Gynecologic and Obstetric Investigation
Original Article
Misoprostol 50 μg Sublingually versus Vaginally for Labor Induction at Term: A Randomized StudyCaliskan E. · Bodur H. · Ozeren S. · Corakci A. · Ozkan S. · Yucesoy I.Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Kocaeli University Faculty of Medicine, Kocaeli, Turkey
|
|
Log in to MyKarger to check if you already have access to this content.
KAB
Buy a Karger Article Bundle (KAB) and profit from a discount!
If you would like to redeem your KAB credit, please log in.
Save over 20% compared to the individual article price.
Article / Publication Details
Received: December 23, 2003
Accepted: October 28, 2004
Published online: April 06, 2005
Issue release date: April 2005
Number of Print Pages: 7
Number of Figures: 0
Number of Tables: 3
ISSN: 0378-7346 (Print)
eISSN: 1423-002X (Online)
For additional information: https://www.karger.com/GOI
Abstract
Objective: To compare the efficacy of misoprostol 50 µg vaginally and 50 µg sublingually for labor induction at term. Materials and Methods: One hundred and sixty women were randomized to receive misoprostol 50 µg vaginally (n = 80) or 50 µg sublingually misoprostol (n = 80). The doses were given every 4 h (maximum 6 doses). Primary outcome measure was number of cesarean deliveries. Induction to delivery time, delivery within 24 h, the number of misoprostol doses given; the need for oxytocin augmentation, tachysystole and uterine hyperstimulation rates and neonatal outcomes were secondary outcome measures. Results: The mean induction to delivery time was 748 ± 379 min in the vaginal group and 711 ± 425 in the sublingual group (p = 0.56). The number of women delivering within 24 h was 73 (91.3%) in the vaginal group and 74 (92.5%) in the sublingual group (p = 0.78). The mean number of misoprostol doses required was significantly higher in the sublingual group (1.9 ± 1.2) compared with the vaginal group (1.1 ± 0.4; p < 0.001). More women in the sublingual group experienced tachysystole (n = 14, 17.5%) compared with the vaginal group (n = 3, 3.8%; p = 0.005). Seven cases (8.8%) in the vaginal group and 12 cases in the sublingual group (15%) required emergent cesarean delivery for fetal heart rate abnormalities (p = 0.22). Other neonatal outcomes including umbilical artery pH, Apgar scores and intensive care unit admission were similar in the two groups. Conclusion: Sublingual misoprostol is as efficacious as vaginal misoprostol for induction of labor. More frequent tachysystole is observed with misoprostol 50 µg sublingually, but neonatal outcomes are similar.
© 2005 S. Karger AG, Basel
Related Articles:
References
- Senior J, Marshall K, Sangha R, Clayton JK: In vitro characterization of prostanoid receptors on human myometrium at term pregnancy. Br J Pharmacol 1993;108:501–506.
- Sanchez-Ramos L, Kaunitz AM, Wears RL, Delke I, Gaudier FL: Misoprostol for cervical ripening and labor induction: A meta-analysis. Obstet Gynecol 1997;89:633–642.
- Caliskan E, Meydanlı MM, Dilbaz B, Aykan B, Sönmezer M, Haberal A: Is rectal misoprostol really effective in the management of third stage of labor? A randomized controlled trial. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2002;187:1038–1045.
- Meydanli MM, Caliskan E, Burak F, Narin MA, Atmaca R: Labor induction post-term with 25 micrograms vs. 50 micrograms of intravaginal misoprostol. Int J Gynecol Obstet 2003;81:249–255.
- Meydanli MM, Caliskan E, Haberal A: Prediction of adverse outcome associated with vaginal misoprostol for labor induction. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol 2003;110:143–148.
-
Ngai SW, Chan YM, Lam SW, Lao TT: Labor characteristics and uterine activity: Misoprostol compared with oxytocin in women at term with prelabor rupture of membranes. Br J Obstet Gynecol 2000;107:222–227.
External Resources
- Abdeel-Aleem H, Villar J, Gülmezoglu AM, Mostafa SA, Youssef AA, Shokry M, Watzer B: The pharmacokinetics of the prostaglandin E1 analogue misoprostol in plasma and colostrum after postpartum oral administration. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol 2003;108:25–28.
- Tang OS, Schweer H, Seyberth HW, Lee SWH, Ho PC: Pharmacokinetics of different routes of administration of misoprostol. Hum Reprod 2002;17: 332–336.
- Zieman M, Fong SK, Benowitz NL, Banskter D, Darney PD: Absorption kinetics of misoprostol with oral or vaginal administration. Obstet Gynecol 1997;90:88–92.
- Ho PC, Ngai SW, Liu KL, Wong GCY, Lee SWH: Vaginal misoprostol compared with oral misoprostol in termination of second trimester pregnancy. Obstet Gynecol 1997;90:735–738.
- Bishop EH: Pelvic scoring for elective induction. Obstet Gynecol 1964;24:266–268.
-
American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists: Induction of Labor with Misoprostol. ACOG Committee on Obstetric Practice. Washington, ACOG, 1999.
- Ramsey PS, Ogburn PL, Harris OY, Heise RH, Ramin KD: Effect of vaginal pH on efficacy of misoprostol for cervical ripening and labor induction. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2000;182:1616–1619.
- Kubli FW, Hon EH, Khazin AF, Takemura H: Observations on heart rate on pH in human fetus during labor. Am J Obstet Gynecol 1969;104:1190–1206.
-
American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists: Umbilical artery blood acid-base analysis.ACOG Tech Bull 1995, No 216.
- Sanchez-Ramos L, Kaunitz AM, Del Valle GO, Pelke I, Schroeder PA, Briones DK: Labor induction with the prostaglandin E1 analogue misoprostol versus oxytocin: A randomized trial. Obstet Gynecol 1993;81:332–336.
- Buccellato CA, Stika CS, Frederiksen MC: A randomized trial of misoprostol versus extra-amniotic sodium chloride infusion with oxytocin for induction of labor. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2000;182:1039–1044.
- Shetty A, Mackie L, Danielian P, Rice P, Templeton A: Sublingual compared with oral misoprostol in term labor induction: A randomized controlled trial. BJOG 2002;109:645–650.
- Cincinelli E, de Ziegler D, Bulletti C, Matteo MG, Schonauer LM, Galantino P: Direct transport of progesterone from vagina to uterus. Obstet Gynecol 2000;95: 403–406.
- Danielsson KG, Marions L, Rodriguez A, Spur BW, Wong PY, Bygdeman M: Comparison between oral and vaginal administration of misoprostol on uterine contractility. Obstet Gynecol 1999;93:275–280.
- Sanchez-Ramos L, Kaunitz AM: Misoprostol for cervical ripening and labor induction: A systemic review of the literature. Clin Obstet Gynecol 2000;43:475–488.
-
Hofmeyr GJ, Gülmezoglu AM: Vaginal misoprostol for cervical ripening and induction of labour. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2003;4.
- Shetty A, Danielian P, Templeton A: Sublingual misoprostol for the induction of labor at term. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2002;186:72–76.
Article / Publication Details
Received: December 23, 2003
Accepted: October 28, 2004
Published online: April 06, 2005
Issue release date: April 2005
Number of Print Pages: 7
Number of Figures: 0
Number of Tables: 3
ISSN: 0378-7346 (Print)
eISSN: 1423-002X (Online)
For additional information: https://www.karger.com/GOI
Copyright / Drug Dosage / Disclaimer
Copyright: All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be translated into other languages, reproduced or utilized in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopying, recording, microcopying, or by any information storage and retrieval system, without permission in writing from the publisher.Drug Dosage: The authors and the publisher have exerted every effort to ensure that drug selection and dosage set forth in this text are in accord with current recommendations and practice at the time of publication. However, in view of ongoing research, changes in government regulations, and the constant flow of information relating to drug therapy and drug reactions, the reader is urged to check the package insert for each drug for any changes in indications and dosage and for added warnings and precautions. This is particularly important when the recommended agent is a new and/or infrequently employed drug.
Disclaimer: The statements, opinions and data contained in this publication are solely those of the individual authors and contributors and not of the publishers and the editor(s). The appearance of advertisements or/and product references in the publication is not a warranty, endorsement, or approval of the products or services advertised or of their effectiveness, quality or safety. The publisher and the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to persons or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content or advertisements.
Get Permission
PubMed ID
