[Oral misoprostol against vaginal dinoprostone for labor induction at term: a randomized comparison]

Abstract

Background: It was the objective of this study to compare the efficacy and safety of oral misoprostol with those of vaginal dinoprostone for the induction of labour at term.

Patients and methods: Between 2003 and 2006 224 pregnant women were included in our prospective randomised clinical trial. All of them were admitted for induction of labor at term. Half of the patients received oral misoprostol, initially at a test dose of 25 microg, followed by 50 microg and 100 microg every 4 hours. The control group received 3 mg vaginal dinoprostone every 6 hours. Primary endpoints were time interval until delivery and mode of delivery as well as maternal and neonatal outcome, secondary endpoints were side effects and costs.

Results: In the dinoprostone group, the median time interval until delivery was 17.6 hours compared to 24.1 hours in the misoprostol group. Without the test dose, the difference was no longer significant. After dinoprostone induction, more patients had a vaginal delivery within 24 hours (n=60, 53.6%, vs. n=46, 41.1%). The frequencies of spontaneous deliveries and emergency Caesarean sections did not differ between the groups. The rate of vacuum extractions was higher in the misoprostol group (23 vs. 11, i. e. 20.5 vs. 9.8%, p<0.05). With regard to side effects there was no significant difference. No case of hyperstimulation was documented.

Conclusion: Oral misoprostol is effective and safe for induction of labour at term. In addition, it is much cheaper and independent of storage conditions. At the doses and with the administration intervals used in this study, dinoprostone was slightly more effective than misoprostol.