Oral versus vaginal misoprostol for induction of labor: a double-blind randomized controlled trial
- PMID: 11641676
- DOI: 10.1067/mob.2001.117303
Oral versus vaginal misoprostol for induction of labor: a double-blind randomized controlled trial
Abstract
Objective: To determine the efficacy of oral misoprostol (50 microg) administered every 3 hours compared to vaginal misoprostol (50 microg) administered every 6 hours for induction of labor.
Study design: In this double-blind randomized trial, 126 women received misoprostol (50 microg) either orally every 3 hours or vaginally every 6 hours for induction of labor. Outcomes included time from induction to delivery, oxytocin augmentation, incidence of hyperstimulation and tachysystole, mode of delivery, and neonatal outcomes.
Results: Median time to delivery was shorter in those women who were receiving vaginal misoprostol (vaginal 14.3 hours vs oral 23.1 hours; P =.0004) and more women in the oral group required oxytocin augmentation of labor (73% vs 42%) (RR, 1.98; 95% CI, 1.29 to 3.06). The incidence of hyperstimulation was similar between the groups, but there was an increased incidence of tachysystole in the vaginal group (26.5% vs 9.7%)(RR, 2.74; 95% CI, 1.16 to 6.51). There was no difference between the groups with respect to mode of delivery or neonatal outcome.
Conclusion: Vaginal misoprostol administered every 6 hours is more effective for induction of labor than oral misoprostol administered every 3 hours. The higher rates of tachysystole with use of vaginal misoprostol in the current study warrant further investigation.
Similar articles
-
A comparison of various routes and dosages of misoprostol for cervical ripening and the induction of labor.Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2001 Oct;185(4):911-5. doi: 10.1067/mob.2001.117358. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2001. PMID: 11641677 Clinical Trial.
-
Comparison of oral and vaginal misoprostol for induction of labor at term: a randomized controlled trial.J Obstet Gynaecol Res. 2004 Oct;30(5):358-62. doi: 10.1111/j.1447-0756.2004.00215.x. J Obstet Gynaecol Res. 2004. PMID: 15327448 Clinical Trial.
-
A comparison between single dose of 50 microg oral misoprostol and 25 microg vaginal misoprostol for labor induction.J Med Assoc Thai. 2005 Oct;88 Suppl 2:S56-62. J Med Assoc Thai. 2005. PMID: 17722318 Clinical Trial.
-
Balancing the efficacy and safety of misoprostol: a meta-analysis comparing 25 versus 50 micrograms of intravaginal misoprostol for the induction of labour.BJOG. 2015 Mar;122(4):468-76. doi: 10.1111/1471-0528.12935. Epub 2014 Jul 3. BJOG. 2015. PMID: 24989790 Review.
-
Oral, vaginal and sublingual misoprostol for induction of labor.Int J Gynaecol Obstet. 2005 Oct;91(1):2-9. doi: 10.1016/j.ijgo.2005.07.002. Int J Gynaecol Obstet. 2005. PMID: 16109419 Review.
Cited by
-
Efficacy and safety of oral and sublingual versus vaginal misoprostol for induction of labour: a systematic review and meta-analysis.Arch Gynecol Obstet. 2023 Sep;308(3):727-775. doi: 10.1007/s00404-022-06867-9. Epub 2022 Dec 6. Arch Gynecol Obstet. 2023. PMID: 36472645 Free PMC article.
-
Safety and efficacy of double-balloon catheter for cervical ripening: a Bayesian network meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.BMC Pregnancy Childbirth. 2022 Sep 6;22(1):688. doi: 10.1186/s12884-022-04988-2. BMC Pregnancy Childbirth. 2022. PMID: 36068489 Free PMC article.
-
Oral misoprostol for induction of labour.Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2014 Jun 13;2014(6):CD001338. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD001338.pub3. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2014. PMID: 24924489 Free PMC article.
-
Low-dose oral misoprostol for induction of labour.Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2021 Jun 22;6(6):CD014484. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD014484. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2021. PMID: 34155622 Free PMC article.
-
Maternal and fetal outcomes in women undergoing induction of labor with low dose vaginal misoprostol.Pak J Med Sci. 2023 Sep-Oct;39(5):1307-1311. doi: 10.12669/pjms.39.5.7072. Pak J Med Sci. 2023. PMID: 37680840 Free PMC article.
Publication types
MeSH terms
Substances
LinkOut - more resources
Full Text Sources