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
Comparative Study
. 2020 Jun;46(6):851-857.
doi: 10.1111/jog.14230. Epub 2020 May 3.

Do we need a 200 μg misoprostol vaginal insert? A retrospective cohort study comparing the misoprostol vaginal insert to oral misoprostol

Silke Wegener  1 , Josefine T Koenigbauer  1 , Claudia Laesser  1 , Melanie Metz  1 , Luisa Pech  1 , Julia Kummer  1 , Julia Daut  1 , Ute Jarchau  1 , Viktor Wegener  2 , Lars Hellmeyer  1
Affiliations
Comparative Study

Do we need a 200 μg misoprostol vaginal insert? A retrospective cohort study comparing the misoprostol vaginal insert to oral misoprostol

Silke Wegener et al. J Obstet Gynaecol Res. 2020 Jun.

Abstract

Aim: The misoprostol vaginal insert (MVI) was reported to be more effective than dinoprostone but discussed critically because of high rates of fetal heart rate changes due to uterine tachysystole. The aim of this study was to investigate the outcome of induced labor using the MVI compared to off-label orally-administered misoprostol (OM).

Methods: Retrospective study including a total of 401 patients with singleton pregnancies in whom labor was induced at ≥36 0/7 gestational weeks with MVI (203) or OM (198). Primary outcomes were the time from induction to delivery, vaginal delivery in 24 h and the mode of delivery and the neonatal outcome.

Results: Median time until any delivery was 833 min (645-1278) for MVI and 1076.5 min (698-1686.3) for OM group; 83.7% of the patients in the MVI group gave birth within 24 h versus 63.6% in the OM group. The MVI group needed significantly less pre-delivery oxytocin (29%). Tachysystole (6.4%) and pathological CTG (30.5%) occurred at a significantly higher frequency in the MVI group. The cesarean section rate was significantly higher in the MVI group amounting to 21.7% versus 14.6% in the OM group (P < 0.05). Neonatal outcome did not differ between the groups.

Conclusion: The MVI might be an option if you are in need for an approved and faster method to induce labor. Although we observed a significantly higher rate of fetal heart rate changes and cesarean sections in the MVI group this did not affect the neonatal outcome.

Keywords: Cytotec; Misodel; induction of labor; misoprostol vaginal insert; oral misoprostol; prostaglandins.

PubMed Disclaimer

References

    1. Practice Bulletin No ACOG. 107: Induction of labor. Obstet Gynecol 2009; 114: 386-397.
    1. Induction of labour Induction of labour. 2008.
    1. Voigt F, Goecke TW, Najjari L, Pecks U, Maass N, Rath W. Off-label use of misoprostol for labor induction in Germany: A national survey. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol. 2015; 187: 85-89.
    1. Liu DTYFD. Labour Ward Manual. Nottingham, UK: Elsevier, 2007.
    1. Caughey AB, Sundaram V, Kaimal AJ et al. Systematic review: Elective induction of labor versus expectant management of pregnancy. Ann Intern Med 2009; 151: 252-263.

Publication types

LinkOut - more resources