Oral versus vaginal misoprostol for labour induction

Abstract

Objective: To compare the safety and efficacy of oral versus vaginal misoprostol for induction of labour.

Methods: Three hundred and ten live singleton term pregnancies with medical or obstetric indication for labour induction were randomly assigned to receive 50 microgram (microg) misoprostol orally or vaginally every 4-6 hours to a maximum of six doses. Main outcome measures were time of intervention to vaginal birth and number of doses required. Secondary outcome measures included frequency of tachysystole/hyper stimulation, maternal side effects, caesarean section (LSCS) rate, instrumental delivery rate and neonatal outcome (apgar score, need of neonatal intensive care). This study was conducted at Kharadar General Hospital; Karachi. Data was collected on a Performa and analyzed using software SPSS (version 10.0) and p-value was used to test the statistical significance.

Results: The mean induction to delivery interval was significantly shorter in the vaginal group compared with the oral group (13.5 hrs vs. 20.6 hrs p < 0.010). In the vaginal group fewer doses of misoprostol were required (1.93 VS 2.52 p < 0.001) and there was reduced need for additional oxytocin 65 (44.8%) vs. 89 (53.9%) p < 0.19, but there was an increased incidence of hyperstimulation and tachysystole (8.3% vs. 1.8%). The modes of delivery were similar in the two groups. A higher incidence of neonatal intensive care unit (NICU) admission in the vaginal group was mainly due to respiratory distress syndrome (RDS).

Conclusion: In this study Misoprostol proved to be a safe and effective drug to use for induction of labour (IOL). Vaginal route was more efficacious compared to the oral route. A slightly higher number of patients in the vaginal group had hyper stimulation and neonates required NICU admission.