Induction of labour in term premature rupture of membranes; oxytocin versus sublingual misoprostol; a randomised clinical trial

Effect of misoprostol versus oxytocin on delivery outcomes after labour induction in pregnant women: A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

A large number of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) have been published on the effects of oral/vaginal misoprostol and oxytocin on delivery outcomes; however, data from these RCTs are conflicting. Although some meta-analyses summarized available findings in this regard, several eligible RCTs have been published since the release of those meta-analyses. Therefore, the current updated systematic review and meta-analysis of RCTs was conducted to compare the effects of oral/vaginal misoprostol and oxytocin on delivery and neonatal outcomes. A systematic search, using relevant keywords, was done in the online databases of PubMed/Medline, Scopus, and ISI Web of Science, up to April 2023, to identify eligible articles investigating the effect of oral/vaginal misoprostol and oxytocin on delivery outcomes including maternal [cesarean/vaginal delivery within 24 h after labour induction, Tachysystole, hypertonicity, hyper-stimulation, postpartum hemorrhage (PPH)] and neonatal outcomes [mean Apgar score, admission to neonatal intensive care unit (NICU), and death]. In total, 45 RCTs with a total sample size of 8406 participants were included. Meta-analysis revealed that vaginal misoprostol administration, compared with oxytocin, resulted in a significant reduction in the rate of cesarean and a significant increase in the rate of vaginal delivery and Tachysystole risk. Also, oral misoprostol was associated with a significant reduction in the rate of cesarean and a significant increase in the risk of hypertonicity compared with oxytocin. However, oral misoprostol had no significant effect on vaginal delivery compared with oxytocin. For other outcomes including hyper-stimulation, perinatal death, NICU admission, and mean Apgar score among newborns, we found no significant difference between oral/vaginal misoprostol and oxytocin. In total, vaginal/oral misoprostol might be a better method for labour induction compared with oxytocin. PROSPERO registration: CRD42023412325.

Oxytocin Versus Oral Misoprostol for Induction of Labor in Pregnant Women with Term Prelabor Rupture of Membranes: a Randomized Clinical Trial

This study compares the effectiveness and safety of oxytocin infusion against oral misoprostol for inducing labour in pregnant women with term prelabor membrane rupture. We randomized 173 pregnant women presenting with term prelabor rupture of membranes (PROM) at Ain Shams University Maternity Hospital into Group A (underwent induction of labor (IOL) by 25μg misoprostol oral tablet every 4 h, for maximum 5 doses) and an identical Group B: (underwent IOL by oxytocin infusion according to the hospital protocol). Our primary outcome was rate of vaginal delivery within 24 h, while the secondary outcomes included the time till active phase, induction to delivery interval, maternal pyrexia, nausea and vomiting, fetal distress, Apgar score, birth weight, and neonatal intensive care unit admission. Both groups showed high rates of vaginal delivery (82.4% & 87.1% for misoprostol group and oxytocin group respectively) with no significant difference between the two groups (p=0.394). However, patients induced by misoprostol took significantly less time to reach active phase with a shorter induction to delivery interval as compared to patients induced with oxytocin. This difference was clear in multiparous women, but not observed in primiparous women when subgroup analysis was done. No significant difference was found as regards other outcomes. Our study showed that both oral misoprostol and oxytocin are effective and safe for IOL in patients with PROM, with shorter induction-delivery interval in patients induced by oral misoprostol, an effect that is clear in multiparous but not primiparous women. TRIAL REGISTRATION: NCT05215873, on 31/01/2022, "retrospectively registered".

Evaluation and Management of Premature Rupture of Membranes: A Review Article

Premature rupture of membranes (PROM), now also referred to as "pre-labour rupture of membranes," is the rupture of gestational membranes after 37 weeks but before the process of labour begins. When membrane rupture occurs before 37 weeks of gestation, it is referred to as preterm PROM (PPROM). Prematurity is held accountable for the majority of newborn morbidity and mortality. PROM causes around one-third of all preterm deliveries and complicates 3% of pregnancies. Significant morbidity and mortality rates have been associated with PROM. Preterm (PROM) pregnancies are more difficult to manage. Pre-labour rupture of membranes is characterised by its short latency, higher intrauterine infection risk, and greater umbilical cord compression probability. Women with preterm PROM are more likely to develop chorioamnionitis and placental abruption. Various diagnostic modalities include sterile speculum examination, the nitrazine test, the ferning test, and the latest advances, which are the Amnisure test and the Actim test. Despite all these tests, there is still a need for newer, non-invasive, rapid, and accurate tests. Admission to a hospital, amniocentesis to rule out infection, and, if necessary, prenatal corticosteroids and broad-spectrum antibiotics are all alternatives for treatment. As a result, the clinician managing a pregnant woman whose pregnancy has been affected by PROM plays a crucial role in the management and must be well aware of probable complications and control measures to reduce risks and increase the likelihood of the required outcome. PROM's proclivity for recurrence in later pregnancies provides a chance for prevention. Furthermore, prenatal and neonatal care developments will continue to enhance the outcomes of women and their children. The purpose of this article is to summarise the concepts related to the evaluation and management of PROM.

Guideline No. 432b: Cervical Ripening

OBJECTIVE

This guideline presents evidence and recommendations for cervical ripening and induction of labour. It aims to provide information to birth attendants and pregnant individuals on optimal perinatal care while avoiding unnecessary obstetrical intervention.

TARGET POPULATION

All pregnant patients.

BENEFITS, HARMS, AND COSTS

Consistent interprofessional use of the guideline, appropriate equipment, and trained professional staff enhance safe intrapartum care. Pregnant individuals and their support person(s) should be informed of the benefits and risks of induction of labour.

EVIDENCE

Literature published to March 2022 was reviewed. PubMed, CINAHL, and the Cochrane Library were used to search for systematic reviews, randomized controlled trials, and observational studies on cervical ripening and induction of labour. Grey (unpublished) literature was identified by searching the websites of health technology assessment and health technology related agencies, clinical practice guideline collections, clinical trial registries, and national and international medical specialty societies.

VALIDATION METHODS

The authors rated the quality of evidence and strength of recommendations using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) approach. See online Appendix A (Tables A1 for definitions and A2 for interpretations of strong and conditional [weak] recommendations).

INTENDED AUDIENCE

All providers of obstetrical care.

RECOMMANDATIONS

Directive clinique no 432b : Maturation cervicale

OBJECTIF

Présenter des données probantes et des recommandations sur la maturation cervicale et le déclenchement artificiel du travail. Fournir de l'information aux professionnels accoucheurs et aux personnes enceintes sur les soins périnataux optimaux et la prévention des interventions obstétricales inutiles.

POPULATION CIBLE

Toutes les patientes enceintes. BéNéFICES, RISQUES ET COûTS: La mise en application interprofessionnelle et cohérente de la présente directive, l'équipement adéquat et le personnel compétent améliorent la sécurité des soins per partum. Les personnes enceintes et leurs personnes de soutien doivent être informées des risques et bénéfices du déclenchement artificiel du travail. DONNéES PROBANTES: La littérature publiée jusqu'en mars 2022 a été passée en revue. Une recherche a été effectuée dans les bases de données PubMed, CINAHL et Cochrane Library pour répertorier des revues systématiques, des essais cliniques randomisés et des études observationnelles sur la maturation cervicale et le déclenchement artificiel du travail. La littérature grise (non publiée) a été obtenue à l'aide de recherches menées dans des sites Web d'organismes s'intéressant à l'évaluation des technologies dans le domaine de la santé et d'organismes connexes, dans des collections de directives cliniques, des registres d'essais cliniques et des sites Web de sociétés de spécialité médicale nationales et internationales. MéTHODES DE VALIDATION: Les auteurs ont évalué la qualité des données probantes et la force des recommandations en utilisant le cadre méthodologique GRADE (Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation). Voir l'annexe A en ligne (tableau A1 pour les définitions et tableau A2 pour l'interprétation des recommandations fortes et conditionnelles [faibles]). PROFESSIONNELS CONCERNéS: Tous les fournisseurs de soins obstétricaux.

RECOMMANDATIONS

Guideline No. 432a: Cervical Ripening and Induction of Labour - General Information

OBJECTIVE

This guideline presents evidence and recommendations for cervical ripening and induction of labour. It aims to provide information to birth attendants and pregnant individuals on optimal perinatal care while avoiding unnecessary obstetrical intervention.

TARGET POPULATION

All pregnant patients.

BENEFITS, HARMS, AND COSTS

Consistent interprofessional use of the guideline, appropriate equipment, and trained professional staff enhance safe intrapartum care. Pregnant individuals and their support person(s) should be informed of the benefits and risks of induction of labour.

EVIDENCE

Literature published to March 2022 was reviewed. PubMed, CINAHL, and the Cochrane Library were used to search for systematic reviews, randomized controlled trials, and observational studies on cervical ripening and induction of labour. Grey (unpublished) literature was identified by searching the websites of health technology assessment and health technology related agencies, clinical practice guideline collections, clinical trial registries, and national and international medical specialty societies.

VALIDATION METHODS

The authors rated the quality of evidence and strength of recommendations using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) approach. See online Appendix A (Tables A1 for definitions and A2 for interpretations of strong and conditional [weak] recommendations).

INTENDED AUDIENCE

All providers of obstetrical care.

RECOMMANDATIONS

Directive clinique no 432a : Maturation cervicale et déclenchement artificiel du travail - Information générale

OBJECTIF

Présenter des données probantes et des recommandations sur la maturation cervicale et le déclenchement artificiel du travail. Fournir de l'information aux professionnels accoucheurs et aux personnes enceintes sur les soins périnataux optimaux et la prévention des interventions obstétricales inutiles.

POPULATION CIBLE

Toutes les patientes enceintes. BéNéFICES, RISQUES ET COûTS: La mise en application interprofessionnelle et cohérente de la présente directive, l'équipement adéquat et le personnel compétent améliorent la sécurité des soins per partum. Les personnes enceintes et leurs personnes de soutien doivent être informées des risques et bénéfices du déclenchement artificiel du travail. DONNéES PROBANTES: La littérature publiée jusqu'en mars 2022 a été passée en revue. Une recherche a été effectuée dans les bases de données PubMed, CINAHL et Cochrane Library pour répertorier des revues systématiques, des essais cliniques randomisés et des études observationnelles sur la maturation cervicale et le déclenchement artificiel du travail. La littérature grise (non publiée) a été obtenue à l'aide de recherches menées dans des sites Web d'organismes s'intéressant à l'évaluation des technologies dans le domaine de la santé et d'organismes connexes, dans des collections de directives cliniques, des registres d'essais cliniques et des sites Web de sociétés de spécialité médicale nationales et internationales. MéTHODES DE VALIDATION: Les auteurs ont évalué la qualité des données probantes et la force des recommandations en utilisant le cadre méthodologique GRADE (Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation). Voir l'annexe A en ligne (tableau A1 pour les définitions et tableau A2 pour l'interprétation des recommandations fortes et conditionnelles [faibles]). PROFESSIONNELS CONCERNéS: Tous les fournisseurs de soins obstétricaux.

RECOMMANDATIONS

A Randomised Controlled Trial Comparing Induction of Labour with the Propess Vaginal System to the Prostin Vaginal Tablet in Premature Rupture of Membranes at Term

Aim: To compare the perinatal outcome and delivery intervals after the induction of labour with the Prostin vaginal tablet versus the Propess vaginal system in pregnant women with term-PROM. Design: One centre paralleled randomised controlled trial with a computer-generated table to allocate treatments. Setting: University Medical Centre in Slovenia. Participants: A total of 205 singleton healthy pregnant women with term-PROM. Intervention: Induction of labour with the Propess vaginal system (intervention group) versus Prostin tablets (control group). Main outcomes: The rate of failed inductions, complications in labour, time intervals between the PROM, induction, the beginning of the active phase, and delivery. Results: A total of 104 patients received Prostin, and 101 patients received Propess. Induction failure rates in the Prostin and the Propess groups were 8/104 (7.7%) and 5/101 (5.0%), respectively (p = 0.80). Delivery abnormalities were uncommon and comparable across the groups. The rates of caesarean sections in the Prostin and Propess groups were 4/96 (4.2%) and 6/96 (6.3%), respectively. The delivery intervals were comparable across the groups. Conclusions: In term-PROM pregnancies, the Propess vaginal system is a safe and effective option for inducing labour.

Comparative study of dinoprostone and misoprostol for induction of labor in patients with premature rupture of membranes after 35 weeks

The modalities of induction of labor in the event of premature rupture of membranes are controversial. The main purpose of this study was to compare the modalities of delivery after the use of dinoprostone or misoprostol for labor induction in the preterm rupture of membranes after 35 weeks in women with an unfavorable cervix. We then studied maternal and fetal morbidity for the two drugs. Retrospective, single-center, comparative cohort study in a level 3 maternity unit in France from 2009 to 2018 comparing vaginal administration of misoprostol 50 µg every six hours (maximum 150 µg) and administration of dinoprostone 10 mg, a slow-release vaginal insert, for 24 h (maximum 20 mg), for labor induction in the preterm rupture of membranes after 35 weeks in women with an unfavorable cervix (Bishop score < 6). We included 904 patients, 656 in the misoprostol group and 248 in the dinoprostone group. Vaginal delivery rate was significantly higher in the dinoprostone group (89% vs. 82%, p = 0.016). There were more cesarean sections for abnormal fetal heart rate in the misoprostol group (p = 0.005). The time interval from induction to the beginning of the active phase of labor and the duration of labor were shorter in the misoprostol group than in the dinoprostone group (437 min vs. 719 min, p < 0.001 and 335 min vs. 381 min, p = 0.0023, respectively). Maternal and neonatal outcomes were not significantly different in the two groups. Vaginal dinoprostone used for labor induction in preterm rupture of membranes seems to be more effective for vaginal delivery than vaginal misoprostol (50 µg).

Efficacy and Safety Analysis of Phloroglucinol in Combination with Oxytocin for the Induction of Labor in Women with Term Premature Rupture of Membranes (PROM)

Objective. The purpose of this study was to investigate the efficacy and safety of phloroglucinol in combination with oxytocin in the induction of labor in women who had experienced term premature rupture of membranes (PROM). Methods. Data from 100 women who experienced PROM between December 2020 and December 2021 were retrospectively evaluated in this study. The puerperae were categorized into observation and control groups based on their uterine contraction regimens. The observation group consisted of 53 participants that had been treated with phloroglucinol in combination with oxytocin, and the control group consisted of 47 participants that had been treated with oxytocin alone. It was observed and compared in terms of the Bishop score before and after the administration of the puerpera to see which group had the best index. A study was performed after the drug was administered to examine its effects on the duration of labor (including the first, second, and third stages of labor), the mode of delivery (including natural vaginal delivery and cesarean section), the incidence of adverse pregnancy outcomes (fetal distress and neonatal asphyxia), successful labor induction, and complication rates. Results. Patients in the observation group had a significantly higher Bishop score after administration than those in the control group ( $P<0.05$ ), although there was no difference between the two groups before administration. In comparison to the control group, the observation group had a significantly higher efficacy rate for drug administration ( $P<0.05$ ), as well as a significantly lower occurrence of the first stage of labor ( $P<0.05$ ), a higher rate of vaginal natural delivery and successful induction of labor ( $P<0.05$ ), and a significantly lower incidence of adverse pregnancy outcomes and complications ( $P<0.05$ ). Conclusion. In conclusion, the use of phloroglucinol in combination with intravenous oxytocin in the process of promoting cervical ripening and induction of labor for women with PROM who are at term was investigated. This study could help women speed up cervical dilation, improve the cervical Bishop scores, shorten the total labour process, improve the effective rate of vaginal delivery, and be very safe, making it a good candidate for clinical promotion and application.

Vaginal misoprostol and intravenous oxytocin for success of termination in the second-trimester intrauterine fetal demise: A randomized controlled clinical trial

AIM

To compare the success rate of vaginal misoprostol versus intravenous (IV) oxytocin in termination of pregnancy in the second trimester intrauterine fetal death (IUFD).

METHODS

This was an open-label randomized controlled study for 106 women with second trimester IUFD. Patients were randomly divided into two groups: women given vaginal misoprostol (400 mcg every 6 h up to 48 h) versus those given IV oxytocin (starting with 50 units up to a maximum of 300 units). When the first-line treatment (as mentioned above) failed, treatment methods were replaced with each other. When the second-line treatment failed, the patients underwent dilation and evacuation.

RESULTS

The first-line treatment yielded the successful rate of 88.7% versus 73.7% for misoprostol versus oxytocin, respectively (p = 0.047). Among those with first-line treatment failure, the second-line treatment yielded success rate of 85.7% versus 83.3% for misoprostol versus oxytocin (p = 0.891). The mean duration of induction to delivery in women with successful response to first-line treatment was 28.72 and 20.55 h after initially receiving misoprostol versus oxytocin, respectively (p < 0.001). While during second-line treatment, this mean interval was not significantly different among those with misoprostol versus oxytocin (p = 0.128). No severe adverse events were observed.

CONCLUSION

Vaginal misoprostol was associated with higher termination rate than oxytocin without adverse events when used as the first-line treatment. Both methods yielded the same success rate when used as the second-line treatment.

Sublingual Misoprostol versus Oxytocin to Induce Labor in Term Premature Rupture of Membranes in Pregnant Women: A Randomized Single-Blind Controlled Trial

Objective. The aim of this study was to compare maternal and neonatal outcomes between sublingual misoprostol and oxytocin on stimulating labor in term premature rupture of membranes (PROM) in pregnant women. Materials and method. This randomized single-blind control trial was conducted at Bhumibol Adulyadej Hospital (BAH), Royal Thai Air Force, Bangkok, Thailand, between September 2020 and February 2021. Subjects were term pregnant women who had PROM and came to BAH for delivery. Participants were allocated into study (misoprostol) and control (oxytocin) groups. The study and control groups were, respectively, administered sublingual misoprostol and intravenous oxytocin to induce labor. Induction time and second stage of labor were recorded. Neonatal outcomes and maternal and fetal complications were also recorded and analyzed. Result. A total of 170 women were enrolled and equally divided into study and control groups. Mean maternal age, body mass index, parity, gestational age, and bishop score of both groups were comparable. Induction time of the study group was statistically shorter than the control group (338 and 399 min, respectively). Duration of active phase (450/427 min) and the second stage (19/21 min) of labor between study and control groups were not significantly different. Cesarean section delivery rate of study was lower than the control group (13.3 and 28.8%, $p=0.002$ ). Intrapartum complications, neonatal outcomes, and intra- and postpartum complications among both groups were not significantly differentiated. There was no instance of postpartum hemorrhage or uterine rupture in the present study. Conclusion. Induction time and cesarean section rates of sublingual misoprostol group were significantly lower than the intravenous oxytocin group in full-term PROM pregnancy.

Heterogenous use of misoprostol for induction of labour: results of an online survey among midwives in German-speaking countries

PURPOSE

This online survey looked at the experiences and general perceptions of midwives concerning induction of labour and the specific use of misoprostol.

METHODS

We published an online questionnaire with 24 questions in German on midwives' experiences and perceptions of different methods of induction of labour.

RESULTS

The online survey was answered by 412 midwives between February 2016 and February 2017. At least 20% of the 24 questions were answered in 333 questionnaires, which were included in this analysis. Oral misoprostol was the most common induction method for primipara and for women with a previous vaginal birth and an unfavourable cervix. Apart from alternative methods for induction of labour like castor oil and complementary/alternative methods, oral misoprostol was the preferred method of induction of labour by midwives. Midwives described a wide range of dosage schedules concerning application intervals, starting doses, and the maximum daily dose of misoprostol. Approximately 50% of the participants of this study described prescriptions of more than 200 µg misoprostol daily for induction of labour.

CONCLUSION

Misoprostol is widely used in Germany and was one of the three preferred methods of induction of labour among midwives in our study next to castor oil and complementary/alternative methods. The preparation and dosage of misoprostol vary significantly among hospitals and do not adhere to international guidelines. Midwives voiced their concerns about inconsistent indications and heterogenous use of different methods and dosages of induction. They wished for more patience with late-term pregnancies and individualized shared decision-making between pregnant women and obstetricians.

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.

Towards an evidence-based approach to optimize the success of labour induction

Induction of labour is a two-step process involving cervical ripening and the initiation of uterine contractions, with the goal of achieving vaginal birth. To optimize the chance of a safe and timely vaginal birth, the process of induction of labour should be evidence based and individualized to the given person and situation. In this study, we lay out a framework for how this should be done, emphasizing on careful clinical assessment and planning, flexibility in the strategy of induction, patience during the ripening and latent phases of labour, and thoughtful consideration regarding changing the strategy if active labour is not initially achieved. The goal of this review is to present the current evidence on this topic in the form of a user-friendly protocol that can be easily adapted to institutional practice.

Oxytocin Compared to Buccal Misoprostol for Induction of Labor after Term Prelabor Rupture of Membranes

OBJECTIVE

This study was aimed to determine if admission-to-delivery times vary between term nulliparous women with prelabor rupture of membranes (PROM) who initially receive oxytocin compared with buccal misoprostol for labor induction.

STUDY DESIGN

This is a retrospective cohort of 130 term, nulliparous women with PROM and cervical dilation of ≤2 cm who underwent induction of labor with intravenous oxytocin or buccal misoprostol. The primary outcome was time from admission to delivery. Linear regressions with log transformation were used to estimate the effect of induction agent on time to delivery.

RESULTS

Women receiving oxytocin had faster admission-to-delivery times than women receiving misoprostol (16.9 vs. 19.9 hours, p = 0.013). There were no significant differences in secondary outcomes between the groups. In the adjusted model, women who received misoprostol had a 22% longer time from admission to delivery (95% CI 5.0-42.0%) compared with women receiving oxytocin.

CONCLUSION

In term nulliparous patients with PROM, intravenous oxytocin is associated with faster admission-to-delivery times than buccal misoprostol.

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 - Methods for Inducing Labor]

OBJECTIVES

To assess the studies comparing induction methods in women with term prelabor rupture of the membranes and establish if one is superior to the others.

METHODS

The MedLine database, the Cochrane Library and the recommendations from the French and foreign obstetrical societies or colleges have been consulted.

RESULTS

The included studies compared medical induction methods: oxytocin (intravenous), dinoprostone (vaginal gel, pessary or intracervical gel), and misoprostol (oral or vaginal route); and a mechanical induction method: the Foley catheter. The primary outcome measures were: labor induction to delivery interval, number of women delivered within 12 or 24hours of initiation of induction and cesarean delivery rate. The small sample size of the included studies as well as the limited number of reported complications does not provide a reasonable basis for concluding on the secondary outcome measures: pyrexia, chorioamnionitis, uterine tachysystole, Apgar scores of<7 at 5minutes. Induction of labor with misoprostol (oral and vaginal) reduced the labor induction to delivery interval compared with dinoprostone (LE2). This interval was unchanged when comparing induction with oxytocin and Foley catheter (LE2). The data comparing this interval in women induced with dinoprostone versus oxytocin and misoprostol versus oxytocin is limited or inconsistent. The cesarean delivery rate was comparable in women induced with dinoprostone (vaginal gel) versus oxytocin (LE2), misoprostol (oral and vaginal route) versus oxytocin (LE2), Foley catheter versus oxytocin (LE2), misoprostol versus dinoprostone (LE2) and misoprostol versus Foley catheter (LE2). The number of women delivered within 24hours of initiation of induction was comparable when induced with oral misoprostol versus oxytocin (LE2) and Foley catheter versus oxytocin (LE2). There is a lack of data for this outcome when comparing dinoprostone versus oxytocin, vaginal misoprotsol versus oxytocin, and misoprostol (oral and vaginal) versus dinoprostone. No induction method is superior to another for nulliparous women or women with unfavorable cervix (LE2).

CONCLUSION

The superiority of an induction method, in terms of effectiveness or safety, could not be established with the current available data for women with term prelabor rupture of the membranes. An increased risk of chorioamnionitis due to induction using Foley catheter could not be ruled out by the available data. All medical methods are suitable for inducing women with term prelabor rupture of the membranes (Grade B).