Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2019 Sep 24;11(9):e5739.
doi: 10.7759/cureus.5739.

Induction of Labor in Primigravid Term Pregnancy with Misoprostol or Dinoprostone: A Comparative Study

Affiliations

Induction of Labor in Primigravid Term Pregnancy with Misoprostol or Dinoprostone: A Comparative Study

Rizwana Arif et al. Cureus. .

Abstract

Objective The objective of this study was to compare the effectiveness of vaginally administered misoprostol to that of vaginally administered dinoprostone at six-hour intervals in a well-homogenized cohort of full-term, nulliparous women with an unfavorable cervix and without any pregnancy complications. Materials and methods A cohort of 100 nulliparous women at more than 40 weeks of gestation was included in this study. The primary outcomes to be measured were induction to delivery interval and incidence of vaginal births within 12 and 24 hours. Neonatal intensive care unit admissions for poor neonatal outcomes and obstetrical complications were secondary outcomes. Results A significant reduction in the induction to delivery interval was observed in the misoprostol group as compared to the dinoprostone group (10.2 ± 0.8 vs. 16.5 ± 0.7, p < 0.001). More women in the misoprostol group delivered within 12 hours as compared to the dinoprostone group (30 [60%] vs. 17 [34%], p < 0.001) and within 24 hours (48 [96%] vs. 39 [78%], p < 0.05). In the misoprostol group, spontaneous rupture of the membranes occurred more frequently (46 [92%] vs. 35 [70%], p < 0.05) with less need for oxytocin augmentation during labor (14% vs. 30%, p < 0.05). A significant reduction in additional dose requirement (7.5% vs. 22%, p < 0.05) and a lower rate of Caesarean section was observed in the misoprostol group (6% vs. 24%, p < 0.04). A statistically insignificant low Apgar score was noted in the dinoprostone group compared to the misoprostol group. Conclusion Vaginally administered misoprostol is more effective than vaginally administered dinoprostone at six-hour intervals in nulliparous women beyond 40 weeks of gestation without pregnancy complications.

Keywords: dinoprostone; full term pregnancy; labor induction; misoprostol; primigravida.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

The authors have declared that no competing interests exist.

Figures

Figure 1
Figure 1. Obstetric complications

Similar articles

Cited by

References

    1. U.S. national trends in labor induction, 1989-1998. Zhang J, Yancey MK, Henderson CE. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11883350. J Reprod Med. 2002;47:120–124. - PubMed
    1. Rising rates of labor induction: present concerns and future strategies. Rayburn WF, Zhang J. Obstet Gynecol. 2002;100:164–167. - PubMed
    1. Induction of labour at term. SOGC Clinical Practice Guideline. Crane J, Leduc L, Farine D, Hodges S, Reid GJ, Van Aerde J. https://www.jogc.com/article/S0849-5831(16)31465-3/pdf J Obstet Gynaecol Can. 2001;23:717–741.
    1. Labor induction with misoprostol. Wing DA. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 1999;181:339–345. - PubMed
    1. Temporal changes in rates and reasons for medical induction of term labor, 1980-1996. Yahn BP, Wollan P, McKeon K, Field CS. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2001;184:611–619. - PubMed

LinkOut - more resources