Comparison of sublingual versus vaginal misoprostol for the induction of labour: a systematic review
- PMID: 18823486
- DOI: 10.1111/j.1471-0528.2008.01872.x
Comparison of sublingual versus vaginal misoprostol for the induction of labour: a systematic review
Abstract
Background: The induction of full-term labour in women with a live fetus remains a major challenge in modern obstetrics.
Objectives: To determine, using the best level of evidence available, the efficacy and safety of sublingual administration of misoprostol compared with vaginal misoprostol in the third trimester of pregnancy for the induction of labour, according to initial doses, in women with a live, full-term fetus and an unripe cervix.
Search strategy: Pubmed/Medline, Lilacs and Scielo databases were consulted, as well as clinical trials registered in the Cochrane Register from January 1996 to February 2008, using the keywords 'misoprostol', 'labour, obstetric', 'delivery, obstetric', 'induced labour' and 'parturition' with the search limits of 'clinical trials' and 'randomised clinical trials'.
Selection criteria: This review contains randomised clinical trials in which the sublingual and vaginal routes of administration of misoprostol were compared. Participants were pregnant women with an indication for induction of labour and a live fetus more than 37 weeks of gestational age.
Data collection and analysis: The primary analysis compared sublingual and vaginal routes of administration of misoprostol. Secondary analyses compared different routes and initial doses of misoprostol. Statistical analysis included odds ratios and their respective 95% CI. To evaluate the heterogeneity of the studies, the I-squared test was used, studies being considered heterogeneous when I 2 was greater than 50%.
Main results: Five good quality clinical trials involving a total of 740 women were eligible, and all were included. No statistically significant difference was found between the sublingual and the vaginal misoprostol groups with respect to the rate of vaginal delivery not achieved within 24 hours (OR 1.27, 95% CI 0.87-1.84), uterine hyperstimulation syndrome (OR 1.20, 95% CI 0.61-2.33) or caesarean section (OR 1.33, 95% CI 0.96-1.85). An increased risk of uterine tachysystole was found in the sublingual misoprostol group (OR 1.70, 95% CI 1.02-2.83). When the studies were grouped according to the initial dose of misoprostol, no significant difference was found between sublingual or vaginal groups.
Author's conclusions: The sublingual route of administration is as effective as the vaginal route in inducing labour in full-term pregnancies with live fetuses. However, the safety, adverse effects, optimal dose and perinatal outcome related to this route of administration remain to be established, and it cannot be recommended for routine use in obstetric practice.
Similar articles
-
Methods of term labour induction for women with a previous caesarean section.Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2017 Jun 9;6(6):CD009792. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD009792.pub3. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2017. PMID: 28599068 Free PMC article.
-
Pharmacological and mechanical interventions for labour induction in outpatient settings.Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2017 Sep 13;9(9):CD007701. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD007701.pub3. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2017. PMID: 28901007 Free PMC article.
-
Vaginal misoprostol for cervical ripening and induction of labour.Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2003;(1):CD000941. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD000941. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2003. Update in: Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2010 Oct 06;(10):CD000941. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD000941.pub2. PMID: 12535398 Updated.
-
Misoprostol compared with prostaglandin E2 for labour induction in women at term with intact membranes and unfavourable cervix: a systematic review.BJOG. 2006 Dec;113(12):1366-76. doi: 10.1111/j.1471-0528.2006.01111.x. BJOG. 2006. PMID: 17081181
-
Oral misoprostol for induction of labour.Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2000;(4):CD001338. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD001338. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2000. Update in: Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2001;(2):CD001338. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD001338. PMID: 11034716 Updated.
Cited by
-
Misoprostol use in obstetrics.Rev Bras Ginecol Obstet. 2023 Jun;45(6):356-368. doi: 10.1055/s-0043-1770931. Epub 2023 Jul 21. Rev Bras Ginecol Obstet. 2023. PMID: 37494579 Free PMC article. No abstract available.
-
Buccal versus Vaginal Misoprostol for Term Induction of Labor: A Retrospective Cohort Study.Am J Perinatol. 2019 Jun;36(7):765-772. doi: 10.1055/s-0038-1675219. Epub 2018 Oct 31. Am J Perinatol. 2019. PMID: 30380580 Free PMC article.
-
Labour Induction with Misoprostol in German Obstetric Clinics: What Are the Facts on Such Use?Geburtshilfe Frauenheilkd. 2021 Aug;81(8):955-965. doi: 10.1055/a-1538-2200. Epub 2021 Aug 9. Geburtshilfe Frauenheilkd. 2021. PMID: 34393259 Free PMC article.
-
Survey of Provider Preferences Regarding the Route of Misoprostol for Induction of Labor at Term.AJP Rep. 2017 Jul;7(3):e158-e162. doi: 10.1055/s-0037-1603954. Epub 2017 Jul 25. AJP Rep. 2017. PMID: 28752015 Free PMC article.
-
Induction of labour in nulliparous women- quick or slow: a cohort study comparing slow-release vaginal insert with low-dose misoprostol oral tablets.BMC Pregnancy Childbirth. 2020 Feb 7;20(1):79. doi: 10.1186/s12884-020-2770-0. BMC Pregnancy Childbirth. 2020. PMID: 32033600 Free PMC article.
Publication types
MeSH terms
Substances
LinkOut - more resources
Full Text Sources