Orally Administered Misoprostol for Induction of Labor with Prelabor Rupture of Membranes at Term

ABSTRACT Objectives To compare the efficacy, side effects and safety of oral misoprostol to intravenous oxytocin infusion for induction of labor in prelabor rupture of membranes (PROM). Materials and methods Two hundred and sixty-six women of prelabor rupture of membranes were assigned to receive either oral misoprostol 100 μg 6 hourly to a maximum 3 doses (misoprostol group, n = 142), or escalating doses of oxytocin infusion up to 20 mIU/min in primigravida and up to 10 mIU/min in multigravida (oxytocin group, n = 114). Results Demographic characteristics were similar in both the groups. The difference in mean induction to delivery interval (8.2 ± 6 hours in misoprostol group vs 12.2 ± 6 hours in oxytocin group) was statistically significant when two groups were compared. The incidence of vaginal delivery (86.1% in misoprostol group vs 84.2% in oxytocin group), and cesarean delivery (13.9% in misoprostol group vs 15.8% in oxytocin group), was almost similar in both the groups. The indication of cesarean delivery was dystocia (40% in misoprostol group vs 67% in oxytocin group), and fetal distress (60% in misoprostol group vs 33% in oxytocin group) and the difference was statistically significant (p < 0.01). Maternal and neonatal safety outcomes were similar for the two treatments. Conclusion Oral misoprostol in prelabor rupture of membrane have almost similar results as intravenous oxytocin in safety, efficacy and side effects except induction delivery interval, which is less in misoprostol group. How to cite this article Anjum S, Sharma R. Oral Misoprostol vs Intravenous Oxytocin Infusion for Induction of Labor in Prelabor Rupture of Membranes. J South Asian Feder Obst Gynae 2016;8(1):4-7.

Download Full-text

Maternal colonization with group B Streptococcus and prelabor rupture of membranes at term: The role of induction of labor

American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology ◽

10.1016/s0002-9378(97)70268-0 ◽

1997 ◽

Vol 177 (4) ◽

pp. 780-785 ◽

Cited By ~ 42

Author(s):

Mary E. Hannah ◽

Arne Ohlsson ◽

Elaine E.L. Wang ◽

Anne Matlow ◽

Gary A. Foster ◽

...

Keyword(s):

Group B Streptococcus ◽

Induction Of Labor ◽

Prelabor Rupture Of Membranes ◽

Group B

Download Full-text

Induction of Labor Versus Expectant Management for Prelabor Rupture of Membranes

50 Studies Every Obstetrician-Gynecologist Should Know ◽

10.1093/med/9780190947088.003.0014 ◽

2021 ◽

pp. 74-80

Author(s):

Adina Kern-Goldberger ◽

Dena Goffman

Keyword(s):

Cesarean Section ◽

Lower Risk ◽

Expectant Management ◽

Neonatal Infection ◽

Induction Of Labor ◽

Prostaglandin E ◽

Maternal Infection ◽

Prelabor Rupture Of Membranes

The article highlights a landmark paper from 1992 addressing the management of women with prelabor rupture of membranes at term. The article reviews the paper in detail, highlights similar and relevant subsequent studies, and addresses up-to-date guidelines. The study compared the outcomes of 5041 with prelabor rupture of membranes at term. Women were either induced with oxytocin or vaginal prostaglandin or expectant management with subsequent induction as indicated. In women with prelabor rupture of the membranes at term, induction of labor with oxytocin or prostaglandin E2 and expectant management result in similar rates of neonatal infection and cesarean section. Induction of labor with intravenous oxytocin results in a lower risk of maternal infection than does expectant management. Women view induction of labor more positively than expectant management.

Download Full-text

Oral misoprostol for induction of labor in prelabor rupture of membranes (PROM) at term: a randomized control trial

Acta Obstetricia Et Gynecologica Scandinavica ◽

10.1080/00016340600589636 ◽

2006 ◽

Vol 85 (9) ◽

pp. 1128-1133 ◽

Cited By ~ 9

Author(s):

Peter C. Cheung ◽

Evelyn L. K. Yeo ◽

Kin Sun Wong ◽

Lawrence C. H. Tang

Keyword(s):

Randomized Control Trial ◽

Induction Of Labor ◽

Oral Misoprostol ◽

Randomized Control ◽

Prelabor Rupture Of Membranes

Download Full-text

Oxytocin Compared to Buccal Misoprostol for Induction of Labor after Term Prelabor Rupture of Membranes

American Journal of Perinatology ◽

10.1055/s-0039-1696642 ◽

2019 ◽

Author(s):

Taylor S. Freret ◽

Kelly M. Chacón ◽

Allison S. Bryant ◽

Anjali J. Kaimal ◽

Mark A. Clapp

Keyword(s):

Primary Outcome ◽

Induction Of Labor ◽

Induction Agent ◽

Cervical Dilation ◽

Delivery Times ◽

Nulliparous Women ◽

Prelabor Rupture Of Membranes ◽

Adjusted Model ◽

Time To Delivery ◽

Linear Regressions

Abstract Objective To determine if admission-to-delivery times vary between term nulliparous women with prelabor rupture of membranes (PROM) who initially receive oxytocin compared with buccal misoprostol for labor induction. Study Design This is a retrospective cohort of 130 term, nulliparous women with PROM and cervical dilation of ≤2 cm who underwent induction of labor with intravenous oxytocin or buccal misoprostol. The primary outcome was time from admission to delivery. Linear regressions with log transformation were used to estimate the effect of induction agent on time to delivery. Results Women receiving oxytocin had faster admission-to-delivery times than women receiving misoprostol (16.9 vs. 19.9 hours, p = 0.013). There were no significant differences in secondary outcomes between the groups. In the adjusted model, women who received misoprostol had a 22% longer time from admission to delivery (95% CI 5.0–42.0%) compared with women receiving oxytocin. Conclusion In term nulliparous patients with PROM, intravenous oxytocin is associated with faster admission-to-delivery times than buccal misoprostol.

Download Full-text

Can prostaglandin E1 (Misoprostol) be an alternative to prostaglandin E2 (PGE2) for induction of labor in prelabor rupture of membranes (PROM) after 34 weeks period of gestation

International Journal of Reproduction Contraception Obstetrics and Gynecology ◽

10.18203/2320-1770.ijrcog20174131 ◽

2017 ◽

Vol 6 (10) ◽

pp. 4297

Author(s):

Jitendra D. Mane ◽

Anil K. Singh

Keyword(s):

Prostaglandin E2 ◽

Prostaglandin E1 ◽

Neonatal Morbidity ◽

Induction Of Labor ◽

Interventional Study ◽

Oral Misoprostol ◽

Vaginal Deliveries ◽

Misoprostol Group ◽

Prelabor Rupture Of Membranes ◽

Period Of Gestation

Background: To compare efficacy and safety of prostaglandin E1 (misoprostol) to prostaglandin E2 (PGE2) for induction of labor in prelabor rupture of membranes (PROM) after 34 weeks period of gestation and its use as an alternative to PGE1.Methods: 80 women were recruited in this prospective interventional study who was admitted with PROM after 34 weeks of period of gestation for delivery. These women who were planned for induction of labor were alternately assign into two groups i.e. Misoprostol group (n = 40) who received Tab misoprostol 50 mcg orally 4 hourly (h) maximum of five doses and PGE2 group (n = 40) received PGE2 gel intracervically every 6 h for maximum of 3 doses. Analysis regarding safety and efficacy of the drugs was done with regards to maternal and perinatal outcome.Results: Out of 80 women, 40 received misoprostol and 40 received PGE2 gel. The intervention to induction interval was significantly less in PGE2 group (p-0.004) whereas the induction to delivery interval was similar in both groups (p- 0.628). Significant number of women delivered vaginally without need for oxytocin in misoprostol group, (p- 0.039) however there was no statistical difference in both groups as far as overall vaginal deliveries and caesarean section are concerned. Comparable neonatal and maternal morbidities were noted in both groups.Conclusions: Oral misoprostol can be used as an alternative to PGE2 gel for induction of labor after 34 weeks of period of gestation in women with PROM as it was found to be safe and effective in achieving vaginal deliveries with reduced need for oxytocin, without increasing maternal and neonatal morbidity.

Download Full-text