Sublingual misoprostol versus intracervical dinoprostone gel for induction of labour: A randomized trial

Abstract

Background: Sublingual misoprostol and intracervical dinoprostone gel are used for induction of labor. The aim of the study was to compare the efficacy and safety profile of sublingual misoprostol (PGE1) versus intracervical dinoprostone gel (PGE2) for induction of labor. Methods: 84 women with single live fetus as per inclusion and exclusion criteria for induction of labor were recruited for the study. Patients were randomized to receive either 50μg of misoprostol sublingually or dinoprostone gel (0.5mg) intracervically. Results: There was shorter induction to active phase, induction to delivery time intervals and less requirement of oxytocin augmentation in sublingual misoprostol group than intracervical dinoprostone gel group. Caesarean section rate is more in sublingual misoprostol group than intracervical dinoprostone gel group because of increased fetal distress in sublingual misoprostol group. Incidence of tachysystole was higher in sublingual misoprostol group than intracervical dinoprostone gel group. Perinatal outcome is better in intracervical dinoprostone group because of lesser side effects like tachysystole, fetal distress. Conclusions: Use of dinoprostone gel is a safe method for induction of labor.