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
. 2023 May;102(5):605-611.
doi: 10.1111/aogs.14550. Epub 2023 Mar 25.

Outpatient vs inpatient induction of labor with oral misoprostol: A retrospective study

Natalie Hallén  1 , Mahdi Amini  1   2 , Dag Wide-Swensson  1   2 , Andreas Herbst  1   2
Affiliations

Outpatient vs inpatient induction of labor with oral misoprostol: A retrospective study

Natalie Hallén et al. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand. 2023 May.

Abstract

Introduction: Induction of labor is one of the most common obstetrical procedures today, with a successively rising rate. With a limited number of hospital beds, the option of starting induction at home has gained increasing attention. The primary aim of this study was to compare the proportion of women achieving vaginal delivery and the duration of hospital stay before delivery in induction of labor with oral misoprostol starting at home and induction with oral misoprostol at the hospital, in a low-risk population.

Material and methods: Women with home induction (n = 282) were individually matched to controls induced at the hospital during the same time period regarding parity, age, body mass index, labor unit and indication for induction.

Results: The rates of vaginal birth were similar in outpatients and inpatients (84.8% vs 86.2%; p = 0.5). Time from hospital admission to delivery in the outpatient group was significantly shorter than in the inpatient group (12.8 vs 20.6 h; p < 0.001), as was total hospital stay (2 vs 3 days; p < 0.001). There were no significant differences between the groups in neonatal or maternal outcomes. One patient undergoing outpatient induction had an unplanned home birth.

Conclusions: Starting induction at home reduced the time spent in hospital without affecting the vaginal delivery rate. Although underpowered to assess safety, this study did not show any differences in adverse maternal and perinatal outcomes between inpatients and outpatients. Further research is needed to evaluate the safety of outpatient induction of labor with misoprostol.

Keywords: cervical ripening; misoprostol; outpatient induction of labor; prostaglandins.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

The authors have stated explicitly that there are no conflicts of interest in connection with this article.

References

    1. Socialstyrelsen . Graviditeter, förlossningar och nyfödda barn [Pregnancies, deliveries and newborns]. Medicinska födelseregistret. Stockholm. 2020.
    1. Vogel JP, Osoti AO, Kelly AJ, Livio S, Norman JE, Alfirevic Z. Pharmacological and mechanical interventions for labour induction in outpatient settings. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2017;9:CD007701. - PMC - PubMed
    1. ten Eikelder MLG, Oude Rengerink K, Jozwiak M, et al. Induction of labour at term with oral misoprostol versus a Foley catheter (PROBAAT‐II): a multicentre randomised controlled non‐inferiority trial. Lancet. 2016;387:1619‐1628. - PubMed
    1. Middleton P, Shepherd E, Morris J, Crowther CA, Gomersall JC. Induction of labour at or beyond 37 weeks’ gestation. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2020;7:CD004945. - PMC - PubMed
    1. Bendix JM, Friis Petersen J, Andersen BR, Bodker B, Lokkegaard EC. Induction of labor with high‐ or low‐dosage oral misoprostol‐a Danish descriptive retrospective cohort study 2015‐16. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand. 2020;99:222‐230. - PubMed