Dataset Information

Oral misoprostol, low dose vaginal misoprostol, and vaginal dinoprostone for labor induction: Randomized controlled trial.

ABSTRACT: OBJECTIVE:To compare effectiveness and safety of oral misoprostol (50 ?g every four hours as needed), low dose vaginal misoprostol (25 to 50 ?g every six hours as needed), and our established dinoprostone vaginal gel (one to two mg every six hours as needed) induction. MATERIALS AND METHODS:Consenting women with a live term single cephalic fetus for indicated labor induction were randomized (3N = 511). Prior uterine surgery or non-reassuring fetal surveillance were exclusions. Concealed computer generated randomization was stratified and blocked. Newborns were assessed by a team unaware of group assignment. The primary outcome was time from induction at randomization to vaginal birth for initial parametric analysis. Sample size was based on mean difference of 240 minutes with ?2 = 0.05 and power 95%. Non-parametric analysis was also pre-specified ranking cesareans as longest vaginal births. RESULTS:Enrollment was from April 1999 to December 2000. Demographics were similar across groups. Analysis was by intent to treat, with no loss to follow up. Mean time (±SD) to vaginal birth was 1356 (±1033) minutes for oral misoprostol, 1530 (±3249) minutes for vaginal misoprostol, and 1208 (±613) minutes for vaginal dinoprostone (P = 0.46, ANOVA). Median times to vaginal birth were 1571, 1339, and 1451 minutes respectively (P = 0.46, Kruskal-Wallis). Vaginal births occurred within 24 hours in 44.9, 53.5 and 47.7% respectively (P = 0.27, ?2). There were no significant differences in Kaplan Meier survival analyses, cesareans, adverse effects, or maternal satisfaction. The newborn who met birth asphyxia criteria received vaginal misoprostol, as did. all three other newborns with cord artery pH<7.0 (P = 0.04, Fisher Exact). CONCLUSION:There was no significant difference in effectiveness of the three groups. Profound newborn acidemia, though infrequent, occurred only with low dose vaginal misoprostol.

SUBMITTER: Young DC

PROVIDER: S-EPMC6953875 | biostudies-literature | 2020

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Oral misoprostol, low dose vaginal misoprostol, and vaginal dinoprostone for labor induction: Randomized controlled trial.

Young David C DC Delaney Tina T Armson B Anthony BA Fanning Cora C

PloS one 20200110 1

<h4>Objective</h4>To compare effectiveness and safety of oral misoprostol (50 μg every four hours as needed), low dose vaginal misoprostol (25 to 50 μg every six hours as needed), and our established dinoprostone vaginal gel (one to two mg every six hours as needed) induction.<h4>Materials and methods</h4>Consenting women with a live term single cephalic fetus for indicated labor induction were randomized (3N = 511). Prior uterine surgery or non-reassuring fetal surveillance were exclusions. Con ...[more]

PMID: 31923193

Similar Datasets

Project description:ObjectiveTo evaluate whether cervical ripening with oral misoprostol increases cesarean delivery risk and prolongs time to vaginal delivery compared with vaginal misoprostol in a predominantly overweight population.MethodsThis single center, retrospective cohort study was performed at a tertiary care academic medical center and compared labor induction outcomes with vaginal misoprostol to outcomes with oral misoprostol after a complete institutional shift to oral misoprostol. Labor induction using 25 micrograms vaginal misoprostol in 2013-2014 was compared with 50 micrograms oral misoprostol in 2014-2015. The primary outcome was cesarean delivery. Secondary outcomes included time to vaginal delivery, uterine tachysystole, maternal hemorrhage, and composite adverse neonatal outcomes. Demographics and outcomes were analyzed using standard statistical tests. Multivariable regression models accounting for potential confounders were created for the primary and secondary outcomes with adjusted odds ratios (aOR) as the measures of effect.ResultsThere were 138 women in the oral and 138 women in the vaginal misoprostol groups. In the overall cohort, the median (interquartile range) body mass index was 31.7 (28.2-36.8) and most women (72%) were of either black or Hispanic race or ethnicity. The frequency of cesarean delivery was higher in the oral than the vaginal misoprostol group (32% vs 21%; P=.04). The adjusted odds of cesarean was higher with oral misoprostol (aOR 2.01; 95% CI 1.07-3.76). Among nulliparous women, the frequency of cesarean delivery was 41% in the oral and 28% in the vaginal misoprostol groups (aOR 2.79; 95% CI 1.26-6.19). Women had a longer time to vaginal delivery in the oral compared with vaginal misoprostol group (41 vs 31 hours respectively, P=.01). Tachysystole occurred more frequently with vaginal misoprostol (20% vs 11%; P=.04).ConclusionCompared with vaginal misoprostol, oral misoprostol may be associated with increased risk of cesarean delivery and longer time to vaginal delivery.

Project description:BackgroundThe safest, most effective and fastest combined approaches to induction of labor is unknown. In an open-label randomized clinical trial we evaluated the efficacy of combination of extra-amniotic Foley's catheter and vaginal misoprostol compared to vaginal misoprostol alone for cervical ripening and induction of labor on the incidence of failed induction, induction-to-delivery interval and adverse maternal and perinatal outcomes.MethodsPregnant women at gestational age of 28 weeks or greater admitted at Kenyatta National Hospital, Kenya for induction of labor were enrolled then randomized to either a combination of extra-amniotic Foley's catheter inflated by 30 cm3 of normal saline and 25 micrograms of vaginal misoprostol or 25 micrograms of vaginal misoprostol alone. Women underwent 6 hourly reviews and additional misoprostol inserted if required. The primary outcome was incidence of failed induction. Secondary outcomes were induction-to-delivery interval and adverse maternal and perinatal outcomes. We conducted an intent-to-treat analysis and compared means or medians using t-test or Wilcoxon rank, proportions using Chi-square or Fishers test as appropriate. Induction-to-delivery interval were compared using the log-rank test. P-values of < 0.05 and 95% confidence intervals that excluded the null were considered statistically significant.ResultsBetween February and May 2016, we enrolled 180 of 237 pregnant women admitted for induction of labor and randomized them to either a combination of extra-amniotic Foley's catheter and vaginal misoprostol (n = 90) or vaginal misoprostol alone (n = 90). The socio-demographic and obstetric characteristics were similar between the two groups. Failed induction rates were lower but not statistically significant following combined extra-amniotic Foley's catheter and vaginal misoprostol (8.9%) versus vaginal misoprostol alone (11.1%). The mean induction-to-delivery time was 4.8 h shorter in the combined extra-amniotic Foley's catheter and vaginal misoprostol (mean 18.9, standard deviation (SD) 7.2 h) compared to misoprostol only group (mean 14.1, SD 6.9 h) (log-rank test, p < 0.001). Maternal and perinatal complications were similar between the two groups.ConclusionsExtra-amniotic Foley's catheter and vaginal misoprostol for cervical ripening and induction of labor did not significantly lower the incidence of failed induction but safely shortened induction-to-delivery time compared to vaginal misoprostol only.Trial registrationTrial was retrospectively registered on 14-03-2016 PACTR201604001535825.

Project description:BackgroundLabor induction is defined as any procedure that stimulates uterine contractions before labor begins spontaneously. The vaginal and oral routes of administration of misoprostol are those most used for the induction of labor in routine practice, with the recommended dose being 25 μg. Nevertheless, the sublingual route may reduce the number of vaginal examinations required, increasing patient comfort and lowering the risk of maternal and fetal infection. Based on a previous systematic review, the objective of this study was to compare the frequency of tachysystole as the main outcome measure when misoprostol is administered sublingually at the dose of 12.5 μg versus vaginally at a dose of 25 μg to induce labor in a full-term pregnancy with a live fetus.MethodsA randomized, placebo-controlled, triple-blind clinical trial was conducted at two maternity hospitals in northeastern Brazil. Two hundred patients with a full-term pregnancy, a live fetus, Bishop score ≤ 6 and an indication for induction of labor were included. Following randomization, one group received 12.5 μg misoprostol sublingually and a vaginal placebo, while the other group received a sublingual placebo and 25 μg misoprostol vaginally. The primary outcome was the frequency of tachysystole. Student's t-test, the chi-square test of association and Fisher's exact test were used, as appropriate. Risk ratios and their 95% confidence intervals were calculated.ResultsThe frequency of tachysystole was lower in the group using 12.5 μg misoprostol sublingually compared to the group using 25 μg misoprostol vaginally (RR = 0.15; 95%CI: 0.02-0.97; p = 0.002). Failure to achieve vaginal delivery within 12 and 24 h was similar in both groups. Sublingual administration was preferred to vaginal administration by women in both groups; however, the difference was not statistically significant.ConclusionThe effectiveness of labor induction with low-dose sublingual misoprostol was similar to that achieved with vaginal administration of the recommended dose; however, the rate of tachysystole was lower in the sublingual group, and this route of administration may prove a safe alternative.Trial registrationRegistration number: NCT01406392, ClinicalTrials.gov. Date of registration: August 1, 2011.

Dataset Information

Oral misoprostol, low dose vaginal misoprostol, and vaginal dinoprostone for labor induction: Randomized controlled trial.

Publications

Oral misoprostol, low dose vaginal misoprostol, and vaginal dinoprostone for labor induction: Randomized controlled trial.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets