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
. 2022 May-Jun;36(3):1285-1289.
doi: 10.21873/invivo.12828.

Oral Misoprostol for the Induction of Labor: Comparison of Different Dosage Schemes With Respect to Maternal and Fetal Outcome in Patients Beyond 34 Weeks of Pregnancy

Oana Ratiu #  1 , Dominik Ratiu #  1 , Peter Mallmann  2 , Alexander DI Liberto  2 , A Kubilay Ertan  1 , Bernd Morgenstern  2 , Michael R Mallmann  2 , Sebastian Ludwig  2 , Berthold Grüttner  2 , Christian Eichler  2 , Fabinshy Thangarajah  2 , Elena Gilman  2 , Judith S Abel  2
Affiliations

Oral Misoprostol for the Induction of Labor: Comparison of Different Dosage Schemes With Respect to Maternal and Fetal Outcome in Patients Beyond 34 Weeks of Pregnancy

Oana Ratiu et al. In Vivo. 2022 May-Jun.

Abstract

Background/aim: Labor is induced in 1 out of 5 pregnancies. This is why we aimed to compare two different protocols of orally administered misoprostol for the induction of labor (IOL), with special regard to maternal and fetal outcome, delivery mode and duration.

Patients and methods: One hundred and twenty four patients with a medical indication for IOL were divided into two groups: Group A (n=63), which initially received 50 μg misoprostol escalated to 100 and, subsequently, to 200 μg every 4 h with a daily maximum of 600μg, between 11/2007 and 01/2008; and Group B (n=61), which initially received 25 μg misoprostol followed by 100 μg every 4 h with a daily maximum of 300 μg, between 12/2009 and 04/2010.

Results: The mean administration-delivery interval was significantly lower in Group A (19.0 h) compared to Group B (27.1 h, p<0.05). Overall caesarean section rate, average birth weight, APGAR score, umbilical cord pH and meconium-stained fluid rates were similar between both groups.

Conclusion: A higher dosage protocol of orally administered misoprostol significantly reduces the mean induction-delivery interval without increasing the risk for an adverse maternal or fetal outcome.

Keywords: Oral misoprostol; induction of labor.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

The Authors declare that there are no conflicts of interest.

Similar articles

See all similar articles

References

    1. Aichinger E, Wetter A. Kleine Tablette, großes Risiko. Tagesschau, 2020. Available at: https://www.tagesschau.de/investigativ/br-recherche/geburtseinleitung-me.... [Last accessed on February 20, 2022]
    1. Alfirevic Z, Aflaifel N, Weeks A. Oral misoprostol for induction of labour. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2014;(6):CD001338. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD001338.pub3. - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. Tang J, Kapp N, Dragoman M, de Souza JP. WHO recommendations for misoprostol use for obstetric and gynecologic indications. Int J Gynaecol Obstet. 2013;121(2):186–189. doi: 10.1016/j.ijgo.2012.12.009. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Kwon JS, Davies GA, Mackenzie VP. A comparison of oral and vaginal misoprostol for induction of labour at term: a randomised trial. BJOG. 2001;108(1):23–26. doi: 10.1111/j.1471-0528.2001.00007.x. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Hall R, Duarte-Gardea M, Harlass F. Oral versus vaginal misoprostol for labor induction. Obstet Gynecol. 2002;99(6):1044–1048. doi: 10.1016/s0029-7844(02)01995-6. - DOI - PubMed

LinkOut - more resources