Skip to main content
Top
Published in: BMC Pregnancy and Childbirth 1/2021

Open Access 01-12-2021 | Labor Induction | Research article

Labor induction with randomized comparison of cervical, oral and intravaginal misoprostol

Authors: Masoumeh Dadashaliha, Somayeh Fallah, Monirsadat Mirzadeh

Published in: BMC Pregnancy and Childbirth | Issue 1/2021

Login to get access

Abstract

Background

This study attempts to evaluate the safety and effectiveness of 50μgm intracervical misoprostol in comparison with intravaginal and sublingual for the induction of labor at term pregnant women.

Methods

This study is designed as a parallel clinical trial study. Three hundred and fifteen term pregnancies requiring induction of labor were treated with the maximum used misoprostol intracervical, sublingual, and vaginal doses. Participants were randomly allocated into three groups of 105. The dose was repeated every 4 h until adequate uterine contraction and Bishop Score were achieved. The duration of induction to births, time to the active phase, the rate of births, and the need for caesarean section were compared in three groups. Additionally, labor course and side effects were recorded and analyzed. Data were analyzed using SPSS software. A significance level of p <  0.05 was considered for statistical analyses.

Findings

Labor was successfully induced in all cases most (63%) of which required a single dose of misoprostol. Ninety-three (93.0%, p <  0.05) cervical participants proceeded to vaginal births. This figure was also the same in the vaginal and sublingual group of 83 cases (83.0%). The other 41 cases received caesarean section with more indications of failure to progress and meconium-stained liquor. The results indicated that 278 (92.7%) births were achieved in less than 10 h. Time from start of medication to the active phase of labor and childbirth was 3.01 ± 0.86 and 6.1 ± 1.3 h in the Cervical group, 4.2 ± 0.66 and 8.4 ± 0.92 h in the sublingual group, and 5.06 ± 1.1 and 9.2 ± 1.5 h in the vaginal group respectively (p < 0.001). The Caesarean rate was lower in the cervical group than in the two other groups (p = 0.05). No significant differences were observed between the study groups in terms of Apgar score and meconium-stained amniotic fluid. Furthermore, no maternal and neonatal complications were observed.

Conclusion

In addition to the sublingual and intravaginal routes of administration, intracervical misoprostol at a single dose of 50μgm appears to be an effective method for induction of labor in women with an unfavorable cervix. Like all medical interventions, a discussion of the risks, benefits, and alternatives to induction of labor with this medication in each woman should be undertaken before treatment.

Trial registration

This clinical study was approved by the Iranian Registry of Clinical Trials with IRCT ID: IRCT201904150432​78N1. Registration date was on May 13, 2019 and May 27, 2019 respectively (http://​www.​irct.​ir).
Literature
2.
go back to reference Ayaz A, Saeed S, Farooq MU, Ahmad I, Bahoo MLA, Saeed M. Labour induction with randomized comparison of oral and intravaginal misoprostol in post date multigravida women. Malaysian J Med Sci. 2009;16(1):34 PMID: 22589646. Ayaz A, Saeed S, Farooq MU, Ahmad I, Bahoo MLA, Saeed M. Labour induction with randomized comparison of oral and intravaginal misoprostol in post date multigravida women. Malaysian J Med Sci. 2009;16(1):34 PMID: 22589646.
3.
go back to reference Bishop EH. Pelvic scoring for elective induction. 50 Studies Every Obstetrician-Gynecologist Should Know; 1964. p. 60. PMID: 14199536 Bishop EH. Pelvic scoring for elective induction. 50 Studies Every Obstetrician-Gynecologist Should Know; 1964. p. 60. PMID: 14199536
9.
go back to reference Keirse M. Prostaglandins in preinduction cervical ripening. Meta-analysis of worldwide clinical experience. J Reprod Med. 1993;38(1 Suppl):89–100 PMID: 8429533.PubMed Keirse M. Prostaglandins in preinduction cervical ripening. Meta-analysis of worldwide clinical experience. J Reprod Med. 1993;38(1 Suppl):89–100 PMID: 8429533.PubMed
10.
go back to reference Bernardes T, Broekhuijsen K, Koopmans C, Boers K, Van Wyk L, Tajik P, et al. Caesarean section rates and adverse neonatal outcomes after induction of labour versus expectant management in women with an unripe cervix: a secondary analysis of the HYPITAT and DIGITAT trials. BJOG Int J Obstet Gynaecol. 2016;123(9):1501–8. https://doi.org/10.1111/1471-0528.14028.CrossRef Bernardes T, Broekhuijsen K, Koopmans C, Boers K, Van Wyk L, Tajik P, et al. Caesarean section rates and adverse neonatal outcomes after induction of labour versus expectant management in women with an unripe cervix: a secondary analysis of the HYPITAT and DIGITAT trials. BJOG Int J Obstet Gynaecol. 2016;123(9):1501–8. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1111/​1471-0528.​14028.CrossRef
22.
go back to reference Girija S, Manjunath AP. Comparison of two dosing regimens of vaginal misoprostol for labour induction: a randomised controlled trial. J Turkish German Gynecol Assoc. 2009;10(4):220 PMID: 24591876. Girija S, Manjunath AP. Comparison of two dosing regimens of vaginal misoprostol for labour induction: a randomised controlled trial. J Turkish German Gynecol Assoc. 2009;10(4):220 PMID: 24591876.
23.
go back to reference Jahromi BN, Poorgholam F, Yousefi G, Salarian L. Sublingual versus vaginal misoprostol for the induction of labor at term: a randomized, triple-blind, placebo-controlled clinical trial. Iranian J Med Sci. 2016;41(2):79 PMID: 26989277. Jahromi BN, Poorgholam F, Yousefi G, Salarian L. Sublingual versus vaginal misoprostol for the induction of labor at term: a randomized, triple-blind, placebo-controlled clinical trial. Iranian J Med Sci. 2016;41(2):79 PMID: 26989277.
24.
go back to reference Gattás DS, de Amorim MM, Feitosa FE, da Silva-Junior JR, Ribeiro LC, Souza GF, et al. Misoprostol administered sublingually at a dose of 12.5 μg versus vaginally at a dose of 25 μg for the induction of full-term labor: a randomized controlled trial. Reprod Health. 2020;17:1–9. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12978-020-0901-8.CrossRef Gattás DS, de Amorim MM, Feitosa FE, da Silva-Junior JR, Ribeiro LC, Souza GF, et al. Misoprostol administered sublingually at a dose of 12.5 μg versus vaginally at a dose of 25 μg for the induction of full-term labor: a randomized controlled trial. Reprod Health. 2020;17:1–9. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1186/​s12978-020-0901-8.CrossRef
25.
go back to reference Ayati S, Vahidroodsari F, Farshidi F, Shahabian M, Aghaee MA. Vaginal versus sublingual misoprostol for labor induction at term and post term: a randomized prospective study. Iranian J Pharmaceut Res. 2014;13(1):299–304 PMID: 24734084. Ayati S, Vahidroodsari F, Farshidi F, Shahabian M, Aghaee MA. Vaginal versus sublingual misoprostol for labor induction at term and post term: a randomized prospective study. Iranian J Pharmaceut Res. 2014;13(1):299–304 PMID: 24734084.
26.
go back to reference Lapuente-Ocamica O, Ugarte L, Lopez-Picado A, Sanchez-Refoyo F, Lasa IL, Echevarria O, et al. Efficacy and safety of administering oral misoprostol by titration compared to vaginal misoprostol and dinoprostone for cervical ripening and induction of labour: study protocol for a randomised clinical trial. BMC Pregnancy Childbirth. 2019;19(1):14. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12884-018-2132-3.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral Lapuente-Ocamica O, Ugarte L, Lopez-Picado A, Sanchez-Refoyo F, Lasa IL, Echevarria O, et al. Efficacy and safety of administering oral misoprostol by titration compared to vaginal misoprostol and dinoprostone for cervical ripening and induction of labour: study protocol for a randomised clinical trial. BMC Pregnancy Childbirth. 2019;19(1):14. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1186/​s12884-018-2132-3.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
29.
go back to reference Allen R, O’Brien BM. Uses of misoprostol in obstetrics and gynecology. Rev Obstet Gynecol. 2009;2(3):159–68 PMID: 19826573.PubMedPubMedCentral Allen R, O’Brien BM. Uses of misoprostol in obstetrics and gynecology. Rev Obstet Gynecol. 2009;2(3):159–68 PMID: 19826573.PubMedPubMedCentral
32.
go back to reference Roudsari FV, Ayati S, Ghasemi M, Mofrad MH, Shakeri MT, Farshidi F, et al. Comparison of vaginal misoprostol with Foley catheter for cervical ripening and induction of labor. Iranian J Pharmaceut Res. 2011;10(1):149–54 PMID: 24363694. Roudsari FV, Ayati S, Ghasemi M, Mofrad MH, Shakeri MT, Farshidi F, et al. Comparison of vaginal misoprostol with Foley catheter for cervical ripening and induction of labor. Iranian J Pharmaceut Res. 2011;10(1):149–54 PMID: 24363694.
Metadata
Title
Labor induction with randomized comparison of cervical, oral and intravaginal misoprostol
Authors
Masoumeh Dadashaliha
Somayeh Fallah
Monirsadat Mirzadeh
Publication date
01-12-2021
Publisher
BioMed Central
Published in
BMC Pregnancy and Childbirth / Issue 1/2021
Electronic ISSN: 1471-2393
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1186/s12884-021-04196-4

Other articles of this Issue 1/2021

BMC Pregnancy and Childbirth 1/2021 Go to the issue