Objective: To compare vaginal versus oral misoprostol for induction of labor. Method: Induction of labor was carried out in 40 women near term in two equal and randomized groups (according to a computer generated table) using misoprostol. Group I received vaginal misoprostol (100 μg) every 3 h while group II patients were given the same dose via the oral route. The dose was doubled if no response was detected under continuous cardiotocographic (CTG) tracings. Result: The vaginal route of administration induced a higher success rate in a shorter time interval using a lower dose but was associated with more abnormal FHR patterns and instances of uterine hyperstimulation. Conclusion: It is recommended to use the vaginal approach with cardiotocographic monitoring.

Oral or vaginal misoprostol for induction of labor

Background Misoprostol given orally is a commonly used labour induction method. Our Cochrane Review is restricted to studies with low-dose misoprostol (initially ≤ 50 µg), as higher doses pose unacceptably high risks of uterine hyperstimulation. Objectives To assess the efficacy and safety of low-dose oral misoprostol for labour induction in women with a viable fetus in the third trimester of pregnancy. Search methods We searched Cochrane Pregnancy and Childbirth's Trials Register, ClinicalTrials.gov, the WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (14 February 2021) and reference lists of retrieved studies. Selection criteria Randomised trials comparing low-dose oral misoprostol (initial dose ≤ 50 µg) versus placebo, vaginal dinoprostone, vaginal misoprostol, oxytocin, or mechanical methods; or comparing oral misoprostol protocols (one- to two-hourly versus four- to six-hourly; 20 µg to 25 µg versus 50 µg; or 20 µg hourly titrated versus 25 µg two-hourly static). Data collection and analysis Using Covidence, two review authors independently screened reports, extracted trial data, and performed quality assessments. Our primary outcomes were vaginal birth within 24 hours, caesarean section, and hyperstimulation with foetal heart changes. Main results We included 61 trials involving 20,026 women. GRADE assessments ranged from moderate- to very low-certainty evidence, with downgrading decisions based on imprecision, inconsistency, and study limitations. Oral misoprostol versus placebo/no treatment (four trials; 594 women) Oral misoprostol may make little to no difference in the rate of caesarean section (risk ratio (RR) 0.81, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.59 to 1.11; 4 trials; 594 women; moderate-certainty evidence), while its effect on uterine hyperstimulation with foetal heart rate changes is uncertain (RR 5.15, 95% CI 0.25 to 105.31; 3 trials; 495 women; very low-certainty evidence). Vaginal births within 24 hours was not reported. In all trials, oxytocin could be commenced after 12 to 24 hours and all women had pre-labour ruptured membranes. Oral misoprostol versus vaginal dinoprostone (13 trials; 9676 women) Oral misoprostol probably results in fewer caesarean sections (RR 0.84, 95% CI 0.78 to 0.90; 13 trials, 9676 women; moderate-certainty evidence). Subgroup analysis indicated that 10 µg to 25 µg (RR 0.80, 95% CI 0.74 to 0.87; 9 trials; 8652 women) may differ from 50 µg (RR 1.10, 95% CI 0.91 to 1.34; 4 trials; 1024 women) for caesarean section. Oral misoprostol may decrease vaginal births within 24 hours (RR 0.93, 95% CI 0.87 to 1.00; 10 trials; 8983 women; low-certainty evidence) and hyperstimulation with foetal heart rate changes (RR 0.49, 95% CI 0.40 to 0.59; 11 trials; 9084 women; low-certainty evidence). Oral misoprostol versus vaginal misoprostol (33 trials; 6110 women) Oral use may result in fewer vaginal births within 24 hours (average RR 0.81, 95% CI 0.68 to 0.95; 16 trials, 3451 women; low-certainty evidence), and less hyperstimulation with foetal heart rate changes (RR 0.69, 95% CI 0.53 to 0.92, 25 trials, 4857 women, low-certainty evidence), with subgroup analysis suggesting that 10 µg to 25 µg orally (RR 0.28, 95% CI 0.14 to 0.57; 6 trials, 957 women) may be superior to 50 µg orally (RR 0.82, 95% CI 0.61 to 1.11; 19 trials; 3900 women). Oral misoprostol probably does not increase caesarean sections overall (average RR 1.00, 95% CI 0.86 to 1.16; 32 trials; 5914 women; low-certainty evidence) but likely results in fewer caesareans for foetal distress (RR 0.74, 95% CI 0.55 to 0.99; 24 trials, 4775 women). Oral misoprostol versus intravenous oxytocin (6 trials; 737 women, 200 with ruptured membranes) Misoprostol may make little or no difference to vaginal births within 24 hours (RR 1.12, 95% CI 0.95 to 1.33; 3 trials; 466 women; low-certainty evidence), but probably results in fewer caesarean sections (RR 0.67, 95% CI 0.50 to 0.90; 6 trials; 737 women; moderate-certainty evidence). The effect on hyperstimulation with foetal heart rate changes is uncertain (RR 0.66, 95% CI 0.19 to 2.26; 3 trials, 331 women; very low-certainty evidence). Oral misoprostol versus mechanical methods (6 trials; 2993 women) Six trials compared oral misoprostol to transcervical Foley catheter. Misoprostol may increase vaginal birth within 24 hours (RR 1.32, 95% CI 0.98 to 1.79; 4 trials; 1044 women; low-certainty evidence), and probably reduces the risk of caesarean section (RR 0.84, 95% CI 0.75 to 0.95; 6 trials; 2993 women; moderate-certainty evidence). There may be little or no difference in hyperstimulation with foetal heart rate changes (RR 1.31, 95% CI 0.78 to 2.21; 4 trials; 2828 women; low-certainty evidence). Oral misoprostol one- to two-hourly versus four- to six-hourly (1 trial; 64 women) The evidence on hourly titration was very uncertain due to the low numbers reported. Oral misoprostol 20 µg hourly titrated versus 25 µg two-hourly static (2 trials; 296 women) The difference in regimen may have little or no effect on the rate of vaginal births in 24 hours (RR 0.97, 95% CI 0.80 to 1.16; low-certainty evidence). The evidence is of very low certainty for all other reported outcomes. Authors' conclusions Low-dose oral misoprostol is probably associated with fewer caesarean sections (and therefore more vaginal births) than vaginal dinoprostone, and lower rates of hyperstimulation with foetal heart rate changes. However, time to birth may be increased, as seen by a reduced number of vaginal births within 24 hours. Compared to transcervical Foley catheter, low-dose oral misoprostol is associated with fewer caesarean sections, but equivalent rates of hyperstimulation. Low-dose misoprostol given orally rather than vaginally is probably associated with similar rates of vaginal birth, although rates may be lower within the first 24 hours. However, there is likely less hyperstimulation with foetal heart changes, and fewer caesarean sections performed due to foetal distress. The best available evidence suggests that low-dose oral misoprostol probably has many benefits over other methods for labour induction. This review supports the use of low-dose oral misoprostol for induction of labour, and demonstrates the lower risks of hyperstimulation than when misoprostol is given vaginally. More trials are needed to establish the optimum oral misoprostol regimen, but these findings suggest that a starting dose of 25 µg may offer a good balance of efficacy and safety.

Low-dose oral misoprostol for induction of labour.

A double-blind randomised trial was conducted on women with gestational age of 40–42 weeks of pregnancy and Bishop score of more than 5. The first group received oxytocin infusion and the second gr...

Efficacy comparison of titrated oral solution of misoprostol and intravenous oxytocin on labour induction in women with full-term pregnancy.

Objective To assess the efficacy of oral misoprostol for induction of labour (IOL) in the context of term pre-labour rupture of membranes (TPROM), and to assess pregnancy outcomes following the administration of oral misoprostol. Data Sources A systematic literature search was performed using Ovid Medline, Embase, PubMed, and the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews. Study Selection Eligible studies were quasi-experimental trials or randomized controlled trials involving the use of oral misoprostol in singleton cephalic term pregnancies with confirmed rupture of membranes and no spontaneous labour at the time of membranes rupture, in mothers with no contraindications to vaginal delivery. Studies were excluded if they utilized vaginal misoprostol, excluded primigravid participants, or if the full text of the article was not accessible in English. Data Extraction Data were extracted by two reviewers using a standardized data extraction form. Study quality was assessed using the modified Jadad score. Data Synthesis Twelve randomized controlled trials that included 1489 singleton pregnancies were included. Doses of oral misoprostol ranged from 20 to 200 μg. The incidence of vaginal birth ranged from 73.0%–95.0% in the oral misoprostol group compared with 52.4%–94% in the control group. Hyperstimulation was infrequent, ranging from 0% to 13.8% in the oral misoprostol group compared with 0%–24% in the control group. Two trials, involving a total of 144 women that compared 50 μg of oral misoprostol every 4 hours versus expectant management followed by PGE2 gel showed a higher incidence of vaginal birth with misoprostol (pooled risk ratio 1.33, 95% confidence interval 1.10–1.61). Conclusion Oral misoprostol appears to be a safe and effective for IOL in TPROM. However, the varying administration, dose, and frequency reported in the literature highlights the need to develop a standardized protocol for use in Canadian obstetrical practice.

Oral Misoprostol for Induction of Labour in Term PROM: A Systematic Review.

Introduction: Ensuring access to quality caesarean sections (CS) is a challenge for the next
millennium and a sustainable development goal to reduce maternal and infant mortality. A CS involves
risks and complications and should therefore be performed in an approved way and not used excessively.

/pdf/an-analysis-of-the-practices-of-caesarean-section-in-sub-1gojl6bt0x.pdf

An analysis of the practices of caesarean section in sub-Saharan Africa: A summary of the literature

Background : Pre-labour rupture of membranes (PROM) at term is a common event whose management varies from centre to centre. The practice at the Kenyatta National Hospital (KNH) for patients with PROM at term is to initiate delivery of the patient soon on admission with intravenous oxytocin, if there are no contraindications to vaginal delivery. However, in PROM at term, if the cervix is not ripe,vaginal administration of prostaglandin pessaries for cervical ripening is not possible when there is active draining of liquor, thus use of intravenous oxytocin may take a very long time or fail all together. Oral misoprostol at low doses has been found to be a safe and effective agent for labour induction in numerous studies carried out in the developed world, where there are better resources for monitoring of labour. None of the studies has been carried out in Kenya, a limited resource country. Therefore, there is a need to determine the effectiveness and safety of oral misoprostol solution at the KNH, a limited resource set up. Objective : To determine the effectiveness and safety of 2-hourly 20 mcg oral misoprostol solution compared to the standard intravenous oxytocinin labour induction in mothers with pre-labour rupture of membranes at term at the Kenyatta National Hospital. Design : An unblinded randomised clinical trial. Setting : Kenyatta National Hospital Labour Ward Unit. Participants : Eighty three pregnant women with pre-labour rupture of membranes at term without an indication for Caeserian section were consented and randomised for labour induction with either oral misoprostol at a dose of 20mcg 2-hourly up to a maximum of 4-doses, or with  intravenous oxytocin according to the WHO protocol. Main outcome measures : Induction to delivery interval; maternal  complications and early neonatal outcomes. Results : The overall induction success rates in the misoprostol arm was 81% versus 83% in the oxytocin arm (P=0.447). The mean induction to vaginal delivery interval in the misoprostol arm was 8.4 hours as compared to 9.45 hours in the oxytocin arm (P=0.116). The induction to active labour interval was similar in the two study arms. The mean induction to active labour in the misoprostol arm was 4.02 hours as versus 4.51 hours in the oxytocin arm (P=0.223 ). Two women who had failed induction with misoprostol were augmented with oxytocin and delivered vaginally. The Caesarean section rates were 19% in the misoprostol arm and 17% in the oxytocin arm (P=0.447), which was not statistically significant. The maternal outcomes were similar in the two study arms. Four women had tachysystole in the misoprostol arm, compared to three  in the oxytocin arm (P=0.253). In the misoprostol arm two women had hypertonus compared to three in the oxytocin arm (P=0.322).There was one case of hyperstimulation in the misoprostol arm and two in in the oxytocin arm. There were no differences in the foetal/ neonatal outcomes. No baby had an Apgar score of less than seven at one or five minutes. No baby was admitted to the New Born Unit in either of the two arms. There was no case of a still birth in either of the study arms. There was no significant difference in the passage of meconium between the two arms, 39% in the misoprostol arm and 35.7% in the oxytocin arm (P=0.755). The passage of meconium did not impact on the neonatal outcomes. Conclusion : Oral misoprostol solution 20mcg 2-hourly is as safe and effective as the standard intravenous oxytocin for labour induction in women presenting with prelabour rupture of membranes at term at the Kenyatta National Hospital.

/pdf/effectiveness-and-safety-of-2-hourly-20-mcg-oral-misoprostol-1kpzxmfj5c.pdf

Effectiveness and safety of 2-hourly 20 mcg oral misoprostol solution compared to standard intravenous oxytocin in labour induction due to pre-labour rupture of membranes at term: a randomised clinical trial at kenyatta national hospital.

Handle everyday research tasks with reliable, citation-backed results

Your personal Research Agent to handle research tasks with citation-backed results

Popular Tasks used by Researchers

How can I help with your research?

Meet SciSpace

Get more enhanced response by uploading the PDFs you want me to reference.

No relevant PDFs in your library

SciSpace is the AI research assistant for academics. Run systematic literature reviews on 280M+ papers, and write papers with cited sources. Trusted by 1M+ students, PhDs & researchers.

SciSpace | AI for Research

Analyze PDFs

Code & Manuscripts

Funding & Grants

Literature & Patents

Medical & Clinical Data

Systematic Review

Visualize & Present

Web & Data

Build a Google Scholar-like website for your research.

Build a website

Create charts and images for your research

Create a Chart

Write a paper for submission to a journal

Draft a manuscript

Patent Search

Design eye-catching scientific posters in minutes.

Scientific Poster Generation

Systematic Literature Review

One task is running at the moment. Your messages will be shown right after.

Drag and drop or click here to browse

Loved by <highlight>1 million+</highlight> researchers

Extract a list of specific topics and their sources from unstructured text

Topics

Compare and analyze relevant papers that matches with your search

Papers

Get insights from PDFs and bookmarked papers from your library

My library

Recent searches

Try searching for:

Catch AI-generated content in scholarly and non-scholarly content

{ai} Detector

Ai Writer

Get PDF Summaries, highlighted text explanations 

Chat with PDF

Effortlessly create in-text citations and bibliographies in APA and 2,500 other formats

Citation generator

Get explanations, summaries, and answers on academic papers

Ease up your research workflow with {scispace}'s cohort of exciting AI tools

Elevate your academic writing skills and convey your ideas the way you want

Paraphraser

Explore our range of reading and writing tools

Your file is being prepared and should be ready in a few minutes. If it's a large file, it might take a bit longer. You can close this window, and we'll email you the file when it's done.

You have reached a maximum limit of <strong>{limit}</strong> columns in the table. Remove at least <strong>1</strong> column to add or create another one.

K Kamau

Author Tools

Chat about Author

Papers

Effectiveness and safety of 2-hourly 20 mcg oral misoprostol solution compared to standard intravenous oxytocin in labour induction due to pre-labour rupture of membranes at term: a randomised clinical trial at kenyatta national hospital.