scholarly journals Letter in response to original research article; oral misoprostol solution in comparison to vaginal misoprostol for induction of labour in a randomized controlled trial

2020 ◽  
Vol 9 (12) ◽  
pp. 5205
Author(s):  
Manisha Meena ◽  
Avir Sarkar
Keyword(s):  
Randomized Controlled Trial ◽  
Controlled Trial ◽  
Induction Of Labour ◽  
Original Research ◽  
Great Effort ◽  
Original Research Article ◽  
Randomized Controlled ◽  
Research Article ◽  
Oral Misoprostol ◽  
Vaginal Misoprostol

We read with great interest the original research article entitled oral misoprostol solution in comparison to vaginal misoprostol for induction of labour in a randomized controlled trial by Abbas et al published in your journal in September 2020 issue. We want to congratulate the authors for this successful research article. It is indeed a great effort to shed light on the choice of preferred route and dose of administration of misorostol as a cervical ripening agent for induction of labour. However, we want to highlight a few points that are worth considering during interpretation of the trial results. All participants recruited in the study were primigravidae at term gestation. While term gestation starts from 37 weeks onwards, but in the inclusion criteria gestation range was mentioned from 36 to 42 weeks.

scholarly journals Oral versus Vaginal Misoprostol for Labour Induction : A Comparative Study

2018 ◽  
pp. 89
Author(s):  
Eke P Mahacakri ◽  
 Nuswil Bernolian ◽  
Wim T Pangemanan ◽  
Theodorus Theodorus
Keyword(s):  
Randomized Controlled Trial ◽  
Controlled Trial ◽  
Fetal Distress ◽  
Labour Induction ◽  
Double Blind ◽  
Uterine Contractions ◽  
Randomized Controlled ◽  
Oral Misoprostol ◽  
Unfavorable Cervix ◽  
Vaginal Misoprostol

Objective: To compare the efficacy and safety of hourly titrated oralmisoprostol in solution (OMS) with vaginal misoprostol (PV) forlabor induction.Methods: Randomized Controlled Trial (RCT), double blind-add onthe study was conducted from January-November 2016 in deliveryward of Moh. Hoesin general hospital. Women 30 weeks of gestationwith an unfavorable cervix (Bishop score 6) and an indicationfor labor induction were randomly assigned to receive titrated oralor vaginal misoprostol. The OMS group received a basal unit of20 ml misoprostol solution (1 g/ml) every 1 hour for four dosesand then were titrated against individual uterine response. In theabsence of regular uterine contractions, the dose was increased to40 ml hourly for four doses and then 60 ml for four doses. Thevaginal group received 25 g every 4 hours until attaining a morefavorable cervix for three doses. All the subjects received amylumplacebo. In labor within 12 hours was the primary outcome.Results: A total of 30 women were enrolled in this study. One subjectin the OMS group was dropped out due to eclamptic seizure. Theaverage interval from induction until in labour in OMS group was5.753.14 hour and 6.604.46 hour in PV group (p = 0.56). In labourstage was achieved within 12 hours in 14 women (100%) in OMSgroup and 14 women (93.3%) in PV group (p = 1.00). Vaginaldelivery was achieved within 24 hours in 13 women (92.9%) inOMS group and 15 women (100%) in PV group. The incidence ofuterine hyperstimulation/ tachysystolic was 7.1% in OMS groupcompared with 13.3% in PV group. Fetal distress was found only 1case (7.1%) in OMS group. There was no difference in the maternaland neonatal outcome of labor in both the groups.Conclusion: Oral titrated in solution, and vaginal route ofadministration of misoprostol for induction of labour areequally effective and safe.[Indones J Obstet Gynecol 2018; 6-2: 89-97]Keywords: hourly titrated oral misoprostol in solution, oral misoprostol,randomized controlled trial, vaginal misoprostol

A Randomized Controlled Trial of Laminaria, Oral Misoprostol, and Vaginal Misoprostol Before Abortion

1999 ◽  
Vol 93 (5, Part 1) ◽  
pp. 766-770 ◽  
Author(s):  
LAURA MACISAAC ◽  
DANIEL GROSSMAN ◽  
ELIZABETH BALISTRERI ◽  
PHILIP DARNEY
Keyword(s):  
Randomized Controlled Trial ◽  
Controlled Trial ◽  
Randomized Controlled ◽  
Oral Misoprostol ◽  
Vaginal Misoprostol

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.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document