Comparative Study of Oral and Vaginal Misoprostol for Induction of Labour, Maternal and Foetal Outcome

• Main Authors: Kambhampati Komala, Meherlatha Reddy, Iqbal Jehan Quadri, Suneetha B., Ramya V.
• Format: Article
• Language: English
• Published: JCDR Research and Publications Private Limited 2013-12-01
• Series: Journal of Clinical and Diagnostic Research
• Subjects: vaginal misoprostol; oralmisoproptol; bishop’s score; labour induction
• Online Access: https://jcdr.net/articles/PDF/3779/58-%205825_E(C)_F(T)_PF1(MH)_PFA(H)_OLF.pdf
• ISSN: 2249-782X; 0973-709X

Background: Misoprostol is a new promising agent for cervical ripening and induction of labour .The ideal dose, route and frequency of administration of misoprostol are still under investigation. Although, vaginal application of misoprostol has been validated as a reasonable mean of induction, there is a patient resistance to digital examination and there is a risk of ascending infection. For this reason, oral administration of misoprostol for cervical ripening and labour induction has been tried. Aims and Objectives: To compare 50µg of oral misoprostol versus 25µg of intravaginal misoprostol for induction of labour at term and maternal, foetal outcomes. Methods: Two hundred women who were at term, with indication for induction of labour and Bishop scores of ≤5 were randomly assigned to receive misoprostol 50µg or 25µg intravaginal, every 4-6 hours, for a maximum of 5 doses. In either group, pregnant females with inadequate uterine contractions despite being given maximum 5 doses of misoprostol, were augmented using oxytocin. The primary outcome measure was time-interval from induction to vaginal delivery and vaginal delivery rate within 24 hours. Results: The median induction to vaginal delivery time in oral group (12.92h) and vaginal group (14.04 h) was not significant. Oral misoprostol resulted in more number of vaginal deliveries as compared to vaginal misoprostol (94% as compared to 86%), which was not significant. There was a significantly higher incidence of uterine tachysystole in the vaginal group, as compared to oral group. There were no significant differences between the groups with respect to oxytocin augmentation, caesarean section rate, analgesic requirement and neonatal outcome. Conclusion: Oral misoprostol is as efficacious as vaginal misoprostol because of shorter induction delivery interval, lower caesarean section rates, and lower incidence of failed induction rates. Lower incidence of foetal distress and easy intake are observed if the drug is administered orally.