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

Misoprostol in Addition to a Double-Balloon Catheter for Induction: A Double-Blind Randomized Controlled Trial

2017 ◽  
Vol 35 (03) ◽  
pp. 225-232 ◽  
Author(s):  
Maritza Gonzalez ◽  
Wei-Hsuan Lo-Ciganic ◽  
Kathryn Reed ◽  
Meghan Hill
Keyword(s):  
Randomized Controlled Trial ◽  
Cesarean Delivery ◽  
Vaginal Delivery ◽  
Controlled Trial ◽  
Balloon Catheter ◽  
Double Blind ◽  
Randomized Controlled ◽  
Double Balloon ◽  
Oral Misoprostol ◽  
Cesarean Delivery Rate

Objective This article aims to evaluate whether the use of a double-balloon catheter with oral misoprostol results in a lower rate of cesarean and shorter times to delivery than the use of the double-balloon catheter with oral placebo. Study Design In a double-blind randomized controlled trial, a double-balloon catheter was used for induction of labor with two doses of either 50 µg of misoprostol or placebo. Outcomes included cesarean rate, time to vaginal delivery, change in Bishop's score, and oxytocin usage. Results A total of 343 women were screened and 199 randomized: 99 to the misoprostol arm and 100 to the placebo arm. Cesarean delivery rate was not different between the groups (misoprostol: 13.1% vs. placebo: 17.0%, p = 0.45). Time to vaginal delivery was significantly shorter (mean: 14.6 ± 6.9 vs. 20.8 ± 13.8 hours, p < 0.0001), change in Bishop's score was significantly greater (median: 5 vs. 4 points, p = 0.005), and use of oxytocin was significantly less frequent (86.9 vs. 98.0% patients, p = 0.01) in the misoprostol group. Conclusion The use of a double-balloon catheter with oral misoprostol for induction did not reduce the cesarean delivery rate, but did result in shorter labors, a greater increase in Bishop's score, and a lower need for oxytocin use.

scholarly journals Cervical Priming by Vaginal or Oral Misoprostol Before Operative Hysteroscopy: A Double-Blind, Randomized Controlled Trial

2016 ◽  
Vol 23 (7) ◽  
pp. 1107-1112 ◽  
Author(s):  
Adel M. Nada ◽  
Ahmed R. Elzayat ◽  
Mohamed H. Awad ◽  
Ahmed A. Metwally ◽  
Ayman M. Taher ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Randomized Controlled Trial ◽  
Controlled Trial ◽  
Double Blind ◽  
Operative Hysteroscopy ◽  
Randomized Controlled ◽  
Cervical Priming ◽  
Oral Misoprostol

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.

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
Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document