scholarly journals Comparative study of efficacy and safety of vaginal misoprostol versus oral misoprostol in induction of labour when used in equal doses

2017 ◽  
Vol 6 (9) ◽  
pp. 3828
Author(s):  
Ambika H. E. ◽  
Swathi Bhat ◽  
Lepakshi B. G. ◽  
Savitha C. S.
Keyword(s):  
Induction Of Labour ◽  
Labour Induction ◽  
Successful Outcome ◽  
P Value ◽  
Oral Misoprostol ◽  
Significant Difference ◽  
Successful Induction ◽  
Oral Group ◽  
Vaginal Misoprostol ◽  
Group B

Background: It was a randomized controlled prospective study. A large number of women in their advanced pregnancies often need labour induction for various reasons. This study aims to evaluate a safe, effective and inexpensive mode of medical induction. The purpose of the study is to evaluate the safety and efficacy of vaginal misoprostol versus oral misoprostol in induction of labour when used in equal doses.Methods: Two hundred patients were included in the study. They were divided into two groups of 100 patients each. One group i.e. Group A received vaginal misoprostol while the other group i.e. Group B received oral misoprostol. The dosage was 50μg every 6th hourly maximum of four doses. The progress of labour in both groups was charted on a partogram. The outcome of pregnancy, maternal and foetal outcomes were statistically analysed.Results: When compared with respect to age, height, gestational age, indication for induction, there was no difference in either of the groups. The numbers of doses of misoprostol for successful outcome of labour in the vaginal group i.e. 2.25±0.53 was lesser than the dosage needed in the oral group i.e. 2.71±0.60 (P value M 0.0001). which is highly significant. The induction-delivery interval was also less in the vaginal group compared to the oral group. (12.90±2.40 hours versus 15±75 hours). Only 13 women in the vaginal group needed acceleration with oxytocin in contrast to 17 women in the oral group. The need for caesarean section in women induced with vaginal misoprostol was 12 women in comparison to oral group which was 32 women. No statistically significant difference was seen in neonatal outcome in either of the groups.Conclusions: When given in equal doses the vaginal administration of misoprostol is more effective in successful induction of labour when compared to oral misoprostol.

scholarly journals Comparison of vaginal and oral misoprostol, for the induction of labour in women with intra-uterine foetal death

2017 ◽  
Vol 6 (7) ◽  
pp. 2900
Author(s):  
Kala K. ◽  
Anupama V. Rani ◽  
Dharmavijaya M. N. ◽  
Umashankar K. M.
Keyword(s):  
Prostaglandin E1 ◽  
Post Partum ◽  
Induction Of Labour ◽  
Delivery Time ◽  
Foetal Death ◽  
Tertiary Institution ◽  
Oral Misoprostol ◽  
Significant Difference ◽  
Successful Induction ◽  
Vaginal Misoprostol

Background: Misoprostol is a prostaglandin E1 analogue, a methyl-ester of prostaglandin E1 additionally methylated at C-16. Misoprostol is an effective myometrial stimulant of pregnant uterus, selectively binding to prostanoid receptors. The objective of the study was to compare the efficacy of vaginal and oral misoprostol for the induction of labour in women with intra-uterine foetal death (IUFD).Methods: A prospective randomised clinical trial, comparing 50µg oral and 50µg vaginal misoprostol, six hourlies for a maximum of four doses for the induction of labour in women with IUFD. All patients with IUFD after 28 weeks without previous uterine surgeries, without contraindications for prostaglandins are included in the study. The study was conducted in the Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology MVJ Medical College and Research Hospital, Hoskote. Bangalore from June 2012 to June 2015. It is a tertiary institution serving predominantly rural population. The primary outcome measure was the induction to delivery time, secondary all complications were noted.Results: Twenty-five women were randomised to the vaginal route and twenty-five to the oral route. The induction to delivery time was longer with vaginal misoprostol 10.5±4.03 compared to oral misoprostol (9.58±4.9). There was no significant difference in the amount of misoprostol needed to achieve successful induction in the two groups. 3 patients needed oxytocin augmentation to complete the induction of labour. There were no cases of failed induction. The systemic side effects (shivering, diarrhoea, vomiting and pyrexia) were more common with oral misoprostol (44.5%) compared to vaginal misoprostol (20%).Conclusions: Oral misoprostol achieved successful induction of labour in women with IUFD in a shorter time than vaginal misoprostol. Both routes are equally effective in termination of pregnancy. Sublingual route is easy to administer, patient compliant, no need for internal examination, less chance of labour dysfunction, less chance of post-partum sepsis.

scholarly journals A comparative study of vaginal misoprostol versus oral misoprostol for induction of labour

2020 ◽  
Vol 9 (6) ◽  
pp. 2520
Author(s):  
Raj M. Mehta ◽  
Babulal S. Patel ◽  
Akshay C. Shah ◽  
Shashwat K. Jani ◽  
Vismay B. Patel ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Adverse Events ◽  
Comparative Study ◽  
Mode Of Delivery ◽  
Induction Of Labour ◽  
Successful Outcome ◽  
Oral Misoprostol ◽  
Misoprostol Group ◽  
Group A ◽  
Vaginal Misoprostol ◽  
Group B

Background: Induction of labour defined as artificial initiation of uterine contractions before the onset of spontaneous labour, after the period of viability, by any methods. The successful outcome depends on the Bishop Score, maternal age and parity. Authors compared the most preferred two routes; vaginal and oral for induction and outcome, adverse events and side effects were noted.Methods: This was a prospective comparative study carried out at SVPIMSR, Ahmedabad, from January 2019 to June 2019, Gujarat, 100 patients who required induction were randomly divided in two groups- Group A received 25µg oral misoprostol, Group B - received 25µg vaginal misoprostol repeated 4 hourly up to maximum five doses in both groups. The induction to delivery interval, mode of delivery, maternal and neonatal outcome and complications were observed.Results: The mean induction to delivery interval was less in vaginal group than oral (18.7 hours in vaginal versus 22.4 hours in oral). Vaginal delivery and caesarean section rates were comparable in both groups. 60% patients in Group A required more than two doses as compared to 36% in Group B. No major complications or adverse events were observed.Conclusions: Both oral misoprostol in a dose of 25μg and vaginal misoprostol 25μg every four hours, to a maximum of five doses, have safety and efficacy for induction. With The vaginal route, delivery occurs in less time and few doses required as compared to oral.

scholarly journals A comparative study of intracervical foley’s catheter with oxytocin and vaginal misoprostol for induction of labour

2020 ◽  
Vol 9 (9) ◽  
pp. 3660
Author(s):  
Priyanka . ◽  
Shashi Bala Arya ◽  
Mirdu Sinha ◽  
J. K. Goel
Keyword(s):  
Pregnant Women ◽  
Induction Of Labour ◽  
Labour Induction ◽  
Bishop Score ◽  
Misoprostol Group ◽  
Successful Induction ◽  
Group A ◽  
Vaginal Misoprostol ◽  
Foley’S Catheter ◽  
Group B

Background: Induction of labour implies stimulation of uterine contraction before spontaneous onset of labour with or without ruptured membranes. Aim of this study was to compare the efficacy and safety of intracervical Foley’s catheter with oxytocin and vaginal misoprostol for labour induction at term.Methods: A total 100 term pregnant women were chosen with bishop score <6 and divided into two groups: Foley’s catheter with oxytocin (Group A) and vaginal misoprostol (Group B). In Group A, a 16 F Foley’s catheter introduced beyond internal os and traction applied every 4 hourly to check for expulsion with simultaneous oxytocin infusion (2 mU/min up to 32 mU/min). In Group B, 25 mcg misoprostol administered every 4 hourly (maximum 6 doses or 150 mcg). Data analysed using SPSS software 20.0. A p value <0.05 was considered statistically significant.Results: No statistical difference found between demographic variables between two groups. Both primigravida and multigravida had poor pre-induction bishop score in both groups. Foley’s catheter (80%) and misoprostol group (96%) had successful induction and was statistically significant (p<0.05). Foley’s catheter took more time from induction-delivery both in primigravida and post-dated pregnant women. The rate of cesarean in Foley’s catheter group was high (62.5%) including 33% cases with failed induction. Foley’s catheter had less maternal and neonatal complications, less NICU admission as compared to misoprostol (p>0.05).Conclusions: Misoprostol was found better for successful induction, decreases induction-to-delivery interval and increases vaginal delivery as compared to Foley’s catheter but it needs constant supervision in view of hyperstimulation and tachysystole.

scholarly journals Oral: Vaginal Misoprostol: Which route for induction of term labor?

1970 ◽  
Vol 2 (1) ◽  
pp. 23-28 ◽  
Author(s):  
Ratna Khatri (Adhikari) ◽  
Jyoti Sharma ◽  
Archana Amatya
Keyword(s):  
Neonatal Morbidity ◽  
Fetal Distress ◽  
Labour Induction ◽  
Active Stage ◽  
Singleton Pregnancy ◽  
Oral Misoprostol ◽  
Significant Difference ◽  
Vaginal Misoprostol ◽  
Failed Induction ◽  
Group B

Aim: To compare the effectiveness of oral misoprostol with vaginal misoprostol for induction of labour at or more than 40 weeks of pregnancy. Method: Study design: Prospective comparative study. Duration: March 2005 to February 2006 (12 months)in the Dept of Obs/Gyn, TU Teaching Hospital, Kathmandu. Methods: Hundred nullipara (primi or gravida 2 with 1 spontaneous or induced abortion < 12 gestational weeks) in a singleton pregnancy > 40 but with Bishop's score < 4 were induced equally with either oral (100 mgm) Group A or vaginal (25mcg) Group B: were administered 4 hourly up to maximum of 6 doses. Primary outcome measures: duration of induction to active stage of labour or delivery, spontaneous rupture of membrane (SROM), meconium stained liquor (MSL), caesarean and neonatal morbidity with respect to Apgar score were assessed. Results: In vaginal 33 oral 17 had SROM with higher incidence of MSL (60% versus 12%) and higher caesarean 15%: 4%. Even there was > fetal distress 11/15: 2/7 group B/, which was statistically significant. No significant difference was noted in the pre induction cervical score, number of doses, induction to active stage of labour, induction to delivery time, use of oxytocin, failed induction and Apgar scores. Conclusion: Oral misoprostol found to be associated with less SROM, meconium stained liquor and vaginal birth and comparatively less neonatal care unit admissions outweighs its advantages over the vaginal misopristol, although either route were equally proven to be effective for inducing labour in women with unfavourable cervix (Bishop's score < 4) at term pregnancy.   doi:10.3126/njog.v2i1.1472 N. J. Obstet. Gynaecol Vol. 2, No. 1, p. 23 - 28 May -June 2007

scholarly journals Comparison of titrated oral misoprostol solution versus vaginal misoprostol for induction of labour in term obstetric patients for obstetric and neonatal outcomes: a randomized controlled trial

2018 ◽  
Vol 7 (6) ◽  
pp. 2339
Author(s):  
Puneeta Mahajan ◽  
Rajendra Popatrao Shitole
Keyword(s):  
Vaginal Delivery ◽  
Controlled Trial ◽  
Oral Solution ◽  
Cervical Ripening ◽  
Labour Induction ◽  
P Value ◽  
Oral Misoprostol ◽  
Unfavourable Cervix ◽  
Oral Group ◽  
Vaginal Misoprostol

Background: With more than 15% of all gravid women requiring prostaglandins in cervical ripening and labour induction. However, evidence is not clear about the preferred route or dose of the drug. So this study was designed with objectives to compare the induction delivery interval and safety of titrated oral misoprostol solution with vaginal misoprostol for labour induction in term primigravida women.Methods: In this randomised controlled trial out of 576 eligible women, 220 women as per inclusion criteria between 37 and 42 weeks of gestation with an unfavourable cervix (Bishop score <6) with indication for labour induction were randomly assigned (110each) to receive titrated oral solution of 20 mL misoprostol solution (1 mcg/mL) every 1 hour for four doses and then were titrated against individual uterine response or vaginal misoprostol 25 mcg every 4 hours. Vaginal delivery within 12 hours was the primary outcome. The data were analyzed by intention-to-treat.Results: Vaginal delivery occurred within 12 hours in 56 (50.9%) women in the titrated oral group and 24 (21.8%) women in the vaginal group with significant p-value (<0.001). The incidence of caesarean, hyper stimulation, low apgar score was less in the titrated oral group. More women experienced nausea in the titrated oral group.Conclusions:Titrated oral misoprostol is safe and effective for labour induction in primigravida patients with unfavourable cervix. 

scholarly journals Oral misoprostol solution in comparison to vaginal misoprostol for induction of labour in a randomized controlled trial

2020 ◽  
Vol 9 (9) ◽  
pp. 3530
Author(s):  
Ahmed M. Abbas ◽  
Peter R. Thabet ◽  
Amgad E. Abour Gamrah ◽  
Osama S. El-Kady
Keyword(s):  
Controlled Trial ◽  
Induction Of Labour ◽  
Cervical Ripening ◽  
Labour Induction ◽  
Controlled Clinical Trial ◽  
P Value ◽  
Randomized Controlled ◽  
Group I ◽  
Oral Misoprostol ◽  
Vaginal Misoprostol

Background: With more than 15% of all gravid women requiring prostaglandins in cervical ripening and labour induction. However, evidence is not clear about the preferred route or dose of the drug. So, this study was designed with objectives to compare the induction delivery interval and safety of titrated oral misoprostol solution with vaginal misoprostol for labour induction in term primigravida women.Methods: This randomized controlled clinical trial was conducted on a total of 100 patients randomly selected among primigravida at term women undergoing induction of labour for obstetric or medical indication for labour induction in Ain Shams University Maternity Hospital. They were divided into two Groups: Group I: patients undergoing induction of labour using misoprostol oral solution and Group II: patients undergoing induction of labour using vaginal misoprostol.Results: Oral misoprostol solution has less induction delivery duration and less side effects than vaginal misoprostol. The induction-delivery time with the oral route compared to the vaginal one (15.2 versus 20.3 hours respectively) with significant p-value (<0.001).Conclusions: Titrated oral misoprostol is safe and effective for labour induction in primigravida patients with unfavorable cervix.

scholarly journals A Comparison of Orally Administered Misoprostol With Vaginally Administered Misoprostol For Cervical Ripening And Labour Induction

KYAMC Journal ◽  
2017 ◽  
Vol 7 (1) ◽  
pp. 668-672 ◽  
Author(s):  
Sohana Siddique ◽  
Muhammad Jahangir Howlader ◽  
Joysree Saha ◽  
Kazi Shahnaz Begum
Keyword(s):  
Mode Of Delivery ◽  
Cervical Ripening ◽  
Labour Induction ◽  
Efficacy And Safety ◽  
Cross Sectional ◽  
Oral Misoprostol ◽  
Number Of Patients ◽  
Oral Group ◽  
Vaginal Misoprostol ◽  
Duration Of Pregnancy

Objective: To compare efficacy and safety of oral misoprostol over vaginal misoprostol for labour induction.Materials and Methods: This is a cross sectional interventional hospital based comparative study which was carried in the department of Obstetrics and Gynecology in DMCH from 01.07.2008 to 31.12.2008.Results: Almost equal number of patients delivered vaginally spontaneously in both group, there is no association between route of administration and mode of delivery. Nausea,vomiting occurred more in oral group and uterine hypertonicity more in vaginal group.Conclusion: In this study, 50 patients were randomly selected for oral group and 50 patients for vaginal group. There were no significant differences regarding age, duration of pregnancy, Bishop's score and indication of induction of labour.KYAMC Journal Vol. 7, No.-1, Jul 2016, Page 668-672

scholarly journals Oral and vaginal route of misoprostol for induction of labour: a comparative study

2019 ◽  
Vol 8 (5) ◽  
pp. 1956
Author(s):  
Deepti D. Sharma ◽  
Kavita A. Chandnani
Keyword(s):  
Cesarean Section ◽  
Vaginal Delivery ◽  
Induction Of Labour ◽  
Vaginal Route ◽  
Oral Misoprostol ◽  
Group A ◽  
The Mean ◽  
Vaginal Misoprostol ◽  
Group B ◽  
To Receive

Background: Induction of labour can be defined as “Artificial initiation of uterine contractions before the onset of spontaneous labour, after the period of viability, by any methods, for purpose of vaginal delivery.” The key factor for a successful induction is the status of cervix, its form, consistency and dilatation which is determined by the Bishop score. In case of unfavourable cervix or in the pregnancies remote from the term; prostaglandins are more effective than any other method of induction. Introduction of misoprostol, PGE1 analogue, for the induction of labour in 1993 and its approval for clinical use by ACOG (American College of Obstetrics and Gynecology) in 1999 has been the most significant advancement. It is the latest drug for induction of labour which is cheap and stable at room temperature and is being used worldwide in different doses and by various routes. We compared the most commonly preferred two routes; vaginal and oral in terms of success of induction and noted the adverse events and side effects in both routes.Methods: This was a prospective comparative study carried out at SBKSMIRC (Shrimati Bhikhiben Kanjibhai Shah Medical Institute and Research Centre), Dhiraj general hospital, Vadodara, Gujarat, 200 patients who required induction of labour were recruited after applying inclusion and exclusion criteria and were randomly divided in two groups- Group A meant to receive 50µg oral misoprostol, Group B - meant to receive 25µg vaginal misoprostol repeated 4 hourly up to maximum of five doses. Progress of labour was charted on the partograph. The mean induction delivery interval, mode of delivery, maternal and neonatal outcomes and complications were observed.Results: The mean induction to delivery interval was significantly less in vaginal group than oral (23.3±12.4 hours in oral vs. 17.3±10 hours in vaginal). Vaginal delivery and cesarean section rates were comparable in both groups (76% in Group A vs. 72% in Group B for vaginal delivery, 18% vs. 20% for Cesarean section, respectively). 58% patients in Group A required more than two doses as compared to 39% in group B, though the difference was statistically not significant. Significant number of patients required added oxytocin administration in Group A (72%). No major complications or adverse events were observed. Neonatal hyperbilirubinemia was seen more in Group A.Conclusions: Both Oral misoprostol in a dose of 50μg and vaginal misoprostol 25 μg every four hours, to a maximum of five doses, have the potential to induce labour safely and effectively. The vaginal route however is beneficial in effecting delivery in lesser time with few numbers of doses as compared to oral route.

TO COMPARE THE FETOMATERNAL OUTCOME OF ORAL MISOPROSTOL SOLUTION AND VAGINAL MISOPROSTOL TABLET FOR INDUCTION OF LABOUR AT TERM IN THE DEPARTMENT OF OBSTETRICS & GYNAECOLOGY, SMS MEDICAL COLLEGE, JAIPUR

2020 ◽  
Vol 4 (6) ◽  
Author(s):  
Neelam Bhardwaj ◽  
Parveen . ◽  
Prerna . ◽  
Neeta Meena ◽  
Prem .
Keyword(s):  
Controlled Trial ◽  
Meconium Aspiration Syndrome ◽  
Induction Of Labour ◽  
Medical College ◽  
Oral Misoprostol ◽  
Misoprostol Group ◽  
Group A ◽  
Nicu Admission ◽  
Vaginal Misoprostol ◽  
Group B

Background: Induction of labour is a common intervention, required in situations where continuation of pregnancy may be lifethreatening for the mother and/or fetus. In industrialized countries, the induction rate ranges from 10-25%. Methods: Randomized controlled trial was conducted at Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, SMS Medical College, Jaipur. Results: APGAR score at 1 min and 5 minutes was 6.64 and 6.84 in oral misoprostol and vaginal misoprostol group respectively, while at 5 minutes it is 6.7 oral group and 7 of vaginal misoprostol group. 34% of cases need NICU admission in Group-A (Oral misoprostol) and 14% in Group-B (Vaginal misoprostol) group. Meconium aspiration syndrome which is present 10% of patients in Group-A (Oral Misoprostol) while it is present in 6% of patients in Group-B (Vaginal misoprostol). Conclusion: The lesser incidence of meconium-stained liquor and NICU admissions and fewer caesareans with better neonatal outcome in women induced with oral misoprostol outweigh its advantages over the vaginal misoprostol Keywords: Misoprostol, Labor, Induction, Fetomaternal outcome.

A COMPARATIVE STUDY OF MIFEPRISTONE AND MISOPROSTOL VERSUS MISOPROSTOL ALONE IN INDUCTION OF LABOUR IN LATE INTRAUTERINE FETAL DEATH

2021 ◽  
Vol 5 (2) ◽  
Author(s):  
Shivpal Moond ◽  
K.P. Banerjee ◽  
Rakhi Arya
Keyword(s):  
Single Dose ◽  
Comparative Study ◽  
Fetal Death ◽  
Induction Of Labour ◽  
Labour Induction ◽  
Intrauterine Fetal Death ◽  
P Value ◽  
Group A ◽  
The Mean ◽  
Group B

Objective: To compare efficacy, safety and tolerance of combination of Mifepristone and Misoprostol versus Misoprostol alone in induction of labour in late intrauterine fetal death (>24 weeks). Methods: This prospectively study included 160 women with late intrauterine fetal death (IUFD) after 24 weeks of gestation and divided the women randomly into two groups each containing 80 women. In Group-A : Mifepristone 200 mg single dose was given and after 24 hrs Tab Misoprostol (intravaginally) administered and repeated 4 hourly upto a maximum of 5 doses, while in Group-B : Only Tab Misoprostol administered intravaginally 4 hourly upto maximum 5 doses. Induction-delivery interval and number of doses of Misoprostol was calculated.    Results: The mean induction-delivery interval in Group-A was 13.02 ± 3.74 hours and in Group-B was 16.09 ± 2.99 hours (p-value <0.0001). Mean doses of Misoprostol required in Group-A was 3.36 ± 1.08 hours and in Group-B was 4.32 ± 0.65 hours (p-value <0.0001). Conclusion: Combination of Mifepristone and Misoprostol is more effective as comparison to Misoprostol in terms of induction-delivery interval and number of doses of misoprostol required.    Keywords: IUFD, mifepristone, misoprostol, induction of labour, induction-delivery interval.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document