Comparative study of misoprostol sublingually and dinoprostone gel intracervically for cervical ripening and induction of labor

Abstract

Background: Both Prostaglandin E1 and E2 analog are being used for cervical ripening. The aims of study was to compare the efficacy and safety profile of sublingual misoprostol (PGE2) and intracervical dinoprostone (PGE1) for cervical ripening and induction of labor.Methods: One hundred women with single live fetus and with gestational age of more than 37 weeks admitted for induction of labor were recruited for the study. Patients were randomized to receive either 25μg of misoprostol sublingually or dinaprostone gel (0.5mg) intracervically.Results: There was shorter induction to active phase, induction to delivery time intervals and less requirement of oxytocin augmentation in misoprostol group than dinoprostone gel group. Incidence of tachysystole was higher in misoprostol group than dinoprostone gel group (22% vs 10%) however this was not statistically significant. Mode of delivery, maternal and neonatal complications were similar in both the groups.Conclusions: Use of misoprostol in lower dose is a safe and cost-effective method for cervical ripening and induction of labor.

A Comparative Study between Sublingual Misoprostol (PGE1) versus Intracervical Dinoprostone Gel (PGE2) in the Induction of Labor:- A Prospective Observational Study

“…[22] In Lamichhane et al's study, most common indication for LSCS was failed induction (44%) and the second common was fetal distress (29%), whereas in our study, similar indications for LSCS were observed. [14] Yadav and Chandwaskar study showed that fetal distress observed in PGE 2 (16%) was more than PGE 1 (6%), [23] whereas in our study there was no difference between the two groups. Madaan et al's study showed that dinoprostone group had significant increased rate of the cesarean section due to the fetal distress, [24] whereas in our study, 9 cases in each group had similar rates of fetal distress.…”

Comparative study of intra vaginal misoprostol (PGE1) with intracervical dinoprostone (PGE2) gel for induction of labour

“…Similar results were seen in study in 2003 by Agarwal et 7 where it was (12.8±6.4hrs v/s 18.53±8.5hrs) and in study in 2017 by Yadav S et al (5.39±2.97hrs vs 10.88±7.33hrs respectively). 8 In 2003 Garry D et al and in 2014 Liu A et al, also concluded in his study that interval between from start of induction to vaginal delivery was significantly shorter in Misoprostol group. 9,10 Thus Misoprostol reduces the mean duration of labour (Table 4) which reduces the duration of suffering of a patient in labour and also provides fast delivery.…”