How does low-dose oral misoprostol (initially ≤ 50 µg) compare with other pharmacological interventions for induction of labor?

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
George Daskalakis
Keyword(s):  
Low Dose ◽  
Induction Of Labor ◽  
Pharmacological Interventions ◽  
Oral Misoprostol ◽  
Dose Oral

Low-Dose Oral Misoprostol for Induction of Labor

2009 ◽  
Vol 113 (2, Part 1) ◽  
pp. 374-383 ◽  
Author(s):  
Timothy W. Kundodyiwa ◽  
Zarko Alfirevic ◽  
Andrew D. Weeks
Keyword(s):  
Low Dose ◽  
Induction Of Labor ◽  
Oral Misoprostol ◽  
Dose Oral

scholarly journals Neonatal outcome in randomized controlled trial of low dose oral misoprostol in comparison with intracervical Dinoprostone gel for labour induction

2017 ◽  
Vol 7 (1) ◽  
pp. 165
Author(s):  
Savithri D. R. ◽  
Suvarna R. ◽  
Prashanthi Chennupalli ◽  
Akshatha S.
Keyword(s):  
Low Dose ◽  
Neonatal Outcome ◽  
Therapeutic Option ◽  
Controlled Trial ◽  
Induction Of Labour ◽  
Labour Induction ◽  
Oral Misoprostol ◽  
Misoprostol Group ◽  
Dose Oral ◽  
Meconium Staining

Background: Induction of labour is a therapeutic option when the benefits of delivery outweigh risks of continuing pregnancy. There are several agents for induction of labour to achieve better outcome of labour. Acceptable methods for induction are oxytocin infusion, dinoprostone gel, misoprostol and mechanical cervical dilators. Prostaglandins are the preferred choice in unripened cervix. To study the neonatal outcome in induction of labour with low dose oral misoprostol compared with intracervical dinoprostone gel and also to assess occurrence of meconium staining liquor.Methods: One hundred women with single live fetus, term gestation, cephalic presentation, reactive fetal heart pattern and Bishops score <6 were included in the study. They were randomized to receive either 6 doses of 25ug oral misoprostol every 3rd hourly or 0.5ug intracervical dinoprostone every 6th hourly for a maximum of 3 doses. Oxytocin was administered. Fetal outcome was assessed in terms of APGAR score, meconium staining and need for NICU.Results: Meconium stained amniotic fluid was high in misoprostol group (16%) compared to dinoprostone group (8%). NICU admissions were seen in 7 neonates in both groups.Conclusions: Low dose oral misoprostol is a safe method of labour induction. APGAR and NICU admission rates were comparable in both groups. Meconium staining was more in misoprostol group compared to dinoprostone group.

Low-dose oral misoprostol for induction of labour

2021 ◽  
Vol 2021 (6) ◽  
Author(s):  
Robbie S Kerr ◽  
Nimisha Kumar ◽  
Myfanwy J Williams ◽  
Anna Cuthbert ◽  
Nasreen Aflaifel ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Low Dose ◽  
Induction Of Labour ◽  
Oral Misoprostol ◽  
Dose Oral

Randomized control trial of low dose oral misoprostol compared with intracervical dinoprostone gel for cervical ripening

2017 ◽  
Vol 7 (1) ◽  
pp. 104
Author(s):  
Savithri D. R. ◽  
Prashanthi Chennupalli ◽  
Suvarna R. ◽  
Akshatha S.
Keyword(s):  
Low Dose ◽  
Therapeutic Option ◽  
Caesarean Section Rate ◽  
Induction Of Labour ◽  
Cervical Ripening ◽  
P Value ◽  
Maternal Complications ◽  
Oral Misoprostol ◽  
Misoprostol Group ◽  
Dose Oral

Background: Induction of labour is a therapeutic option when the benefits of delivery outweigh risks of continuing pregnancy. There are several agents for induction of labour to achieve better outcome of labour. Acceptable methods for induction are oxytocin infusion, dinoprostone gel, misoprostol and mechanical cervical dilators. Prostaglandins are the preferred choice in unripened cervix. Objective of this study was to compare efficacy, safety of low dose oral misoprostol compared with intracervical dinoprostone gel for cervical ripening.Methods: One hundred women with single live fetus, term gestation, cephalic presentation, reactive fetal heart pattern and Bishops score <6 were included in the study. They were randomized to receive either 6 doses of 25ug oral misoprostol every 3rd hourly or 0.5ug intracervical dinoprostone every 6th hourly for a maximum of 3 doses.Results: Bishops score improvement after 6,12,18 hours in both the groups was statistically insignificant. Induction delivery interval was11.96±5.88 for misoprostol and 10.95±4.58 in dinoprostone group with P value 0.341 which was statistically insignificant. Need for oxytocin augmentation was less (18%) in misoprostol group as compared to dinoprostone group (44%). Caesarean section rate was slightly higher in misoprostol group (26% vs 24%). Meconium stained amniotic fluid was high in misoprostol group (16%) compared to dinoprostone group (8%). Maternal complications were minimal and neonatal outcome was good in both the groups.Conclusions: Compared to dinoprostone; misoprostol is easy to store, cost effective, stable at room temperature, can be easily administered and had better patient compliance and acceptability. It was found to be a better cervical ripening agent with similar maternal and fetal safety profile.

scholarly journals Sublingual vs Oral Misoprostol for Labor Induction

2014 ◽  
Vol 48 (1) ◽  
pp. 33-36
Author(s):  
Sujata Siwatch ◽  
Goter Doke
Keyword(s):  
Low Dose ◽  
Uterine Contraction ◽  
Mode Of Delivery ◽  
Labor Induction ◽  
Induction Of Labor ◽  
Routes Of Administration ◽  
Oral Misoprostol ◽  
Sublingual Misoprostol ◽  
Oxytocin Augmentation ◽  
To Receive

ABSTRACT Background This study compares the eficacy and safety of sublingual vs oral misoprostol for induction of labor. Materials and methods 160 women admitted for induction of labor at the Postgraduate Institute of Medical Education and Research, Chandigarh were randomized to receive 25 µg misoprostol orally 3 hourly or 25 µg sublingual misoprostol 4 hourly for labor induction. Outcome The two groups were compared for number of women not delivered in 24 hours, misoprostol dose required, induction delivery interval, incidence of uterine contraction abnormalities, mode of delivery, side effects and neonatal outcomes. Results Low dose of misoprostol is eficacious with both routes of administration. Majority women delivered vaginally and of them, comparable numbers in both vaginal and sublingual misoprostol groups delivered within 24 hours of induction (93.1 and 83.7%). The sublingual route is associated with a statistically signiicant lesser induction to delivery interval (14.8 ± 6.2 hours vs 17.67 ± 7.32 hours) and lesser requirement of oxytocin augmentation (62.5 vs 35%). The occurrence of uterine contraction abnormalities and neonatal outcome was similar in both groups. Conclusion The low dose of 25 µg is eficacious and safe by both sublingual and oral routes. Sublingual route has lesser induction to delivery interval and lesser requirement for oxytocin augmentation. How to cite this article Siwatch S, Doke G, Kalra J Bagga R. Sublingual vs Oral Misoprostol for Labor Induction. J Postgrad Med Edu Res 2014;48(1):33-36.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document