Titrated oral misoprostol solution for induction of labour: a multi-centre, randomised trial

Authors: Hofmeyr, G.J.1; Alfirevic, Z.2; Matonhodze, B.1; Brocklehurst, P.3; Campbell, E.2; Nikodem, V.C.1

Source: BJOG: An International Journal of Obstetrics & Gynaecology, Volume 108, Number 9, September 2001 , pp. 952-959(8)

Publisher: Blackwell Publishing

Key:
Free Content - Free Content
New Content - New Content
Subscribed Content - Subscribed Content
Free Trial Content - Free Trial Content

Abstract:

Objectives

To determine the effects of titrated oral misoprostol solution, compared with vaginal dinoprostone. Study design

Open, randomised clinical trial. Setting

Academic hospitals in South Africa and Liverpool, UK. Methods

Women undergoing induction of labour after 34 weeks of pregnancy were allocated by randomised, sealed opaque envelopes, to induction of labour with titrated oral misoprostol solution, or two doses of vaginal dinoprostone (2mg) administered six hours apart. Failure to deliver within 24 hours of randomisation was the primary outcome on which the sample size was based. The data were analysed by intention-to-treat. Results

Six hundred and ninety-five women were randomly allocated: 346 to oral misoprostol and 349 to vaginal dinoprostone. There were no significant differences in substantive outcomes. Vaginal delivery within 24 hours was not achieved in 38% of women in the oral misoprostol group and 36% in the vaginal dinoprostone group (RR 1.08; 95% CI 0.89-1.31). The caesarean section rates were 16% and 20%, respectively (RR 0.80; 95% CI 0.58-1.11). Hyperstimulation with fetal heart rate changes occurred in 4% of women in the oral misoprostol group and 3% after vaginal dinoprostone (RR 1.32, 95% CI 0.59-2.98). The response to induction of labour in women with unfavourable cervices was somewhat slower with misoprostol when membranes were intact, and with dinoprostone when membranes were ruptured. There were no differences in neonatal outcome between the two groups. Conclusions

This new approach to oral misoprostol administration was successful in minimising the risk of uterine hyperstimulation, which has been a feature of misoprostol use for induction of labour, at the expense of a somewhat slower response in women with intact membranes and unfavourable cervices. Misoprostol is not registered for use in pregnant women, and further research is needed to confirm optimal and safe dosages.

Document Type: Research article

DOI: 10.1111/j.1471-0528.2001.00231.x

Affiliations: 1: Departments of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, Coronation/Frere/Cecilia Makiwane Hospitals and Effective Care Research Unit, University of the Witwatersrand, South Africa 2: Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, Liverpool Women's Hospital, University of Liverpool, UK 3: National Perinatal Epidemiology Unit, Oxford, UK

The full text electronic article is available for purchase. You will be able to download the full text electronic article after payment.

$50.16 plus tax      Refund Policy

 

OR

Back to top

Key:
Free Content - Free Content
New Content - New Content
Subscribed Content - Subscribed Content
Free Trial Content - Free Trial Content
Share this item with others: These icons link to social bookmarking sites where readers can share and discover new web pages.
Page Help Click here for Page Help
Shopping cart
Tools
Sign in






Need to register?
Sign up here
Text size: A | A | A | A