Comparison between effectiveness of sublingual misoprostol and intracervical dinoprostone gel for induction of labour in pregnant women

Dhira Das; Robin Medhi; Nilanjan Chowdhury

doi:10.18203/2320-6012.ijrms20231631

Authors

Dhira Das Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Fakhruddin Ali Ahmed Medical College and Hospital, Barpeta, Assam, India
Robin Medhi Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Fakhruddin Ali Ahmed Medical College and Hospital, Barpeta, Assam, India
Nilanjan Chowdhury Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Fakhruddin Ali Ahmed Medical College and Hospital, Barpeta, Assam, India

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.18203/2320-6012.ijrms20231631

Keywords:

Sublingual misoprostol, Intracervical dinoprostone gel, Labor induction, Oxytocin augmentation, Caesarean section

Abstract

Background: This hospital-based, prospective, comparative interventional study aimed to compare the effectiveness of sublingual misoprostol and intracervical dinoprostone gel for induction of labor in primigravida women.

Methods: A total of 100 patients were alternately assigned to induction with either Misoprostol 25mcg 6 hourly or dinoprostone Gel 0.5mg 6 hourly.

Results: The induction delivery interval was significantly longer in the dinoprostone group compared to the misoprostol group. The incidence of fetal distress was slightly higher in the Dinoprostone group, but the difference was not statistically significant. There were no significant differences between the two groups in the incidence of respiratory distress, birth asphyxia, and APGAR 1 MIN <6.

Conclusions: This study suggests that sublingual misoprostol (a type of prostaglandin E1, or PGE1) is more effective than intracervical dinoprostone gel (a type of prostaglandin E2, or PGE2) for cervical ripening and induction of labor.

Metrics

Metrics Loading ...

References

Gabbe SG, Niebyl JR, Simpson JL, Landon MB, Galan HL, Jauniaux ER, et al. Obstetrics: normal and problem pregnancies e-book. Elsevier Health Sciences; 2016.

Sanchez-Ramos L, Delke I. Induction of labor and termination of previable pregnancy. James-steer-Weiner-Gonik-Growther-Robson. High risk pregnancy management options Elsevier Saunders. 2011:1145-68.

Eke AC, Okigbo C. Mechanical methods for induction of labour: RHL commentary (last revised: 1 August 2012). The WHO Reproductive Health Library. Geneva: World Health Organization. 2012.

Souza JP, Gülmezoglu A, Lumbiganon P, Laopaiboon M, Carroli G, Fawole B, Ruyan P. WHO Global Survey on Maternal and Perinatal Health Research Group. Caesarean section without medical indications is associated with an increased risk of adverse short-term maternal outcomes: the 2004-2008 WHO Global Survey on Maternal and Perinatal Health. BMC Med. 2010;8(1):71.

Parmar M, Aherwar R, Jahan I. Comparative study of 25 [micro] g vaginal misoprostol v/s cerviprime gel for induction of labour at term. International Journal of Reproduction, Contraception, Obstetrics and Gynecology. 2014;3(4):887-93.

Munzar ZM. A comparison of oral misoprostol and vaginal prostaglandin E2 tablets for induction of labour at term. PAFMJ. 2015;65(3):301-6.

Jha N, Sagili H, Jayalakshmi D, Lakshminarayanan S. Comparison of efficacy and safety of sublingual misoprostol with intracervical dinoprostone gel for cervical ripening in prelabour rupture of membranes after 34 weeks of gestation. Archives of Gynecology and Obstetrics. 2015;291:39-44.

Veena B, Samal R, Inbaraj LR, George CE. Sublingual misoprostol (PGE1) versus intracervical dinoprostone (PGE2) gel for induction of labour: a randomized control trail. The Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology of India. 2016;66:122-8.

Zhang X, Xu J, Xu J, Wang Y. Misoprostol versus dinoprostone for induction of labor: a systematic review and meta-analysis. BMC Pregnancy and Childbirth. 2020;20(1):241.

Alfirevic, Z, Keeney E, Dowswell T, Welton NJ. Methods to induce labour: a systematic review, network meta-analysis and cost-effectiveness analysis. BJOG: An International Journal of Obstetrics Gynaecology. 2018;125(11):1467-6.

Agha MA, El-Sayed AA, El-Nashar IM, Ramadan BK. Sublingual misoprostol versus intracervical dinoprostone for induction of labor: a randomized controlled trial. BMC Pregnancy and Childbirth. 2018;18(1):13.

Di Renzo GC, Giardina I, Clerici G, Brillo E, Gerli S. The efficacy and safety of misoprostol versus dinoprostone for cervical ripening and labor induction: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Archives of Gynecology and Obstetrics. 2020;301(2):303-16.