The difference of Bishop score change and labor event between oral and vaginal misoprostol in pregnancy beyond 41 weeks
Downloads
HIGHLIGHTS
- Oral misoprostol is more effective than vaginal misoprostol in cervical ripening as a part of induction of labor.
- Oral misoprostol is as safe as vaginal misoprostol.
ABSTRACT
Objective: To compare Bishop score changes and labor event between oral and vaginal misoprostol in pregnancy beyond 41 weeks.
Materials and Methods: A total of 52 pregnant women with more than 41 weeks of gestation, had a Bishop score less than 5, and were undergoing induction labor were randomly divided into two groups: oral and vaginal misoprostol. In the oral misoprostol group, participants were given 25 mg of misoprostol in a solution with a concentration of 1 ug/ml every 2 hours. In the vaginal misoprostol group, a 25 mg misoprostol tablet was inserted into the posterior fornix every 6 hours. The two groups were compared in terms of Bishop score during the first 6 hours, changes in Bishop score, labor at term events, neonatal outcomes, complications, and side effects after the administration of misoprostol.
Results: The oral group showed significantly higher changes in Bishop score compared to the vaginal group (5.5 vs 3.6; p=0.0001). The median interval times for induction of labor at term, induction at stage II, and induction at birth were found to be shorter in the oral misoprostol group compared to the vaginal group (7.3 hours vs 10.6 hours, 14.0 hours vs 16.8 hours, and 14.6 hours vs 17.6 hours; p=0.002, 0.003, 0.002). Labor at term occurred much more frequently in the oral group (53.8% vs 15.4%). Additionally, the oral misoprostol group had a 3.5 times higher likelihood of experiencing labor at term within the first 6 hours after the initial administration compared to the vaginal group (OR 3.5, 95% CI 1.33-9.23).
Conclusion: Oral administration of misoprostol for cervical ripening has been demonstrated to be more effective than vaginal administration, greater bishop score changes while maintaining an equivalent level of safety.
Balchin I, Whittaker JC, Patel RR, et al. Racial variation in the association between gestational age and perinatal mortality: prospective study. BMJ. 2007;334(7598):833. doi: 10.1136/bmj. 39132. 482025.80. Epub 2007 Mar 2. PMID: 17337455; PMCID: PMC1853199.
WHO recommendation on induction of labour, at or beyond term. Geneva: World Health Organization; 2022. Licence: CC BY-NC-SA 3.0 IGO
Practice bulletin no. 146: Management of late-term and postterm pregnancies. Obstet Gynecol. 2014 Aug;124(2 Pt 1):390-6. doi: 10.1097/01.AOG. 0000452744.06088.48. PMID: 25050770.
NICE. Induction of Labour. methods of induction of labour [Internet]. London: RCOG Press, 2008:52-6. Available from: https://www.nhs.uk/p lanners/pregnancycareplanner/documents/nice_induction_of_labour.pdf
Leduc D, Biringer A, Lee L, et al. Clinical Practice Obstetrics Committee; Special Contributors. Induction of labour. J Obstet Gynaecol Can. 2013;35(9):840-57. English, French. doi: 10.1016/ S1701-2163(15)30842-2. PMID: 24099451.
Middleton P, Shepherd E, Crowther CA. Induction of labour for improving birth outcomes for women at or beyond term. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2018;5(5):CD004945. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD 004945.pub4. Update in: Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2020 Jul 15;7:CD004945. PMID: 29741208; PMCID: PMC6494436.nxxx
Chatsis V, Frey N. Misoprostol for cervical ripening and induction of labour: A review of clinical effectiveness, cost-effectiveness and guidelines [Internet]. Ottawa (ON): Canadian Agency for Drugs and Technologies in Health; 2018 Nov 23. PMID: 30907996. Available from: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK538944/
Labor Induction. In: Cunningham FG, Leveno KJ, Bloom SL, et al., editors. Williams Obstetrics: The McGraw-Hill Companies, 2010:500-8.
Raymond EG, Harrison MS, Weaver MA. Efficacy of misoprostol alone for first-trimester medical abortion: A systematic review. Obstet Gynecol. 2019;133(1):137-47. doi: 10.1097/AOG.0000000 000003017 . PMID: 30531568; PMCID: PMC 6309472.
Kolkman DG, Verhoeven CJ, Brinkhorst SJ, et al. The Bishop score as a predictor of labor induction success: a systematic review. Am J Perinatol. 2013;30(8):625-30. doi: 10.1055/s-0032-1331024. Epub 2013 Jan 2. PMID: 23283806.
Wing DA, Tran S, Paul RH. Factors affecting the likelihood of successful induction after intravaginal misoprostol application for cervical ripening and labor induction. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2002; 186(6):1237-40; discussion 1240-3. doi: 10.1067/mob.2002.123740. PMID: 12066104.
Gawade PL. Maternal and fetal factors associates with labor and delivery complication. Public Health: University of Massachusetts Amherst, 2012.
Memon F, Wijesiriwardana A, Jonker L. Maternal and prenatal factors influencing the outcome of prostaglandin E2 induced labour. J Obstet Gynaecol. 2011;31(3):220-3. doi: 10.3109/0144 3615.2010.544424. PMID: 21417644.
Uyar Y, Erbay G, Demir BC, et al. Comparison of the Bishop score, body mass index and transvaginal cervical length in predicting the success of labor induction. Arch Gynecol Obstet. 2009;280(3):357-62. doi: 10.1007/s00404-008-0915-x. Epub 2009 Jan 8. PMID: 19130065.
Alfirevic Z, Aflaifel N, Weeks A. Oral misoprostol for induction of labour. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2014;2014(6):CD001338. doi: 10.1002/1465 1858.CD001338.pub3. PMID: 24924489; PMCID: PMC6513439.
Abbassi RM, Sirichand P, Rizvi S. Safety and efficacy of oral versus vaginal misoprostol use for induction of labour at term. J Coll Physicians Surg Pak. 2008;18(10):625-9. doi: 10.2008/JCPSP. 625629. PMID: 18940120.
Paungmora N, Herabutya Y, O-Prasertsawat P, et al. Comparison of oral and vaginal misoprostol for induction of labor at term: a randomized controlled trial. J Obstet Gynaecol Res. 2004;30(5):358-62. doi: 10.1111/j.1447-0756.2004.00215.x. PMID: 15327448.
Khan RU, El-Refaey H. Pharmacokinetics and adverse-effect profile of rectally administered misoprostol in the third stage of labor. Obstet Gynecol. 2003;101(5 Pt 1):968-74. doi: 10.1016/ s0029-7844(03)00174-1. PMID: 12738159.
Nankali A, Jalilan N, Keshavarzi F, et al. Comparison of efficacy and side effect of different administration routes of misoprostol (oral, vaginal, and sublingual) for second-trimester abortion. International Journal of Pediatric 2017;5:5887-95. doi: 10.22038/ijp.2017.23605.1988.
Oppegaard KS. Misoprostol's preoperative cervical ripening. Norway: Faculty of Medicine Oslo University, 2009.
Adki S. Sublingual versus vaginal misoprostol (400 ug) for cervical priming in first trimester abortion. Davangere: Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology JJM Medical College, 2010.
Implantation, Embriogenesis and Placental Development. In: Cunningham FG, Leveno KJ, Bloom SL, et al. editors. William Obstetrics: The McGraw-Hill Companies, 2010:36-69.
Durocher J, Bynum J, León W, et al. High fever following postpartum administration of sublingual misoprostol. BJOG. 2010;117(7):845-52. doi: 10.1111/j.1471-0528.2010.02564.x. Epub 2010 Apr 19. PMID: 20406228; PMCID: PMC2878599.
Patted SS, Goudar SS, Naik VA, et al. Side effects of oral misoprostol for the prevention of postpartum hemorrhage: results of a community-based random-ised controlled trial in rural India. J Matern Fetal Neonatal Med. 2009;22(1):24-8. doi: 10.1080/ 14767050802452309. PMID: 19089777.
Gobejishvili L, Ghare S, Khan R, et al. Misoprostol modulates cytokine expression through a cAMP pathway: Potential therapeutic implication for liver disease. Clin Immunol. 2015;161(2):291-9. doi: 10.1016/j.clim.2015.09.008. Epub 2015 Sep 25. PMID: 26408955; PMCID: PMC4658275.
Copyright (c) 2023 Majalah Obstetri dan Ginekologi
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.
1. Copyright of the article is transferred to the journal, by the knowledge of the author, whilst the moral right of the publication belongs to the author.
2. The legal formal aspect of journal publication accessibility refers to Creative Commons Attribution-Non Commercial-Share alike (CC BY-NC-SA), (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/4.0/)
3. The articles published in the journal are open access and can be used for non-commercial purposes. Other than the aims mentioned above, the editorial board is not responsible for copyright violation
The manuscript authentic and copyright statement submission can be downloaded ON THIS FORM.