Comparison of oral and vaginal misoprostol for induction of labor at term: a randomized controlled trial
- PMID: 15327448
- DOI: 10.1111/j.1447-0756.2004.00215.x
Comparison of oral and vaginal misoprostol for induction of labor at term: a randomized controlled trial
Abstract
Objective: To compare the efficacy of oral with vaginal misoprostol for induction of labor at term.
Methods: One hundred and fifty-three pregnant women at term with indications for induction of labor and Bishop score < or = 6 were randomly assigned to receive misoprostol either 100 microg orally or 50 microg vaginally every 6 h for 48 h. Repeated doses were given until Bishop score > or = 8 was achieved or spontaneous rupture of membranes occurred. Those who were not in labor after 48 h had labor induced with amniotomy and oxytocin. The main outcome measure was induction to delivery time.
Results: The median induction to vaginal delivery time in the oral group (14.3 h) was not significantly different from that of the vaginal group (15.8 h). The median number of doses was also not significantly different in the oral group compared with the vaginal group. There was a significant higher incidence of uterine tachysystole in the vaginal group compared to the oral group (17.1% vs 5.3%, P = 0.032). There was no hyperstimulation in either group. There were no significant differences between the groups with respect to oxytocin augmentation, cesarean section rate, analgesic requirement, and neonatal outcomes.
Conclusion: Oral administration of 100 microg misoprostol has similar efficacy to intravaginal administration of 50 microg misoprostol for labor induction with less frequent abnormal uterine contractility. 100 microg of misoprostol orally can be used as an alternative to the vaginal route for labor induction.
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.
-
Comparative efficacy and safety of vaginal misoprostol versus dinoprostone vaginal insert in labor induction at term: a randomized trial.Arch Gynecol Obstet. 2009 Jul;280(1):19-24. doi: 10.1007/s00404-008-0843-9. Epub 2008 Nov 26. Arch Gynecol Obstet. 2009. PMID: 19034471 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.
-
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.
-
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.
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.
Publication types
MeSH terms
Substances
LinkOut - more resources
Full Text Sources