Prospective randomized clinical trial of inpatient cervical ripening with stepwise oral misoprostol vs vaginal misoprostol
- PMID: 15746667
- DOI: 10.1016/j.ajog.2004.12.051
Prospective randomized clinical trial of inpatient cervical ripening with stepwise oral misoprostol vs vaginal misoprostol
Abstract
Objective: The purpose of this study was to compare the efficacy and safety of stepwise oral misoprostol vs vaginal misoprostol for cervical ripening before induction of labor.
Study design: Two hundred and four women between 32 to 42 weeks of gestation with an unfavorable cervix (Bishop score < or = 6) and an indication for labor induction were randomized to receive oral or vaginal misoprostol every 4 hours up to 4 doses. The oral misoprostol group received 50 microg initially followed by 100 microg in each subsequent dose. The vaginal group received 25 microg in each dose. The primary outcome was the interval from first misoprostol dose to delivery. Patient satisfaction and side effects were assessed by surveys completed after delivery.
Results: Ninety-three (45.6%) women received oral misoprostol; 111 (54.4%) received vaginal misoprostol. There was no difference in the average interval from the first dose of misoprostol to delivery in the oral (21.1 + 7.9 hrs) and vaginal (21.5 + 11.0 hrs, P = NS) misoprostol groups. The incidence of hyperstimulation in the oral group was 2.2% vs 5.4% in the vaginal group, P = NS. Eighteen patients in the oral group (19.4%) and 36 (32.4%) in the vaginal group underwent cesarean section (P < .05). This difference was attributed to better tolerance of more doses of misoprostol by the women in the oral group. There was no difference in side effects (nausea, vomiting, diarrhea, shivering) between groups. Fourteen percent of women in the vaginal group versus 7.5% in the oral group were dissatisfied with the use of misoprostol (P = NS).
Conclusion: Stepwise oral misoprostol (50 microg followed by 100 microg) appears to be as effective as vaginal misoprostol (25 microg) for cervical ripening with a low incidence of hyperstimulation, no increase in side effects, a high rate of patient satisfaction, and is associated with a lower cesarean section rate.
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.
-
Titrated oral compared with vaginal misoprostol for labor induction: a randomized controlled trial.Obstet Gynecol. 2008 Jan;111(1):119-25. doi: 10.1097/01.AOG.0000297313.68644.71. Obstet Gynecol. 2008. PMID: 18165400 Clinical Trial.
-
Vaginal misoprostol versus concentrated oxytocin and vaginal PGE2 for second-trimester labor induction.Obstet Gynecol. 2004 Jul;104(1):138-45. doi: 10.1097/01.AOG.0000128947.31887.94. Obstet Gynecol. 2004. PMID: 15229013 Clinical Trial.
-
Cervical ripening prior to hysteroscopy: is the application of misoprostol useful?Minerva Ginecol. 2011 Oct;63(5):439-48. Minerva Ginecol. 2011. PMID: 21926953 Review.
-
Intravaginal misoprostol versus Foley catheter for labour induction: a meta-analysis.BJOG. 2011 May;118(6):647-54. doi: 10.1111/j.1471-0528.2011.02905.x. Epub 2011 Feb 18. BJOG. 2011. PMID: 21332637 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.
-
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.
-
Implementation of Evidence-Based Cervical Ripening Protocol: Outcomes and Next Steps.AJP Rep. 2020 Oct;10(4):e408-e412. doi: 10.1055/s-0040-1721443. Epub 2020 Dec 3. AJP Rep. 2020. PMID: 33294286 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.
-
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
Publication types
MeSH terms
Substances
LinkOut - more resources
Full Text Sources
Miscellaneous