginally (n = 120) every 4 h for a maximum of five doses. The course of misoprostol was repeated if the patient did not abort within 24 h. RESULTS: The mean induction-to-abortion interval was shorter in sublingual group (10.28 ± 3.1 h) versus 14.68 ± 4.2 h in vaginal group in 24 h (p = 0.0001), and 36.9 ± 4.4 h in sublingual versus 29.7 ± 14 in vaginal group in 48 h (p = 0.0933). Mean dose requirement for misoprostol by sublingual route was low as compared to vaginal misoprostol (1048 ± 301 mg versus 1250 ± 375 mg; p = 0.0001 in 24 h and 1110 ± 833 mg versus 1325 ± 536 mg; p = 0.0231 in 48 h). No significant difference was found in the success rate (both at 24 and 48 h) and in side effects among the two comparison groups. CONCLUSION: Misoprostol as such by any route has been proven as an effective abortifacient in second trimester. Both sublingual and vaginal routes are effective for medical abortion. But shorter induction-to-abortion interval in sublingual route, less dose requirement and higher acceptability makes sublingual route as a better choice.