Publication: Comparison of oral and vaginal misoprostol for induction of labor at term: A randomized controlled trial
3
Issued Date
2004-10-01
Resource Type
ISSN
13418076
Other identifier(s)
2-s2.0-4844227763
Rights
Mahidol University
Rights Holder(s)
SCOPUS
Bibliographic Citation
Journal of Obstetrics and Gynaecology Research. Vol.30, No.5 (2004), 358-362
Suggested Citation
Nawarat Paungmora, Yongyoth Herabutya, Pratak O-Prasertsawat, Piyaporn Punyavachira Comparison of oral and vaginal misoprostol for induction of labor at term: A randomized controlled trial. Journal of Obstetrics and Gynaecology Research. Vol.30, No.5 (2004), 358-362. doi:10.1111/j.1447-0756.2004.00215.x Retrieved from: https://repository.li.mahidol.ac.th/handle/123456789/21532
Research Projects
Organizational Units
Authors
Journal Issue
Thesis
Title
Comparison of oral and vaginal misoprostol for induction of labor at term: A randomized controlled trial
Other Contributor(s)
Abstract
Objective: To compare the efficacy of oral with vaginal misoprostol for induction of labor at term. Methods: One hundred and fifty-three pregnant women at term with indications for induction of labor and Bishop score ≤6 were randomly assigned to receive misoprostol either 100 μg orally or 50 μg vaginally every 6 h for 48 h. Repeated doses were given until Bishop score ≥8 was achieved or spontaneous rupture of membranes occurred. Those who were not in labor after 48 h had labor induced with amniotomy and oxytocin. The main outcome measure was induction to delivery time. Results: The median induction to vaginal delivery time in the oral group (14.3 h) was not significantly different from that of the vaginal group (15.8 h). The median number of doses was also not significantly different in the oral group compared with the vaginal group. There was a significant higher incidence of uterine tachysystole in the vaginal group compared to the oral group (17.1% vs 5.3%, P = 0.032). There was no hyperstimulation in either group. There were no significant differences between the groups with respect to oxytocin augmentation, cesarean section rate, analgesic requirement, and neonatal outcomes. Conclusion: Oral administration of 100 μg misoprostol has similar efficacy to intravaginal administration of 50 μg misoprostol for labor induction with less frequent abnormal uterine contractility. 100 μg of misoprostol orally can be used as an alternative to the vaginal route for labor induction.