Active management of term prelabour rupture of membranes with oral misoprostol

Active versus expectant management for premature rupture of membranes at term: A randomized, controlled study

OBJECTIVE

To compare the effects on feto-maternal outcomes of expectant versus active management for premature rupture of membranes (PROM) at term.

METHODS

This was a prospective randomized (1:1) controlled study involving 86 pregnant-women who received either expectant management (n = 43) or active management with misoprostol (n = 43) for PROM at term. Primary outcome was route of delivery. Secondary outcomes were: PROM to presentation interval; latency period; PROM to delivery interval; recruitment to delivery interval; labour and delivery complications.

RESULTS

Baseline-characteristics were similar between groups. There was no significant difference between active and expectant groups in mean PROM to presentation/admission, or PROM to delivery. However, mean latency period (11.1 ± 7.3 hours vs 8.8 ± 5.5 hours) and mean recruitment to delivery intervals after PROM (14.7 ± 5.2 hours vs 11.8 ± 5.0 hours) were significantly shorter for the active group compared with the expectant group. Although the rate of caesarean section was less in expectant management group (21%) compared with the active management group (30%), the difference was not statistically significant. There were no significant differences between groups in delivery or perinatal complications.

CONCLUSION

Active and expectant management for PROM at term gave comparable outcomes in terms of methods of delivery and complications. However, active management significantly shortened the latency period and induction to delivery intervals compared with expectant management.Trial-Registration: Pan-African-trial-registry-(PACTR)-approval-number PACTR202206797734088.

Preterm and term prelabour rupture of membranes: A review of timing and methods of labour induction

Prelabour rupture of membranes (PROM) exposes both foetuses and mothers to the risk of infection. Induction of labour has been proposed to reduce this risk, but its neonatal and maternal risks and benefits must be balanced against those of expectant management (EM). Recent randomized studies of preterm PROM show that EM until 37 weeks of gestation is associated with lower overall neonatal morbidity. In term PROM, active management is associated with a shorter birth interval but not with lower rates of neonatal infection. Similar maternal and neonatal outcomes are reported regardless of whether induction uses oxytocin, PGE2, or oral misoprostol.

Low-dose oral misoprostol for induction of labour

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.

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

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.

[Term Prelabor Rupture of Membranes: CNGOF Guidelines for Clinical Practice - Timing of Labor Induction]

OBJECTIVE

To assess the effect of immediate induction versus expectant management on maternal and neonatal outcomes in case of term prelabor rupture of membranes.

METHODS

We searched Medline Database, Cochrane Library and consulted international guidelines.

RESULTS

In case of term prelabor rupture of membranes, induction of labor is associated with shorter rupture of membranes to delivery intervals when compared to expectant management, if induction is conducted with oxytocin (LE2), prostaglandin E2 (LE2) or misoprostol (LE2), but not when induction is conducted with Foley® catheter (LE2), osmotic dilatator (LE2) or acupuncture (LE2). The strongest evidence to date comes from a large international randomized study, the TERMPROM study, which included over 5000 women between 1992 and 1995. This study compared immediate induction with oxytocin or prostaglandin E2 to expectant management up to 96hours, followed by induction by oxytocin or prostaglandin E2. Immediate induction was not associated with a decreased neonatal infection rate (LE1), even among women with a positive streptococcus B vaginal swab (LE2). Thus, expectant management can be offered without increasing the neonatal infection risk (Grade B). Induction with oxytocin was associated with a decreased risk of intra-uterine infection and postpartum fever in the TERMPROM study (LE2), however, this study had significant limitations concerning this outcome (unknown streptococcus B status and low rate of prophylactic antibiotics), and this association was not found in other smaller studies. This decrease was not observed with induction by prostaglandin E2. In the TERMPROM study, induction was not associated with an increase or decrease in the rate of cesarean section (LE2), whatever the parity (LE2) or Bishop score at admission (LE3). Induction can thus be proposed without increasing the cesarean section risk (Grade B). There is no study evaluating expectant management over 4 days.

CONCLUSION

In case of term prelabor rupture of membranes, induction can be offered without increasing the cesarean section risk (Grade B). Expectant management can be offered without increasing the neonatal infection risk (Grade B), even among women with a positive streptococcus B vaginal swab (Professional consensus). The optimal moment of induction will therefore be guided by the maternity wards organization and women's preference after having informed them of the risks and benefits associated with induction and expectant management (Professional consensus). In case of meconial fluid or term prelabor rupture of membranes>4 days, induction must be offered (Professional consensus).

Which method is best for the induction of labour? A systematic review, network meta-analysis and cost-effectiveness analysis

BACKGROUND

More than 150,000 pregnant women in England and Wales have their labour induced each year. Multiple pharmacological, mechanical and complementary methods are available to induce labour.

OBJECTIVE

To assess the relative effectiveness, safety and cost-effectiveness of labour induction methods and, data permitting, effects in different clinical subgroups.

METHODS

We carried out a systematic review using Cochrane methods. The Cochrane Pregnancy and Childbirth Group's Trials Register was searched (March 2014). This contains over 22,000 reports of controlled trials (published from 1923 onwards) retrieved from weekly searches of OVID MEDLINE (1966 to current); Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (The Cochrane Library); EMBASE (1982 to current); Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (1984 to current); ClinicalTrials.gov; the World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Portal; and hand-searching of relevant conference proceedings and journals. We included randomised controlled trials examining interventions to induce labour compared with placebo, no treatment or other interventions in women eligible for third-trimester induction. We included outcomes relating to efficacy, safety and acceptability to women. In addition, for the economic analysis we searched the Database of Abstracts of Reviews of Effects, and Economic Evaluations Databases, NHS Economic Evaluation Database and the Health Technology Assessment database. We carried out a network meta-analysis (NMA) using all of the available evidence, both direct and indirect, to produce estimates of the relative effects of each treatment compared with others in a network. We developed a de novo decision tree model to estimate the cost-effectiveness of various methods. The costs included were the intervention and other hospital costs incurred (price year 2012-13). We reviewed the literature to identify preference-based utilities for the health-related outcomes in the model. We calculated incremental cost-effectiveness ratios, expected costs, utilities and net benefit. We represent uncertainty in the optimal intervention using cost-effectiveness acceptability curves.

RESULTS

We identified 1190 studies; 611 were eligible for inclusion. The interventions most likely to achieve vaginal delivery (VD) within 24 hours were intravenous oxytocin with amniotomy [posterior rank 2; 95% credible intervals (CrIs) 1 to 9] and higher-dose (≥ 50 µg) vaginal misoprostol (rank 3; 95% CrI 1 to 6). Compared with placebo, several treatments reduced the odds of caesarean section, but we observed considerable uncertainty in treatment rankings. For uterine hyperstimulation, double-balloon catheter had the highest probability of being among the best three treatments, whereas vaginal misoprostol (≥ 50 µg) was most likely to increase the odds of excessive uterine activity. For other safety outcomes there were insufficient data or there was too much uncertainty to identify which treatments performed 'best'. Few studies collected information on women's views. Owing to incomplete reporting of the VD within 24 hours outcome, the cost-effectiveness analysis could compare only 20 interventions. The analysis suggested that most interventions have similar utility and differ mainly in cost. With a caveat of considerable uncertainty, titrated (low-dose) misoprostol solution and buccal/sublingual misoprostol had the highest likelihood of being cost-effective.

LIMITATIONS

There was considerable uncertainty in findings and there were insufficient data for some planned subgroup analyses.

CONCLUSIONS

Overall, misoprostol and oxytocin with amniotomy (for women with favourable cervix) is more successful than other agents in achieving VD within 24 hours. The ranking according to safety of different methods was less clear. The cost-effectiveness analysis suggested that titrated (low-dose) oral misoprostol solution resulted in the highest utility, whereas buccal/sublingual misoprostol had the lowest cost. There was a high degree of uncertainty as to the most cost-effective intervention.

FUTURE WORK

Future trials should be powered to detect a method that is more cost-effective than misoprostol solution and report outcomes included in this NMA.

STUDY REGISTRATION

This study is registered as PROSPERO CRD42013005116.

FUNDING

The National Institute for Health Research Health Technology Assessment programme.

Planned early birth versus expectant management (waiting) for prelabour rupture of membranes at term (37 weeks or more)

BACKGROUND

Prelabour rupture of membranes (PROM) at term is managed expectantly or by planned early birth. It is not clear if waiting for birth to occur spontaneously is better than intervening, e.g. by inducing labour.

OBJECTIVES

The objective of this review is to assess the effects of planned early birth (immediate intervention or intervention within 24 hours) when compared with expectant management (no planned intervention within 24 hours) for women with term PROM on maternal, fetal and neonatal outcomes.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched Cochrane Pregnancy and Childbirth's Trials Register (9 September 2016) and reference lists of retrieved studies.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised or quasi-randomised controlled trials of planned early birth compared with expectant management (either in hospital or at home) in women with PROM at 37 weeks' gestation or later.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently assessed trials for inclusion, extracted the data, and assessed risk of bias of the included studies. Data were checked for accuracy.

MAIN RESULTS

Twenty-three trials involving 8615 women and their babies were included in the update of this review. Ten trials assessed intravenous oxytocin; 12 trials assessed prostaglandins (six trials in the form of vaginal prostaglandin E2 and six as oral, sublingual or vaginal misoprostol); and one trial each assessed Caulophyllum and acupuncture. Overall, three trials were judged to be at low risk of bias, while the other 20 were at unclear or high risk of bias.Primary outcomes: women who had planned early birth were at a reduced risk of maternal infectious morbidity (chorioamnionitis and/or endometritis) than women who had expectant management following term prelabour rupture of membranes (average risk ratio (RR) 0.49; 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.33 to 0.72; eight trials, 6864 women; Tau² = 0.19; I² = 72%; low-quality evidence), and their neonates were less likely to have definite or probable early-onset neonatal sepsis (RR 0.73; 95% CI 0.58 to 0.92; 16 trials, 7314 infants;low-quality evidence). No clear differences between the planned early birth and expectant management groups were seen for the risk of caesarean section (average RR 0.84; 95% CI 0.69 to 1.04; 23 trials, 8576 women; Tau² = 0.10; I² = 55%; low-quality evidence); serious maternal morbidity or mortality (no events; three trials; 425 women; very low-quality evidence); definite early-onset neonatal sepsis (RR 0.57; 95% CI 0.24 to 1.33; six trials, 1303 infants; very low-quality evidence); or perinatal mortality (RR 0.47; 95% CI 0.13 to 1.66; eight trials, 6392 infants; moderate-quality evidence).

SECONDARY OUTCOMES

women who had a planned early birth were at a reduced risk of chorioamnionitis (average RR 0.55; 95% CI 0.37 to 0.82; eight trials, 6874 women; Tau² = 0.19; I² = 73%), and postpartum septicaemia (RR 0.26; 95% CI 0.07 to 0.96; three trials, 263 women), and their neonates were less likely to receive antibiotics (average RR 0.61; 95% CI 0.44 to 0.84; 10 trials, 6427 infants; Tau² = 0.06; I² = 32%). Women in the planned early birth group were more likely to have their labour induced (average RR 3.41; 95% CI 2.87 to 4.06; 12 trials, 6945 women; Tau² = 0.05; I² = 71%), had a shorter time from rupture of membranes to birth (mean difference (MD) -10.10 hours; 95% CI -12.15 to -8.06; nine trials, 1484 women; Tau² = 5.81; I² = 60%), and their neonates had lower birthweights (MD -79.25 g; 95% CI -124.96 to -33.55; five trials, 1043 infants). Women who had a planned early birth had a shorter length of hospitalisation (MD -0.79 days; 95% CI -1.20 to -0.38; two trials, 748 women; Tau² = 0.05; I² = 59%), and their neonates were less likely to be admitted to the neonatal special or intensive care unit (RR 0.75; 95% CI 0.66 to 0.85; eight trials, 6179 infants), and had a shorter duration of hospital (-11.00 hours; 95% CI -21.96 to -0.04; one trial, 182 infants) or special or intensive care unit stay (RR 0.72; 95% CI 0.61 to 0.85; four trials, 5691 infants). Women in the planned early birth group had more positive experiences compared with women in the expectant management group.No clear differences between groups were observed for endometritis; postpartum pyrexia; postpartum antibiotic usage; caesarean for fetal distress; operative vaginal birth; uterine rupture; epidural analgesia; postpartum haemorrhage; adverse effects; cord prolapse; stillbirth; neonatal mortality; pneumonia; Apgar score less than seven at five minutes; use of mechanical ventilation; or abnormality on cerebral ultrasound (no events).None of the trials reported on breastfeeding; postnatal depression; gestational age at birth; meningitis; respiratory distress syndrome; necrotising enterocolitis; neonatal encephalopathy; or disability at childhood follow-up.In subgroup analyses, there were no clear patterns of differential effects for method of induction, parity, use of maternal antibiotic prophylaxis, or digital vaginal examination. Results of the sensitivity analyses based on trial quality were consistent with those of the main analysis, except for definite or probable early-onset neonatal sepsis where no clear difference was observed.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

There is low quality evidence to suggest that planned early birth (with induction methods such as oxytocin or prostaglandins) reduces the risk of maternal infectious morbidity compared with expectant management for PROM at 37 weeks' gestation or later, without an apparent increased risk of caesarean section. Evidence was mainly downgraded due to the majority of studies contributing data having some serious design limitations, and for most outcomes estimates were imprecise.Although the 23 included trials in this review involved a large number of women and babies, the quality of the trials and evidence was not high overall, and there was limited reporting for a number of important outcomes. Thus further evidence assessing the benefits or harms of planned early birth compared with expectant management, considering maternal, fetal, neonatal and longer-term childhood outcomes, and the use of health services, would be valuable. Any future trials should be adequately designed and powered to evaluate the effects on short- and long-term outcomes. Standardisation of outcomes and their definitions, including for the assessment of maternal and neonatal infection, would be beneficial.

Oral misoprostol for induction of labour

BACKGROUND

Misoprostol is an orally active prostaglandin. In most countries misoprostol is not licensed for labour induction, but its use is common because it is cheap and heat stable.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the use of oral misoprostol for labour induction in women with a viable fetus.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Pregnancy and Childbirth Group's Trials Register (17 January 2014).

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised trials comparing oral misoprostol versus placebo or other methods, given to women with a viable fetus for labour induction.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently assessed trial data, using centrally-designed data sheets.

MAIN RESULTS

Overall there were 76 trials (14,412) women) which were of mixed quality.In nine trials comparing oral misoprostol with placebo (1109 women), women using oral misoprostol were more likely to give birth vaginally within 24 hours (risk ratio (RR) 0.16, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.05 to 0.49; one trial; 96 women), need less oxytocin (RR 0.42, 95% CI 0.37 to 0.49; seven trials; 933 women) and have a lower caesarean section rate (RR 0.72, 95% CI 0.54 to 0.95; eight trials; 1029 women).In 12 trials comparing oral misoprostol with vaginal dinoprostone (3859 women), women given oral misoprostol were less likely to need a caesarean section (RR 0.88, 95% CI 0.78 to 0.99; 11 trials; 3592 women). There was some evidence that they had slower inductions, but there were no other statistically significant differences.Nine trials (1282 women) compared oral misoprostol with intravenous oxytocin. The caesarean section rate was significantly lower in women who received oral misoprostol (RR 0.77, 95% CI 0.60 to 0.98; nine trials; 1282 women), but they had increased rates of meconium-stained liquor (RR 1.65, 95% CI 1.04 to 2.60; seven trials; 1172 women).Thirty-seven trials (6417 women) compared oral and vaginal misoprostol and found no statistically significant difference in the primary outcomes of serious neonatal morbidity/death or serious maternal morbidity or death. The results for vaginal birth not achieved in 24 hours, uterine hyperstimulation with fetal heart rate (FHR) changes, and caesarean section were highly heterogenous - for uterine hyperstimulation with FHR changes this was related to dosage with lower rates in those with lower doses of oral misoprostol. However, there were fewer babies born with a low Apgar score in the oral group (RR 0.60, 95% CI 0.44 to 0.82; 19 trials; 4009 babies) and a decrease in postpartum haemorrhage (RR 0.57, 95% CI 0.34 to 0.95; 10 trials; 1478 women). However, the oral misoprostol group had an increase in meconium-stained liquor (RR 1.22, 95% CI 1.03 to 1.44; 24 trials; 3634 women).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Oral misoprostol as an induction agent is effective at achieving vaginal birth. It is more effective than placebo, as effective as vaginal misoprostol and results in fewer caesarean sections than vaginal dinoprostone or oxytocin.Where misoprostol remains unlicensed for the induction of labour, many practitioners will prefer to use a licensed product like dinoprostone. If using oral misoprostol, the evidence suggests that the dose should be 20 to 25 mcg in solution. Given that safety is the primary concern, the evidence supports the use of oral regimens over vaginal regimens. This is especially important in situations where the risk of ascending infection is high and the lack of staff means that women cannot be intensely monitored.

Orally administered misoprostol for induction of labor with prelabor rupture of membranes at term

Prelabor rupture of membranes (PROM) occurs in approximately 8% to 10% of women with term pregnancies. The management of PROM continues to be controversial. Approaches include expectant management and immediate induction of labor. The use of orally administered misoprostol for the management of women with PROM may provide significant advantages when they choose immediate induction of labor. This literature review presents current evidence that supports the use of oral misoprostol for women with PROM, including the benefits of a decreased interval time from PROM to vaginal birth, good safety profile, and reductions in the use of oxytocin augmentation and epidural anesthesia. In addition to clinically proven benefits to women of oral misoprostol for PROM, it also has the potential to reduce chorioamnionitis by reducing the number of sterile vaginal examinations performed thereby reducing the risk of ascending bacteria. Women have also reported acceptability and satisfaction when using oral misoprostol for immediate induction of labor. This review of literature discusses what is known about the use of orally administered misoprostol for the management of term PROM and makes recommendations for clinical use.

Labor induction in term premature rupture of membranes: comparison between oxytocin and dinoprostone followed 6 hours later by oxytocin

OBJECTIVE

The aim of this randomized study was to compare 2 protocols for inducing labor in women with premature rupture of membranes (PROM) at term.

STUDY DESIGN

Women with PROM and a Bishop score ≤5 were randomly assigned to receive either an intravenous oxytocin infusion (n = 223) or a dinoprostone pessary followed 6 hours later by an intravenous oxytocin infusion (n = 227).

RESULTS

Vaginal delivery within 24 hours of labor induction increased significantly with sustained-released dinoprostone followed by oxytocin infusion (78.5% vs 63.3%; relative risk, 1.23; 95% confidence interval, 1.09-1.39; P = .001). Maternal and neonatal outcomes were similar between the groups.

CONCLUSION

Sustained-released dinoprostone followed 6 hours later by an oxytocin infusion in term women with PROM was associated with a higher rate of vaginal delivery within 24 hours, and no difference in maternal-neonatal complications was observed compared with oxytocin infusion alone.

Midwifery Management of Prelabor Rupture of Membranes at Term

Spontaneous rupture of membranes before the onset of labor at term is commonly referred to as PROM (either premature or preterm rupture of membranes) and occurs in about 8% of term pregnancies. PROM is associated with an increased risk of infection. Many controversies exist regarding the optimal management of PROM, including the choice of induction or expectant management, use of digital vaginal exams, and routine administration of antibiotics. This article reviews the literature on PROM and illustrates some of the management issues encountered by presenting approaches used in three midwifery services.

A prospective randomized study comparing misoprostol and oxytocin for premature rupture of membranes at term

OBJECTIVE

The aim of this randomized trial was to compare the efficacy and safety of vaginal misoprostol and oxytocin for cervical ripening and labor induction in patients with premature rupture of membrane (PROM) at term.

METHODS

Ninety-seven women with PROM at term were assigned randomly to receive intravaginal misoprostol or oxytocin. The primary outcome measure was the induction-delivery interval. Secondary outcomes included the number of women who delivered vaginally within 12 hours of the start of the induction in the two groups, the cesarean, hyperstimulation, and failed induction rates, the mode of delivery, and the neonatal outcome.

RESULTS

Forty-eight women were assigned to intravaginal misoprostol and 49 to oxytocin administration. The mean interval from induction to delivery was 10.61 +/- 2.45 hours in the misoprostol group and 11.57 +/- 1.91 hours in the oxytocin group (p = 0.063). The rates of vaginal delivery were 83.3% and 87.7% and cesarean delivery were 16.7% and 8.2% in the misoprostol and oxytocin groups, respectively. Neonatal outcomes were not significantly different. Of the cases, 8.3% in the misoprostol group and 8.2% in the oxytocin group revealed uterine contraction abnormalities.

CONCLUSION

Our study demonstrates that, intravaginally, misoprostol results in a similar interval from induction of labor to delivery when compared to oxytocin.

Induction of labor with oral misoprostol for premature rupture of membranes at term in women with unfavorable cervix: a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial

AIM

To evaluate the efficacy and safety of oral misoprostol for labor induction in women with term premature rupture of membranes (PROM) and an unfavorable cervix.

METHODS

We randomized 130 women with PROM of < or =4 h to either oral misoprostol, 50 microg, or a placebo given every 4 h for up to three doses. Intravenous oxytocin was initiated if active labor did not begin within 12 h.

RESULTS

Sixty-four women received oral misoprostol and 66 received placebo. The PROM-to-delivery interval was shorter with misoprostol than with placebo (13.7+/-5.8 vs. 20.3+/-6.8 h, respectively, P<0.05). Misoprostol significantly reduced the need for oxytocin (28.1 vs. 72.7%, P<0.001) and antibiotics (25 vs. 69.7%, P<0.001). No significant differences in cesarean section or hyperstimulation rate were noted.

CONCLUSION

Oral misoprostol given to women with unfavorable cervix soon after term PROM significantly reduces the induction-to-delivery time and the need for oxytocin and antibiotics.

Oral misoprostol for induction of labour

BACKGROUND

Misoprostol is a synthetic prostaglandin that can be given orally or vaginally. In most countries misoprostol has not been licensed for use in pregnancy, but its unlicensed use is common because misoprostol is cheap, stable at room temperature and effective in causing uterine contractions. Oral use of misoprostol may be convenient, but high doses could cause uterine hyperstimulation and uterine rupture which may be life-threatening for both mother and fetus.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effectiveness and safety of oral misoprostol used for labour induction in women with a viable fetus in the third trimester of pregnancy.

SEARCH STRATEGY

We searched the Cochrane Pregnancy and Childbirth Group Trials Register (January 2005).

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised trials comparing oral misoprostol versus other methods, placebo or no treatment, given to women with a viable fetus for labour induction.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Three authors independently assessed trial quality and extracted data, using centrally-designed data sheets.

MAIN RESULTS

Forty-one trials (8606 participants) were included. In four trials comparing oral misoprostol with placebo (474 participants), women using oral misoprostol were less likely to have long labours (relative risk (RR) 0.16, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.05 to 0.49), needed less oxytocin (RR 0.32, 95% CI 0.24 to 0.43) and had a lower caesarean section rate (RR 0.62, 95% CI 0.40 to 0.96). In nine trials comparing oral misoprostol with vaginal dinoprostone (2627 participants), women given oral misoprostol were less likely to need a caesarean section, but this reduction reached statistical significance only in the subgroup with intact membranes (RR 0.78, 95% CI 0.66 to 0.94). Uterine hyperstimulation was more common after oral misoprostol (RR 1.63, 95% CI 1.09 to 2.44) although this was not associated with any adverse fetal events. Seven trials (1017 participants) compared oral misoprostol with intravenous oxytocin. The only difference between the groups was an increase in meconium-stained liquor in women with ruptured membranes following administration of oral misoprostol (RR 1.72, 95% 1.08 to 2.74). Sixteen trials (3645 participants) compared oral and vaginal misoprostol and found no difference in the primary outcomes. There was less uterine hyperstimulation without fetal heart rate changes in those given oral misoprostol (RR 0.37, 95% 0.23 to 0.59). Oral misoprsotol was associated with increased need for oxytocin augmentation (RR 1.28, 95% 1.11 to 1.48) and more meconium-stained liquor (RR 1.27, 1.01 to 1.60).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Oral misoprostol appears to be more effective than placebo and at least as effective as vaginal dinoprostone. However, there remain questions about its safety because of a relatively high rate of uterine hyperstimulation and the lack of appropriate dose ranging studies. In countries where misoprostol remains unlicenced for the induction of labour, many practitioners will prefer the legal protection of using a licenced product like dinoprostone. There is no evidence that misoprostol given orally is inferior to the vaginal route and has lower rates of hyperstimulation. If misoprostol is used orally, the dose should not exceed 50 mcg.

Planned early birth versus expectant management (waiting) for prelabour rupture of membranes at term (37 weeks or more)

BACKGROUND

Prelabour rupture of membranes at term is managed expectantly or by elective birth, but it is not clear if waiting for birth to occur spontaneously is better than intervening.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effects of planned early birth versus expectant management for women with term prelabour rupture of membranes on fetal, infant and maternal wellbeing.

SEARCH STRATEGY

We searched the Cochrane Pregnancy and Childbirth Group Trials Register (November 2004), the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (The Cochrane Library, Issue 4, 2004), MEDLINE (1966 to November 2004) and EMBASE (1974 to November 2004).

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised or quasi-randomised trials of planned early birth compared with expectant management in women with prelabour rupture of membranes at 37 weeks' gestation or more.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently applied eligibility criteria, assessed trial quality and extracted data. A random-effects model was used.

MAIN RESULTS

Twelve trials (total of 6814 women) were included. Planned management was generally induction with oxytocin or prostaglandin, with one trial using homoeopathic caulophyllum. Overall, no differences were detected for mode of birth between planned and expectant groups: relative risk (RR) of caesarean section 0.94, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.82 to 1.08 (12 trials, 6814 women); RR of operative vaginal birth 0.98, 95% 0.84 to 1.16 (7 trials, 5511 women). Significantly fewer women in the planned compared with expectant management groups had chorioamnionitis (RR 0.74, 95% CI 0.56 to 0.97; 9 trials, 6611 women) or endometritis (RR 0.30, 95% CI 0.12 to 0.74; 4 trials, 445 women). No difference was seen for neonatal infection (RR 0.83, 95% CI 0.61 to 1.12; 9 trials, 6406 infants). However, fewer infants under planned management went to neonatal intensive or special care compared with expectant management (RR 0.72, 95% CI 0.57 to 0.92, number needed to treat 20; 5 trials, 5679 infants). In a single trial, significantly more women with planned management viewed their care more positively than those expectantly managed (RR of "nothing liked" 0.45, 95% CI 0.37 to 0.54; 5031 women).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Planned management (with methods such as oxytocin or prostaglandin) reduces the risk of some maternal infectious morbidity without increasing caesarean sections and operative vaginal births. Fewer infants went to neonatal intensive care under planned management although no differences were seen in neonatal infection rates. Since planned and expectant management may not be very different, women need to have appropriate information to make informed choices.

Misoprostol for Labor Induction in Women With Term Premature Rupture of Membranes

OBJECTIVE

To systematically review published data evaluating the comparative use of misoprostol with placebo/expectant management or oxytocin for labor induction in women with term (> or = 36 weeks of gestation) premature rupture of membranes.

DATA SOURCES

PubMed (1966-2005), Ovid (1966-2005), CINAHL, The Cochrane Library, ACP Journal Club, OCLC, abstracts from scientific forums, and bibliographies of published articles were searched using the following keywords: premature rupture of membranes, misoprostol, labor induction, and cervical ripening. Primary authors were contacted directly if the data sought were unavailable or only published in abstract form.

METHODS OF STUDY SELECTION

Only randomized controlled trials evaluating the efficacy and safety of misoprostol in comparison with placebo or expectant management (n = 6) and oxytocin (n = 9) published in either article or abstract form were analyzed and included in the meta-analysis.

TABULATION, INTEGRATION, AND RESULTS

Studies were reviewed independently by all authors. Meta-analysis was performed, and the relative risks (RRs) were calculated and pooled for each study outcome. Misoprostol, compared with placebo, significantly increased vaginal delivery less than 12 hours (RR 2.71, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.87-3.92, P < .001). Misoprostol was similar to oxytocin with respect to vaginal delivery less than 24 hours (RR 1.07, 95% CI 0.88-1.31, P = .50) and less than 12 hours (RR 0.98, 95% CI 0.71-1.35, P = .90). Misoprostol was not associated with an increased risk of tachysystole, hypertonus, or hyperstimulation syndrome when compared with oxytocin and had similar risks for adverse neonatal and maternal outcomes.

CONCLUSION

Misoprostol is an effective and safe agent for induction of labor in women with term premature rupture of membranes. When compared with oxytocin, the risk of contraction abnormalities and the rate of maternal and neonatal complications were similar among the 2 groups.

Misoprostol: A Quarter Century of Use, Abuse, and Creative Misuse

Misoprostol is a prostaglandin E1 analog originally intended for use to prevent NSAID-induced gastric ulcers. However, because of its cervical ripening and uterotonic property, misoprostol has become one of the most useful drugs in obstetrics and gynecology. Misoprostol has proven to be a very convenient and flexible drug because of its formulation as a tablet that is stable and that can be administered orally, rectally, vaginally and by the sublingual route. Beginning with its abuse for illegal abortion in the late 1980s, misoprostol has quickly become established as one of the most effective drugs for terminating pregnancies in the first and second trimesters, as well as for inducing labor in the third trimester. Its use for routine prevention of postpartum hemorrhage has not been so successful, partly as the high doses required for this indication often result in troublesome side effects. Despite the large body of medical evidence about its efficacy and relative safety, the use of misoprostol in pregnant women remained off-label until the spring of 2002.

Oral misoprostol for premature rupture of membranes at term

OBJECTIVE

The study was undertaken to compare the efficacy, safety, and maternal satisfaction of oral misoprostol and intravenous oxytocin for labor induction in women with premature rupture of membranes at term.

STUDY DESIGN

One hundred five women were stratified by parity and randomly assigned to oral misoprostol 75 microg every 4 hours as needed to establish labor or to intravenous oxytocin.

RESULTS

The induction to vaginal delivery time with oral misoprostol was 737 (+/-426) minutes compared with 573 (+/-318) minutes with oxytocin (P=.04). The incidence of hyperstimulation was lower in the misoprostol group (6.0% vs 27.1%, P=.005). Women were more likely to be very satisfied with their care in the misoprostol group (86.0% vs 63.4%, P=.02).

CONCLUSION

In women at term with premature rupture of membranes, oral misoprostol resulted in a longer induction to vaginal delivery interval but increased maternal satisfaction and less hyperstimulation compared with intravenous oxytocin. Further research is needed to assess uncommon neonatal and maternal outcomes.

Induction of labour with a favourable cervix and/or pre-labour rupture of membranes

Premature rupture of membranes (PROM) occurs in 8% of term deliveries. In this situation labour induction with prostaglandins, compared with expectant management, results in a reduced risk of chorioamnionitis, neonatal antibiotic therapy, neonatal intensive care (NICU) admission, and increased maternal satisfaction. The use of prostaglandin is associated with an increased rate of diarrhoea and use of analgesia/anaesthesia. Compared with oxytocin, prostaglandin induction results in a lower rate of epidural use and internal fetal heart rate monitoring but a greater risk of chorioamnionitis, nausea, vomiting, more vaginal examinations, neonatal antibiotic therapy, NICU admission and neonatal infection. Women should be informed of the risks and benefits of each method of induction.Misoprostol is gaining increasing interest as an alternative induction agent. It appears to be an effective method of labour induction with term PROM. Further research is needed to identify the preferred dosage, route and interval of administration, and to assess uncommon maternal and neonatal outcomes. There has been limited research on the use of prostaglandins, including misoprostol, for induction of labour with a favourable cervix and intact membranes. Compared with intravenous oxytocin (with and without amniotomy), labour induction using vaginal prostaglandins in women with a favourable cervix (with and without PROM) results in a higher rate of vaginal delivery within 24 hours and increased maternal satisfaction. In women with a favourable cervix, artificial rupture of membranes followed by oral misoprostol has similar time to vaginal delivery compared with artificial rupture of membranes followed by oxytocin. Further research with prostaglandins, including misoprostol, is needed to evaluate other maternal and neonatal outcomes in women being induced with a favourable cervix. No form of prostaglandin induction in women with PROM or favourable cervix has proven clearly superior to oxytocin infusion.