Misoprostol v/s Cerviprime Gel for Induction of Labour
Abstract
Objective: This prospective study was conducted to compare the effect, efficacy & safety of intra-vaginal misoprostol (PGE 1) & intra-cervical dinoprostone gel (PGE 2) for induction of labour.
Methods: 100 women aged 16-35 years with single live fetus, cephalic presentation & term pregnancy, who were admitted for induction of labour were included in this study. 50women received intrvaginal 50 microgram Misoprostol (study group) & 50 women received 0.5mg of intracervical dinoprostone gel (control group). Comparison was done between the mean time taken for onset of labour, time taken for induction to delivery, mean duration of labour, requirement of Oxytocin augmentation, mode of delivery, side effects & the neonatal outcome in either of the groups.
Results: The mean time taken for onset of labour was less in the misoprostol group than in the dinoprostone group (43.22 min v/s 1 hr 40 min). Similarly duration from induction to active phase (1hr 42 min v/s 4hrs 10 min)and active phase to delivery ( 3 hrs 06 min v/s 4 hrs 54 min) was less for misoprostol group and thus the induction to delivery interval (5 hrs 02 min v/s 11hrs 12 min). None of the study group patients required Oxytocin augmentation. Cesarean section rate was less in misoprostol group (6% v/s 22%). Maternal side effects were minimal in either group & the neonatal outcome was good in both the groups. The induction cost was much less in the misoprostol group.
Conclusion: Misoprostol is safe, efficacious, cheap and mother and fetus friendly drug for the induction of labour.
Downloads
References
2. Beischer NA, Mackay EV, Colditz PB. Obstetrics and the Newborn, An Illustrated Textbook 1997,3:449.
3.Witter FR . Prostaglandin E2 preparations for preinduction cervical ripening. Clin Obstet Gynecol. 2000;43:469–74. [PubMed]
4. Arias F. Pharmacology of oxytocin and prostaglandins. Clin Obstet Gynecol 2000;43:455 68. [PubMed]
5. American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists. New U.S. Food and Drug Administration labeling on Cytotec (Misoprostol) use and pregnancy. Committee Opinion Washington, DC: American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists; 1999;. 283.
6. F.Gary Cunningham, Kenneth J.Leveno, Steven L.Bloom, John C., Rouse,Spong,Williams Obstetrics,2010;23:502.
7. Sahu Latika,et al. Comparison of Prostaglandin E1(Misoprostol) with Prostaglandin E2(Dinoprostone) for Labor Induction. J Obstet Gynecology India 2004; 54(2):139-142.
8. Patil K P et al. Oral Misoprostol v/s intra-cervical dinoprostone for cervical ripening and labour induction. J Obstet Gynec India 2005; 55(2):128-131.
9. Murthy BK et al. Misoprostol alone versus a combination of Dinoprostone and Oxytocin for induction of labour. J Obstet Gynec India 2006;56(5):413-416.
10. Agarwal N, Gupta,A, Kriplani ,Bhatla NP. Six hourly vaginal misoprostol versus intracervical Dinoprostone for cervical ripening and labour induction.J Obstet and Gynecology Res 2003;29(3):147-51.
11. Garry D, Figueroa R, Kalish RB. Randomized Controlled Trial of Vaginal Misoprostol Versus Dinoprostone Vaginal Insert for labour induction Journal of Maternal-Fetal and Neonatal Medicine 2003; 13(4):254-259.
12. Calder AA, Loughney AD,Weir CJ, Barber JW. Induction of labour in nulliparous and multiparous women: a UK, multicentre, open-label sudy of intrvaginal misoprostol in comparison with dinoprostone. BJOG 2008;115(10):1279-88. [PubMed]
13.Sebiha Ozkan, Eray Caliskan, Emek Doger, Izzet Yucesoy, Semih Ozeren, Birol Vural. Comparative safety and efficacy of vaginal Misoprostol versus Dinoprostone Vaginal insert in labour induction at term: a Randomized Trial. Archives of Gynecology and Obstetrics 2009;280(1):19-24. [PubMed]
14. Neiger R. Greaves PC. Comparison between Vaginal Misoprostol and Cervical Dinoprostone for cervical ripening and labour induction. Tenn Med. 2001;94(1):25-7. [PubMed]
15. F.Gary Cunningham, Kenneth J.Leveno, Steven L.Bloom, John C., Rouse,Spong. Williams Obstetrics,2010;23:503.
16. Cheng SY, Ming H, Lee JC. Titrated oral compared with vaginal misoprostol for labor induction: A randomized controlled trial. Obstet Gynecol. 2008; 111:119-125. [PubMed]
17. Muzonzini G, Hofmeyr GJ. Buccal or sublingual misoprostol for cervical ripening and induction of labour. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2004; 4:CD004221. [PubMed]
18. Colon I, Clawson K, Hunter K, Druzin ML, Taslimi MM. Prospective randomized clinical trial of inpatient cervical ripening with stepwise oral misoprostol vs vaginal misoprostol. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2005; 192:747-752.
OAI - Open Archives Initiative
