Oral and vaginal misoprostol compared with dinoprostone for induction of labor: a randomized controlled trial
- PMID: 11814497
- DOI: 10.1016/s0029-7844(01)01681-7
Oral and vaginal misoprostol compared with dinoprostone for induction of labor: a randomized controlled trial
Abstract
Objective: To evaluate the efficacy of oral and vaginal misoprostol compared with the standard regimen using dinoprostone for induction of labor.
Methods: We conducted a multicenter, randomized controlled trial in Cape Town, South Africa. A total of 573 women admitted for induction of labor were randomized to receive oral misoprostol, vaginal misoprostol, or the control, dinoprostone. Misoprostol was given orally or vaginally as a 50-microg dose at 6-hour intervals to a maximum of four doses. The dinoprostone gel was given as a 1-mg dose in the posterior fornix every 6 hours (maximum two doses).
Results: There was no significant difference in vaginal delivery rate in 24 hours between the vaginal misoprostol and dinoprostone groups. However, significantly fewer women delivered vaginally in the oral misoprostol group compared with those in the dinoprostone group (relative risk 0.71, 99% confidence interval 0.51, 0.99). The median induction to vaginal delivery time in the vaginal misoprostol, oral misoprostol, and dinoprostone groups was 12 hours, 23 hours, and 14 hours, respectively. The cesarean rate was approximately 33% in all the groups. There were more cesareans performed for fetal distress in the vaginal misoprostol group compared with the dinoprostone group (relative risk 2.86, 99% confidence interval 1.49, 5.46). There was a higher incidence of tachysystole in the vaginal misoprostol group (5.8%) compared with the other two groups: oral misoprostol (0.8%) and dinoprostone (0.8%), but this difference was not statistically significant. There were no differences in maternal or fetal complications.
Conclusion: Vaginal misoprostol is as effective as dinoprostone in induction of labor, but it is associated with more tachysystole and cesarean sections for fetal distress compared with dinoprostone. Oral misoprostol results in fewer vaginal deliveries in 24 hours, but it is not associated with increased tachysystole or fetal distress.
Similar articles
-
Oral misoprostol or vaginal dinoprostone for labor induction: a randomized controlled trial.Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2003 Jan;188(1):162-7. doi: 10.1067/mob.2003.108. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2003. PMID: 12548212 Clinical Trial.
-
Misoprostol for induction of labour at term: a more effective agent than dinoprostone vaginal gel.Br J Obstet Gynaecol. 1999 Aug;106(8):793-7. doi: 10.1111/j.1471-0528.1999.tb08399.x. Br J Obstet Gynaecol. 1999. PMID: 10453828 Clinical Trial.
-
A comparison of intermittent vaginal administration of misoprostol with continuous dinoprostone for cervical ripening and labor induction.Am J Obstet Gynecol. 1997 Sep;177(3):612-8. doi: 10.1016/s0002-9378(97)70154-6. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 1997. PMID: 9322632 Clinical Trial.
-
Low-dose oral misoprostol for induction of labor: a systematic review.Obstet Gynecol. 2009 Feb;113(2 Pt 1):374-83. doi: 10.1097/AOG.0b013e3181945859. Obstet Gynecol. 2009. PMID: 19155909
-
The efficacy and safety of oral and vaginal misoprostol versus dinoprostone on women experiencing labor: A systematic review and updated meta-analysis of 53 randomized controlled trials.Medicine (Baltimore). 2024 Oct 4;103(40):e39861. doi: 10.1097/MD.0000000000039861. Medicine (Baltimore). 2024. PMID: 39465774 Free PMC article.
Cited by
-
Oral misoprostol versus vaginal dinoprostone for labor induction in nulliparous women at term.J Perinatol. 2014 Feb;34(2):95-9. doi: 10.1038/jp.2013.133. Epub 2013 Oct 24. J Perinatol. 2014. PMID: 24157494
-
Vaginal misoprostol for cervical ripening and induction of labour.Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2010 Oct 6;2010(10):CD000941. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD000941.pub2. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2010. PMID: 20927722 Free PMC article.
-
Labor induction with prostaglandin E1 versus E2: a comparison of outcomes.J Perinatol. 2021 Apr;41(4):726-735. doi: 10.1038/s41372-020-00888-5. Epub 2020 Dec 7. J Perinatol. 2021. PMID: 33288869
-
Comparison of misoprostol and dinoprostone for elective induction of labour in nulliparous women at full term: a randomized prospective study.Reprod Biol Endocrinol. 2004 Sep 27;2:70. doi: 10.1186/1477-7827-2-70. Reprod Biol Endocrinol. 2004. PMID: 15450119 Free PMC article. Clinical Trial.
-
Prevalence of uterine rupture among women with one prior low transverse cesarean and women with unscarred uterus undergoing labor induction with PGE2: A systematic review and meta-analysis.PLoS One. 2021 Jul 6;16(7):e0253957. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0253957. eCollection 2021. PLoS One. 2021. PMID: 34228760 Free PMC article.
Publication types
MeSH terms
Substances
LinkOut - more resources
Full Text Sources
Medical