Comparison of oral and vaginal misoprostol for induction of labor at term: a randomized controlled trial

OBJECTIVE: To compare the efficacy of oral with vaginal misoprostol for induction of labor at term. METHODS: One hundred and fifty-three pregnant women at term with indications for induction of labor and Bishop score < or = 6 were randomly assigned to receive misoprostol either 100 microg orally or 50 microg vaginally every 6 h for 48 h. Repeated doses were given until Bishop score > or = 8 was achieved or spontaneous rupture of membranes occurred. Those who were not in labor after 48 h had labor induced with amniotomy and oxytocin. The main outcome measure was induction to delivery time. RESULTS: The median induction to vaginal delivery time in the oral group (14.3 h) was not significantly different from that of the vaginal group (15.8 h). The median number of doses was also not significantly different in the oral group compared with the vaginal group. There was a significant higher incidence of uterine tachysystole in the vaginal group compared to the oral group (17.1% vs 5.3%, P = 0.032). There was no hyperstimulation in either group. There were no significant differences between the groups with respect to oxytocin augmentation, cesarean section rate, analgesic requirement, and neonatal outcomes. CONCLUSION: Oral administration of 100 microg misoprostol has similar efficacy to intravaginal administration of 50 microg misoprostol for labor induction with less frequent abnormal uterine contractility. 100 microg of misoprostol orally can be used as an alternative to the vaginal route for labor induction.     

A comparison of 100 microg oral misoprostol every 3 hours and 6 hours for labor induction: a randomized controlled trial

OBJECTIVE: To compare the efficacy and safety of 100 microg oral misoprostol for induction of labor between the regimen of 3 hour and 6 hour interval administration. METHODS: Singleton pregnancies indicated for induction of labor between 34 and 42 weeks of gestation in the condition of unfavorable cervix (Bishop score < or = 4) and no contraindication for prostaglandins therapy were recruited into the study. All pregnant women were randomly assigned to receive 100 microg oral misoprostol every 3 hours or 6 hours until the cervix was favorable for amniotomy, spontaneous rupture of membranes or active labor occurred. RESULTS: The mean time interval from induction to vaginal delivery was significantly shorter in the 3 hour interval group, compared with the 6 hour interval group (13.82 +/- 6.98h and 17.66 +/- 7.48h, P = 0.0019). There was no significant difference between the groups with regard to mode of delivery, analgesic requirement, maternal complication and neonatal outcome. CONCLUSIONS: 100 microg oral misoprostol every 3 hours is more effective for labor induction than every 6 hours but there was no difference in mode of delivery, analgesic requirement, maternal complications and neonatal outcome. A dose of 100 microg misoprostol orally every 3 hours seems to be the optimum regimen and the new option for labor induction. However, further study should be performed.     

Randomized comparison of oral misoprostol and oxytocin for labor induction in term prelabor membrane rupture

OBJECTIVES: To compare labor induction intervals between oral misoprostol and intravenous oxytocin in women who present at term with premature rupture of membranes. METHODS: One hundred eight women were randomly assigned to misoprostol 50 microg orally every 4 hours as needed or intravenous oxytocin. The primary outcome measure was time from induction to vaginal delivery. Sample size was calculated using a two-tailed alpha of 0.05 and power of 80%. RESULTS: Baseline demographic data, including maternal age, gestation, parity, Bishop score, birth weight, and group B streptococcal status, were similar. The mean time +/-standard deviation to vaginal birth with oral misoprostol was 720+/-382 minutes compared with 501+/-389 minutes with oxytocin (P = .007). The durations of the first, second, and third stages of labor were similar. There were no differences in maternal secondary outcomes, including cesarean birth (eight and seven, respectively), infection, maternal satisfaction with labor, epidural use, perineal trauma, manual placental removal, or gastrointestinal side effects. Neonatal outcomes including cord pH, Apgar scores, infection, and admission to neonatal intensive care unit were not different. CONCLUSION: Although labor induction with oral misoprostol was effective, oxytocin resulted in a shorter induction-to-delivery interval. Active labor intervals and other maternal and neonatal outcomes were similar.     

A randomized trial of misoprostol versus extra-amniotic sodium chloride infusion with oxytocin for induction of labor

OBJECTIVE: Our purpose was to compare the efficacy and safety of misoprostol and extra-amniotic sodium chloride infusion with oxytocin for induction of labor.Study Design: This randomized trial compared two methods of labor induction in women requiring cervical ripening. One hundred twenty-three women undergoing labor induction with a Bishop score < or =5 were randomly selected to receive either misoprostol, 50 microg intravaginally every 4 hours, or extra-amniotic sodium chloride infusion. The primary outcome variable was the time interval from induction to vaginal delivery. RESULTS: Sixty-one women received extra-amniotic sodium chloride infusion and 62 women received misoprostol. The mean time interval from the start of induction to vaginal delivery was 15.0 +/- 5.0 hours and 16.5 +/- 7.2 hours for the extra-amniotic infusion and misoprostol groups, respectively (P, not significant). The cesarean delivery rate was not significantly different between the 2 groups (32.8% for the extra-amniotic infusion group; 19.4% for the misoprostol group). Maternal and neonatal outcomes were similar between the 2 groups. CONCLUSIONS: Both methods of induction are equally efficacious and result in similar maternal and neonatal outcomes.     

The routine use of oxytocin after oral misoprostol for labour induction in women with an unfavourable cervix is not of benefit

BACKGROUND: Induction of labour with misoprostol is often augmented with oxytocin with the possible consequence of uterine hypercontractility. It is important to determine whether the use of oxytocin in this circumstance has benefit as well as risk. AIM: To compare two regimens for labour induction in women with an unfavourable cervix: oral misoprostol vs. oral misoprostol routinely followed by oxytocin. METHODS: A prospective randomised trial in which 200 women with an unfavourable cervix received either oral misoprostol 25 microg every 3 h (group 1, n = 100) or two such doses routinely followed by oxytocin (group 2, n = 100). Outcomes included change in Bishop score, induction delivery interval, oxytocin requirement, contraction abnormalities, mode of delivery and neonatal outcome. RESULT: The improvement in Bishop score with two misoprostol doses in all 200 women was highly significant (2.9 +/- 1.5 to 6.6 +/- 1.9, P < 0.0001). The induction delivery interval, Caesarean delivery rate, vaginal delivery rate within 24 h, contraction abnormalities and neonatal outcome were similar in both groups. Contraction abnormalities were remarkably low with either regimen (1%). Routine addition of oxytocin 3 h after the second misoprostol dose (group 2) resulted in the maximum oxytocin dose (64 mU/min) being given to more women (66% in group 2; 36% in group 1). CONCLUSION: There was no benefit of routine addition of oxytocin after two doses of misoprostol. Reduced oxytocin requirement was observed when it was added only if needed. Both regimens achieved 85-87% vaginal deliveries with low incidence of hypercontractility.     

A randomized trial comparing vaginal misoprostol versus Foley catheter with concurrent oxytocin for labor induction in nulliparous women

The objective of this study was to compare the efficacy and safety of intracervical Foley catheter with concurrent use of oxytocin versus vaginal misoprostol for labor induction in nulliparous women. Nulliparous women with Bishop score <6 who presented for labor induction were randomized to either 25 microg vaginal misoprostol every 4 hours followed by oxytocin, if indicated, or intracervical Foley catheter with simultaneous use of oxytocin. Among the 162 patients enrolled, 79 (49%) received misoprostol and 83 (51%) received Foley/oxytocin. We were unable to demonstrate a statistically significant difference between the misoprostol group and Foley/oxytocin group in the incidence of cesarean delivery (35% versus 29%; p = 0.37). The induction-to-delivery time was significantly shorter in the Foley/oxytocin group (18 versus 24 hours; p < 0.01). No differences in intrapartum complications, neonatal outcomes, or maternal morbidity were found. When compared with vaginal misoprostol, intracervical Foley catheter combined with oxytocin has a similar efficacy and safety profile for labor induction in nulliparous women. Foley/oxytocin results in a shorter induction-to-vaginal delivery time compared with misoprostol.     

A comparison between intravaginal and oral misoprostol for labor induction: a randomized controlled trial

AIM: To compare the effectiveness and safety between intravaginal and oral misoprostol for labor induction. METHODS: One hundred and six pregnant women at term with unfavorable cervix (Bishop score < or = 4) and no contraindication to prostaglandin therapy were randomized to receive either intravaginal misoprostol 50 microg every 4 h or oral misoprostol 50 microg every 4 h for prospective randomized controlled trial study. Treatment interval from induction to vaginal delivery, maternal and neonatal complications were the main outcome measures. RESULTS: There were no statistical differences of baseline characteristics and Bishop score prior to intervention between both groups. Time interval from induction to vaginal delivery in the oral group was slightly, but significantly, longer than that of the intravaginal group (886.1 +/- 443.5 min vs 637.0 +/- 373.3 min, respectively.) Additionally, the number of doses required was significantly higher in the oral group. Nonetheless, there was no significant difference between both groups with regard to failure of induction and maternal-neonatal complications. CONCLUSION: The effectiveness in terms of failed induction and safety were comparable between intravaginal and oral misoprostol, but intravaginal route was better with respect to treatment interval and number of required doses. Both routes of administration can alternatively be used for labor induction.     

Six hourly vaginal misoprostol versus intracervical dinoprostone for cervical ripening and labor induction

AIM: Prospective clinical trials were conducted to assess the safety and efficacy of 6-hourly vaginal misoprostol versus intracervical dinoprostone for induction of labor. METHODS: A total of 120 pregnant women requiring induction of labor were recruited. Cases were randomized to receive either 50 microg vaginal misoprostol 6 hourly (group 1, n = 60) or 0.5 mg intracervical dinoprostone 6 hourly (group II, n = 60). Outcome measures, such as change in Bishop's score, need of oxytocin, induction delivery interval; complications like tachysystoly, hyperstimulation, abnormal fetal heart rate, and meconium passage were compared between two groups. Statistical analysis was performed by Wilcoxan's Rank sum and Student's t-test. RESULTS: Bishop score rise, after 6 h of initiation of therapy was significantly higher in the misoprostol group than dinoprostone, 2.98 +/- 2.57 versus 2.05 +/- 1.83 (P = 0.04). The need of oxytocin augmentation was reduced in misoprostol versus dinoprostone group, 16.6% versus 78.3% (P = <0.001). Induction delivery interval was shorter in misoprostol; 12.8 +/- 6.4 h versus 18.53 +/- 8.5 h in dinoprostone group (P = <0.01). One case (1.6%) in misoprostol group, but none in dinoprostone had tachystole (P = 1.00). Abnormal heart rate pattern was found more in misoprostol than dinoprostone 16.6% versus 4.9% (P = 0.14) and so was the incidence of cesarean section, 26.6 versus 15%, respectively (P = 0.47). Meconium passage was the same in both groups, 10% in each group. CONCLUSION: Vaginal misoprostol 50 microg 6-hourly is safe and effective for induction of labor with lesser need of oxytocin augmentation and shorter induction delivery interval.     

A comparison of various routes and dosages of misoprostol for cervical ripening and the induction of labor

OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to compare the efficacy of different routes of misoprostol administration for cervical ripening and the induction of labor. STUDY DESIGN: Three hundred thirty women at > or = 32 weeks gestation with a Bishop score < or = 6 and an indication for induction were randomized to 1 of 3 double-blinded groups: (1) 25 microg orally administered misoprostol plus 25 microg vaginally administered misoprostol, (2) orally administered placebo plus 25 microg vaginally administered misoprostol, or (3) 25 microg orally administered misoprostol plus vaginally administered placebo. Doses were repeated every 4 hours until onset of labor or a maximum of 12 doses were given. The primary outcome of the trial was vaginal delivery within 24 hours of the initiation of induction. Secondary outcomes were the time from induction to delivery, need for oxytocin augmentation, mode of delivery, frequency of side effects, and neonatal and maternal outcome. Analysis of variance, chi-square test, and logistic regression were used for analysis. RESULTS: There were no significant differences in maternal characteristics or indications for induction. The percentage of women who achieved vaginal delivery within 24 hours was highest in the vaginally administered misoprostol group: 67% compared with 53% in the oral-plus-vaginal group (P < .05) and 36% in the oral group (P < .05). The median time to vaginal delivery was shorter in the vaginal and oral-plus-vaginal misoprostol groups, 13.5 hours and 14.3 hours, respectively, when compared with 23.9 hours in the oral group (P < .05). The rate of cesarean delivery was lowest in the vaginal misoprostol group (17% compared with 30% in the oral-plus-vaginal group and 32% in the oral group; P < .05). Uterine tachysystole occurred least frequently in the oral misoprostol group (10% compared with 32% in the vaginal group and 34% in the oral-plus-vaginal group; P < .05). Uterine hyperstimulation also occurred least frequently in the oral misopro-stol group (4% compared with 15% in the vaginal group and 22% in the oral-plus-vaginal group; P < .05). CONCLUSION: At the doses studied, induction of labor with vaginally administered misoprostol is more efficacious than either oral-plus-vaginal or oral-only route of administration.     

Induction of labor in toxemia with misoprostol

BACKGROUND: To compare the efficacy and complications of intravaginal misoprostol application with oxytocin infusion for induction of labor in toxemia of pregnancy with a modified Bishop score of < or =4. METHODS: A hundred preeclamptic women with a modified Bishop score of < or =4 were randomized into two groups of 50 patients one group receiving 50 microg intravaginal misoprostol 4 times at 4 hour intervals, the second group receiving oxytocin infusion for induction of labor starting from 1 mIU/per minute, increasing it every 30 minutes with 2 mIU/per minute increments up to maximum of 30 mIU/per minute. Modified Bishop scores 12 hours after induction, the time from induction to delivery, the route of delivery, fetal outcome and maternal complications were recorded. Statistical analyses were performed using Mann Whitney-U, Chi-Square and hypothesis tests about differences for two proportions (t test) to determine differences between the two groups. p< or =0.05 was considered significant. RESULTS: Misoprostol was significantly superior for induction of labor in toxemia of pregnancy with modified Bishop score of < or =4. After 12 hours median modified Bishop scores of misoprostol administered group and oxytocin administered group were 7 and 4 respectively. Misoprostol administered group 1 was significantly better than oxytocin administered group 2 (p=0.027). The rate of patients who were in labor after 12 hours were 94% and 80% in group 1 and 2 respectively and the difference showed significant difference (p<0.05). The median time from induction to delivery was 14 hours and 16 hours in the misoprostol and oxytocin administered group respectively with significant difference between the groups (p=0.003). The rate of vaginal delivery was significantly higher in the misoprostol administered group 1 (82%) when compared with the oxytocin administered group 2 (66%) (p<0.05). The 1 and 5 minutes median Apgar scores were 5-7 and 6-7.5 in group 1 and 2, respectively with no significant differences between the groups (p=0.96, p=0.64). The rate of admission to neonatal intensive care unit was similar in both groups. The complication rates were similar in all groups and no significant detrimental effects were noted. CONCLUSIONS: Intravaginal misoprostol is an efficacious, cheap and safe method of induction of labor in toxemia of pregnancy with modified Bishop score of < or =4.     

The effect of vaginal pH on the efficacy of vaginal misoprostol for induction of labor

BACKGROUND: Misoprostol was reported to be an effective agent for cervical ripening and induction of labor. Our purpose was to evaluate whether vaginal pH affected the efficacy of misoprostol for induction of labor. METHODS: The vaginal pH of 103 women admitted for induction of labor were measured. According to the vaginal pH, two groups were generated, those with a vaginal pH <5 (n= 65), and those with a vaginal pH > or =5 (n=38). All women received intravaginal misoprostol tablets, 50 microg every 4 hours up to three doses. Further medication was not given after entry into active labor or spontaneous rupture of membranes. In cases of failed induction or arrest disorders oxytocin augmentation was used. RESULTS: The average interval from start of induction to vaginal delivery was shorter, and oxytocin augmentation was required less commonly in the lower pH group. We did not find any significant difference in cesarean section rates, or incidence of adverse maternal or fetal outcome. CONCLUSION: Vaginal pH may affect the pharmacokinetics of vaginally administered misoprostol, and may cause an alteration in induction to delivery interval.     

Labor induction post-term with 25 micrograms vs. 50 micrograms of intravaginal misoprostol.

OBJECTIVES: To compare the effectiveness of 25 microg vs. 50 microg of intravaginal misoprostol for cervical ripening and labor induction beyond 41 weeks' gestation. METHODS: The study population consisted of 120 women not in active labor with a gestational age >41 weeks, singleton pregnancy with vertex presentation, reactive fetal heart rate tracing, amniotic fluid index >/=5, and Bishop score <5. Women were randomized to receive either 25 microg (n=60) or 50 microg (n=60) of intravaginal misoprostol. The dose was repeated every 4 h (maximum number of doses limited to six) until the patient exhibited three contractions in 10 min. The main outcome measure was the induction-vaginal delivery interval. RESULTS: There was no significant difference between the two groups with regard to the induction-vaginal delivery interval (685+/-201 min in the 25 microg group vs. 627+/-177 min in the 50 microg group, P=0.09). The proportion of women delivering vaginally with one dose of vaginal misoprostol was significantly greater in the 50 microg group (0/49 vs. 41/47, P<0.001). There were no differences in the rates of cesarean and operative vaginal delivery rates, or in the incidences of tachysystole and hyperstimulation syndrome in the two treatment groups. Neonatal outcomes were also similar. CONCLUSIONS: Intravaginal administration of 25 microg of misoprostol appears to be as effective as 50 microg for cervical ripening and labor induction beyond 41 weeks' gestation.     

Prospective randomized clinical trial of inpatient cervical ripening with stepwise oral misoprostol vs vaginal misoprostol

OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to compare the efficacy and safety of stepwise oral misoprostol vs vaginal misoprostol for cervical ripening before induction of labor. STUDY DESIGN: Two hundred and four women between 32 to 42 weeks of gestation with an unfavorable cervix (Bishop score < or = 6) and an indication for labor induction were randomized to receive oral or vaginal misoprostol every 4 hours up to 4 doses. The oral misoprostol group received 50 microg initially followed by 100 microg in each subsequent dose. The vaginal group received 25 microg in each dose. The primary outcome was the interval from first misoprostol dose to delivery. Patient satisfaction and side effects were assessed by surveys completed after delivery. RESULTS: Ninety-three (45.6%) women received oral misoprostol; 111 (54.4%) received vaginal misoprostol. There was no difference in the average interval from the first dose of misoprostol to delivery in the oral (21.1 + 7.9 hrs) and vaginal (21.5 + 11.0 hrs, P = NS) misoprostol groups. The incidence of hyperstimulation in the oral group was 2.2% vs 5.4% in the vaginal group, P = NS. Eighteen patients in the oral group (19.4%) and 36 (32.4%) in the vaginal group underwent cesarean section (P < .05). This difference was attributed to better tolerance of more doses of misoprostol by the women in the oral group. There was no difference in side effects (nausea, vomiting, diarrhea, shivering) between groups. Fourteen percent of women in the vaginal group versus 7.5% in the oral group were dissatisfied with the use of misoprostol (P = NS). CONCLUSION: Stepwise oral misoprostol (50 microg followed by 100 microg) appears to be as effective as vaginal misoprostol (25 microg) for cervical ripening with a low incidence of hyperstimulation, no increase in side effects, a high rate of patient satisfaction, and is associated with a lower cesarean section rate.     

Randomized trial between two active labor management protocols in the presence of an unfavorable cervix

OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to compare the efficacy of two protocols for active management of labor at term in the presence of an unfavorable cervix. STUDY DESIGN: Pregnancies that underwent labor induction at > or =37 weeks of gestation with an unfavorable cervix (Bishop score, < or =6) were randomly assigned to receive vaginally either a single dose of sustained-release dinoprostone (Cervidil) with concurrent low-dose oxytocin or multidosing of misoprostol (25 microg every 4 hours) followed by high-dose oxytocin. The primary outcome was the time interval from induction to vaginal delivery. Other parameters included excess uterine activity and cesarean delivery rates. RESULTS: A total of 151 patients (dinoprostone, 74 patients; misoprostol, 77 patients) were enrolled. The mean time from the initiation of induction to vaginal delivery was the same in the dinoprostone and misoprostol groups (15.7 hours; 95% CI, 13.7-17.7 hours vs 16.0 hours; 95% CI, 14.1-17.8 hours; P=.34), regardless of parity. The dinoprostone and misoprostol groups did not differ statistically in the percent of patients who were delivered vaginally by 12 hours (36.2% vs 29.7%), 18 hours (63.8% vs 56.3%), and 24 hours (81.0% vs 81.3%). Excess uterine activity was not more common in either group, and hyperstimulation syndrome was absent in all cases. Primary cesarean delivery rates were similar (dinoprostone, 21.6%; misoprostol, 16.9%; relative risk, 1.3; 95% CI, 0.7-2.5), with a failed induction that occurred in one case in each group. CONCLUSION: Sustained-release dinoprostone with concurrent low-dose oxytocin and intermittent misoprostol with delayed high-dose oxytocin are effective alternatives for active management of labor with an unfavorable cervix.     

Randomized comparison between intravaginal misoprostol and dinoprostone for cervical ripening and induction of labor.

OBJECTIVE: We sought to evaluate the efficacy and safety of intravaginal misoprostol and dinoprostone for labor induction. STUDY DESIGN: One hundred eighty-nine women with singleton term pregnancies and unfavorable cervices were randomly assigned to receive intravaginal misoprostol or dinoprostone. The outcome variables were change in Bishop score, time from application to active phase of labor and delivery, fetal and maternal morbidity, and the incidence of cesarean deliveries. RESULTS: The interval from application of the initial dose to the beginning of the active phase of labor was 9.8 +/- 5.8 and 14.2 +/- 10.2 hours (P <.01), and the interval from initial dose to delivery was 15.3 +/- 9.8 and 19.1 +/- 13.2 hours (P =.027) for the misoprostol and dinoprostone groups, respectively. There were no significant differences in Bishop score change, cesarean delivery rate, and the incidence of tachysystole, hypersystole, and hyperstimulation. No maternal and neonatal adverse effects were noted. CONCLUSION: Intravaginal misoprostol is more effective than intravaginal dinoprostone for labor induction in low-risk patients at term with unfavorable cervices.     

Induction of labor with misoprostol in pregnancies with advanced maternal age

OBJECTIVE: The objective was to compare the efficacy and complications of intravaginal misoprostol application with oxytocin infusion for induction of labor in advanced aged pregnancies with a Bishop score of < 6. STUDY DESIGN: A hundred advanced aged (> or = 35 years) pregnant patients with a Bishop score of < 6 were randomized into two groups. The first group (50 patients) received 50 microg intravaginal misoprostol four times with 4 h intervals and the second group received oxytocin infusion for induction of labor starting from 2 mIU/min and was increased every 30 min with 2 mIU/min increments up to a maximum of 40 mIU/min. The time from induction to delivery, the route of delivery, fetal outcome, and maternal complications were recorded. Statistical analyses were performed using the Mann-Whitney U, Chi-squared and t tests to determine differences between the two groups. A p value < or = 0.05 was considered significant. RESULTS: Misoprostol was superior for induction of labor in advanced aged pregnancies with Bishop score of < 6, as the mean time from induction to delivery was 9.61 +/- 4.12 h and 11.46 +/- 4.86 h in the misoprostol and oxytocin groups respectively, with a significant difference between the groups (p = 0.04). The rate of vaginal delivery was higher in the misoprostol group (84.0%) than in the oxytocin group (80.0%), but the difference did not reach significance (p = 0.60). The rates of placental abruption and postpartum hemorrhage were similar in both groups and no cases of uterine rupture occurred. The 1- and 5-min mean Apgar scores were 6.98 +/- 1.17 to 9.08 +/- 0.99 and 6.88 +/- 1.81 to 9.00 +/- 1.35 in the misoprostol and oxytocin groups respectively, with no significant differences between the groups (p = 0.74, p = 0.83). No cases of asphyxia were present. The rate of admission to the neonatal intensive care unit was similar in both groups. CONCLUSION: Intravaginal misoprostol seems to be an alternative method to oxytocin in the induction of labor in advanced aged pregnant women with low Bishop scores, as it is efficacious, cheap, and easy to use. But large studies are necessary to clarify safety with regard to the rare complications such as uterine rupture.     

Misoprostol vs. oxytocin for induction of labor at term.

Efficacy of misoprostol was studied for induction of labor at term. Seventy patients were randomized to Group A (n = 36, oral misoprostol 50 microg four hourly to maximum of 5 doses) and B (n = 34, continuous oxytocin infusion). Induction-delivery interval was shorter with misoprostol (7.7 +/- 2.8 h against 14.3 +/- 4.8 h with oxytocin) but the rates of vaginal delivery, cesarean, neonatal outcome variables were similar. Hence, misoprostol is an effective agent for induction of labor at term.     

Induction of labor in great grandmultipara with misoprostol

OBJECTIVE: To compare the efficacy and complications of intravaginal misoprostol application with oxytocin infusion for induction of labor in great grandmultiparous pregnancies with a Bishop score of <6. STUDY DESIGN: Sixty-four great grandmultiparous (delivering the tenth, or greater, infant) pregnant patients with a Bishop score of <6 were randomized in two groups with 32 patients receiving 50 microg intravaginal misoprostol four times with 4h intervals, and 32 patients receiving oxytocin infusion for induction of labor starting from 2 mIU/min, increasing it every 30 min with 2 mIU/min increments up to maximum of 40 mIU/min. The time from induction to delivery, the route of delivery, fetal outcome and maternal complications were recorded. Statistical analyses were performed using Mann-Whitney U-test, Chi-Square test and hypothesis test about differences for two proportions (t-test) to determine differences between the two groups. P < or = 0.05 was considered significant. RESULT: The mean time from induction to delivery was 9.91+/-4.30 and 10.88+/-4.72 h in the misoprostol and oxytocin administered group, respectively, with no significant difference between the groups. The rate of vaginal delivery was 84.4 and 87.5% in the misoprostol and oxytocin administered group, respectively, with no significant difference between the groups (P = 0.72). The rates of placental abruption and postpartum hemorrhage were similar in both groups and no case of uterine rupture occurred. The 1 and 5 min mean Apgar scores were 6.91+/-1.57-8.88+/-1.39 and 7.22+/-1.24-9.06+/-0.84 in the misoprostol and oxytocin administered group with no significant differences between the groups (P = 0.38 and 0.51). No case of asphyxia was present. The rate of admission to neonatal intensive care unit was higher in the misoprostol administered group, but the difference was not significant. CONCLUSION: Intravaginal misoprostol is an alternative method to oxytocin in induction of labor in great grandmultiparous pregnant women with low Bishop scores, as it is effective, cheap and easy to use. Safety about rare complications and neonatal morbidity needs clarifications with further studies.     

Induction of labor with oral misoprostol for premature rupture of membranes at term in women with unfavorable cervix: a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial

AIM: To evaluate the efficacy and safety of oral misoprostol for labor induction in women with term premature rupture of membranes (PROM) and an unfavorable cervix. METHODS: We randomized 130 women with PROM of < or =4 h to either oral misoprostol, 50 microg, or a placebo given every 4 h for up to three doses. Intravenous oxytocin was initiated if active labor did not begin within 12 h. RESULTS: Sixty-four women received oral misoprostol and 66 received placebo. The PROM-to-delivery interval was shorter with misoprostol than with placebo (13.7+/-5.8 vs. 20.3+/-6.8 h, respectively, P<0.05). Misoprostol significantly reduced the need for oxytocin (28.1 vs. 72.7%, P<0.001) and antibiotics (25 vs. 69.7%, P<0.001). No significant differences in cesarean section or hyperstimulation rate were noted. CONCLUSION: Oral misoprostol given to women with unfavorable cervix soon after term PROM significantly reduces the induction-to-delivery time and the need for oxytocin and antibiotics.     

Comparison of 25 and 50 microg vaginally administered misoprostol for preinduction of cervical ripening and labor induction.

Our purpose was to compare the efficacy of 25 microg and 50 microg intravaginally administered misoprostol tablets for cervical ripening and labor induction. Either 25-microg (n: 58) or 50-microg (n: 56) misoprostol tablets were randomly administered intravaginally to 114 subjects with an unripe cervix for labor induction. The physician was blinded to the medication. Intravaginal misoprostol was given every 4 h until the onset of labor. The mean Bishop score before misoprostol administration was 2.1 +/- 1.6 in the 25-microg group and 2.0 +/- 1.4 in the 50-microg group (p > 0.05). With the 25-microg dose the time until delivery was significantly longer (991.2 +/- 514.4 min vs. 703.12 +/- 432.6 min in the 50-microg group). The use of oxytocin augmentation was significantly higher in the 25-microg group (63.8%) than the 50-microg group (32.1%; p < 0.05). The proportions of patients with tachysystoles and hypersystoles were not significantly different between the two groups (19 and 6.9%, respectively, in the 25-microg group and 25 and 17.8%, respectively, in 50-microg group; p > 0.05). Overall, in the 25-microg group more women achieved vaginal delivery (79.3 vs. 60.7%; p < 0.05). The rate of cesarean sections due to non-reassuring fetal status was higher in the 50-microg misoprostol group (28.6 vs. 10.3%; p < 0.05). The number of neonates with a low 1-min Apgar score (<7) was significantly higher in the 50-microg misoprostol group (26.8 vs. 8.6%; p < 0.05), but 5-min Apgar scores and umbilical artery blood gas values at the time of delivery were not significantly different between the groups (p > 0.05). One patient in the 25-microg group suffered a ruptured uterus. Intravaginal administration of 25 microg of misoprostol is a clinically effective labor induction regimen and has the least adverse effects and complications.