Sublingual misoprostol for labor induction: a randomized clinical trial

Labor Induction Techniques: Which Is the Best?

Induction of labor is a common procedure undertaken whenever the benefits of prompt delivery outweigh the risks of expectant management. Cervical assessment is essential to determine the optimal approach. Indication for induction, clinical presentation and history, safety, cost, and patient preference may factor into the selection of methods. For the unfavorable cervix, several pharmacologic and mechanical methods are available, each with associated advantages and disadvantages. In women with a favorable cervix, combined use of amniotomy and intravenous oxytocin is generally the most effective approach. The goal of labor induction is to ensure the best possible outcome for mother and newborn.

Survey of Provider Preferences Regarding the Route of Misoprostol for Induction of Labor at Term

Objective  To survey obstetrical provider preferences regarding use of misoprostol for induction of labor (IOL). Methods  An anonymous 25-question survey was distributed at an American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG) joint District V and VII Meeting in 2014 to obstetrics providers. The same survey was sent electronically to local providers. A separate survey was emailed to the labor and delivery nurses at two of the teaching hospitals in Indianapolis. The surveys queried provider demographics, dosing practice for misoprostol, opinions regarding different dosing strategies, and instructions on buccal administration. Results  A total of 113 (46.5%) providers responded. Of these, 92.9% used misoprostol for IOL, 73% preferred the vaginal route, 20% preferred buccal administration, and 7% oral administration. Only resident physician and midwife providers endorsed buccal route preference. Being a midwife independently predicted a preference for using buccal misoprostol (odds ratio [OR]: 125.8, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 7.9-1992.3). Additionally, 44 nurses completed the survey regarding administration techniques of buccal misoprostol. Also, 54.5% of nurses correctly instructed their patients on buccal administration techniques. Conclusion  Although not extensively studied, one-fifth of providers, particularly nurse midwives, prefer buccal administration of misoprostol for IOL. The majority of nurses correctly administered buccal misoprostol. There may be a need for further study and education about buccal administration of misoprostol for IOL.

Comparison between vaginal and sublingual misoprostol 50 µg for cervical ripening prior to induction of labor: randomized clinical trial

OBJECTIVE

To compare the effectiveness and safety of sublingual versus vaginal misoprostol on improving the Bishop score after 6 h of administration.

METHODS

Randomized clinical trial which includes pregnant women in gestational ages from 32/0 to 41/6, with indication of induction of labor with misoprostol. Bishop score was assessed at the time of induction and 6 h after administration of 50 µg misoprostol. Analysis was made over difference in mean Bishop score of 2 points, using a standard deviation of 2, with 90% power, reaching a 95% confidence interval.

RESULTS

102 patients were studied, 51 received sublingual misoprostol, and 51 received vaginal misoprostol. There was a statistically significant difference in cervical modifications in global terms regardless of the administration route at 6 h (P < 0.05). When analyzing each group, there was no significant difference for the mean and standard deviation for Bishop score for sublingual and vaginal route (P = 0.761). There was no significant difference in terms of mode of delivery, Apgar score, cord pH, nor in the presence of complications.

CONCLUSION

There is no statistically significant difference in terms of administration route for cervical ripening using misoprostol 50 µg, whether it was sublingual or vaginal.

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

NCT02732522. Registry website: https://clinicaltrials.gov/ .

Comparison of Vaginal and Oral Doses of Misoprostol for Labour Induction in Post-Term Pregnancies

INTRODUCTION

Considering maternal complications, it is preferred to induce labour after 40 weeks. Labour induction is a procedure used to stimulate uterine contractions during pregnancy before the beginning of the labour.

AIM

The aim of this study was to compare oral misoprostol with vaginal misoprostol for induction of labour in post-term pregnancies.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

This double blind clinical-trial study was performed on 180 post-term pregnant women who were admitted to the labour ward of Besat Hospital Sanandaj, Iran in 2013-2014. Participants were equally divided into three groups using block randomization method. The induction was performed for the first group with 100 μg of oral misoprostol, for the second group with 50 μg of oral misoprostol, and for the third group with 25 μg of vaginal misoprostol. Vaginal examination and FHR was done before repeating each dose to determine Bishop Score. Induction time with misoprostol to the start of uterine contractions, induction time to delivery, and mode of delivery, systolic tachycardia, hyper stimulation and fetal outcomes were studied as well.

RESULTS

First minute Apgar scores and medication dosage of the study groups were significantly different (p=0.0001). But labour induction, induction frequency, mode of delivery, complications, and 5 minutes Apgar score in the groups had no significant difference (p>0.05). The risk of fetal distress and neonatal hospitalization of the groups were statistically significant (p=0. 02). There was no significant difference between the three groups in terms of mean time interval from the administration of misoprostol to the start of uterine contractions (labour induction), the time interval from the start of uterine contractions to delivery and taking misoprostol to delivery. From the administration of misoprostol to start of the uterine contractions the mean difference between time intervals in the three groups were not statistically significant.

CONCLUSION

Based on our findings it can be concluded that prescribing 100μg oral misoprostol is effective than 50 μg oral or 25 μg vaginal misoprostol in terms of induction time, maternal and neonatal outcomes in post- term pregnancy. However, the best dose and route should be decided according to evidence based information.

Induction of labour

OBJECTIVE

To review the most current literature in order to provide evidence-based recommendations to obstetrical care providers on induction of labour.

OPTIONS

Intervention in a pregnancy with induction of labour.

OUTCOMES

Appropriate timing and method of induction, appropriate mode of delivery, and optimal maternal and perinatal outcomes.

EVIDENCE

Published literature was retrieved through searches of PubMed, CINAHL, and The Cochrane Library in 2010 using appropriate controlled vocabulary (e.g., labour, induced, labour induction, cervical ripening) and key words (e.g., induce, induction, augmentation). Results were restricted to systematic reviews, randomized control trials/controlled clinical trials, and observational studies. There were no date or language restrictions. Searches were updated on a regular basis and incorporated in the guideline to the end of 2010. Grey (unpublished) literature was identified through 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.

VALUES

The evidence in this document was rated using criteria described in the Report of the Canadian Task Force on Preventative Health Care (Table 1). SUMMARY STATEMENTS: 1. Prostaglandins E(2) (cervical and vaginal) are effective agents of cervical ripening and induction of labour for an unfavourable cervix. (I) 2. Intravaginal prostaglandins E(2) are preferred to intracervical prostaglandins E(2) because they results in more timely vaginal deliveries. (I).

Efficacy and safety of six hourly vaginal misoprostol versus intracervical dinoprostone: a randomized controlled trial

OBJECTIVE

To compare the efficacy and safety of intravaginal misoprostol versus dinoprostone cervical gel for cervical ripening and labour induction.

METHODS

We carried out an experimental clinical trial in which we enrolled 130 cervical consecutive patients with cervical ripening, randomly assigned to one of the following two treatment groups: (1) intravaginal misoprostol and (2) intracervical dinoprostone gel. A total of 50 microm of misoprostol was placed in the posterior vaginal fornix every 6 h for a maximum period of 24 h and 0.5 mg of dinoprostone was administrated in the uterine cervix every 6 h, for a maximum period of 24 h. The primary outcome measure was the number (rate) of women who went to vaginally deliver within 24 h of the protocol initiation.

RESULTS

Among 130 patients evaluated, 65 were allocated to the misoprostol group and 65 to the dinoprostone group. The proportion of vaginal delivery within 24 h was significantly higher in the misoprostol group (75%) than in the dinoprostone group (53.8%) (RR = 1.40, 95% CI [1.07-1.45], P = 0.02). There was no significant difference between the mean time interval of delivery in the misoprostol group and the dinoprostone group (14.9 vs.15.8 h) (P = 0.51). The Bishop score was significantly higher in the misoprostol group, 6 h after the onset of the study (1.38; relative risk, 95% CI [1.02-1.85], P = 0.03). The Caesarean delivery rate for fetal distress was higher in the dinoprostone group (21 vs. 10.8%, P = 0.15). The tachysystole (Misoprostol 6.1% vs. dinoprostone 4.6%, relative risk 1.15, 95% CI [0.6-2.24]) and hyperstimulation syndrome rates (Misoprostol 7.6% vs. dinoprostone 4.6%, relative risk 1.26, 95% CI [0.72-2.24]) were slightly increased in the misoprostol group than in the dinoprostone group without reaching the level of statistical signification.

CONCLUSION

Misoprostol as used in this protocol is more effective than cervical dinoprostone gel application in the cervical ripening and labour induction. There is a tendency for an increase in the rate of tachysystole and hyperstimulation syndrome.

A randomised comparison of patient satisfaction with vaginal and sublingual misoprostol for induction of labour at term*

OBJECTIVE

To compare patient satisfaction with two routes of misoprostol for term labour induction.

DESIGN

Prospective randomised trial.

SETTING

Tertiary care hospital.

POPULATION

A total of 170 women admitted at > or = 37 weeks of gestation for induction of labour.

METHODS

Women were randomised to receive 50 micrograms of either sublingual or vaginal misoprostol.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

Patient satisfaction with the route of administration.

RESULTS

Despite a similar proportion reporting the labour induction as more painful than expected in both groups, a significantly lower proportion mentioned that the pelvic examinations were very painful in the sublingual group (19.7 versus 36.1%, relative risk [RR] 0.5, 95% CI 0.3-0.9). Request for analgesia was similar in both groups. More women in the sublingual group thought that the labour experience was better than expected (RR 2.0, 95% CI 1.2-3.3), had a positive attitude towards induction in subsequent pregnancies (RR 1.6, 95% CI 1.1-2.3) and preferred the same route in subsequent pregnancies (RR 3.1, 95% CI 2.2-4.5). Mean number of misoprostol doses, oxytocin augmentation, tachysystole and hyperstimulation, induction to vaginal delivery interval, vaginal delivery after a single dose, vaginal birth within 12 and 24 hours, and caesarean delivery rates were similar in both groups.

CONCLUSION

Sublingual misoprostol (50 micrograms) is associated with a significantly higher patient satisfaction rate compared with a similar dose of vaginal misoprostol. Sublingual administration offers additional choice to women, in particular those wishing to avoid vaginal administration.

Sublingual compared with vaginal misoprostol for labour induction at term: a randomised controlled trial

OBJECTIVE

To compare the efficacy and safety of 50 microg of sublingual misoprostol with 25 microg of vaginal misoprostol administered for labour induction at term. Design Double-blinded, randomised controlled trial. Setting University Hospital, Kaunas, Lithuania. Sample A total of 140 women at term with indications for labour induction. Methods Women were randomised to receive either 50 microg of sublingual misoprostol with vaginal placebo (n = 70) or sublingual placebo with 25 microg of vaginal misoprostol (n = 70) every 4 hours (maximum six doses). Main outcome measures The number of women delivering vaginally within 24 hours of labour induction. Results Fifty-eight women (83%) in the sublingual misoprostol group and 53 (76%) in the vaginal misoprostol group delivered vaginally within 24 hours [relative risk (RR) 1.1, 95% confidential interval (CI) 0.9-1.3]. However, the induction to vaginal delivery time was significantly shorter in the sublingual group (15.0 +/- 3.7 hours) compared with the vaginal group (16.7 +/- 4.1 hours, P = 0.03). The incidence of tachysystole was more than three-fold higher in the sublingual than in the vaginal group (14 versus 4.3%; RR 3.3, 95% CI 0.9-11.6), but this was not statistically significant. There were no significant differences in the incidence of hypertonus or hyperstimulation syndrome, mode of delivery, interventions for fetal distress or neonatal outcomes between the two groups. Conclusion A 50 microg of sublingual misoprostol 4 hourly for labour induction at term seems to have similar efficacy as 25 microg of vaginal misoprostol. Further studies on safety with larger numbers of women need to be conducted before routine sublingual misoprostol use in this setting.

Sublingual vs. vaginal misoprostol for induction of labor

OBJECTIVE

To compare sublingual with vaginal misoprostol for the induction of labor.

METHODS

This double-blind clinical trial randomized 150 women to receive every 6 h 25 mug of sublingual misoprostol and vaginal placebo or 25 mug of vaginal misoprostol and sublingual placebo. Maternal and neonatal outcomes were analyzed and risk ratios (RRs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) calculated. The significance level was 5%.

RESULTS

Vaginal delivery rates were 57% in the sublingual group and 69% in the vaginal group (RR, 0.8; 95% CI, 0.6-1.1). There were 11 cases of fetal distress in the sublingual group and 4 cases in the vaginal group (RR, 2.7; 95% CI, 0.9-8.2). There were no significant differences in the number of doses needed, interval between first dose and delivery, incidence of contractility disturbances, or neonatal results.

CONCLUSION

The administration of misoprostol 25 mug by the sublingual route was neither more effective nor safer than the same dose administered vaginally.

Buccal or sublingual misoprostol for cervical ripening and induction of labour

BACKGROUND

This is one of a series of reviews of cervical ripening and labour induction using standardised methodology. Misoprostol administered by the oral and sublingual routes have the advantage of rapid onset of action, while the sublingual and vaginal routes have the advantage of prolonged activity and greatest bioavailability.

OBJECTIVES

To determine the effectiveness and safety of misoprostol administered buccally or sublingually for third trimester cervical ripening and induction of labour.

SEARCH STRATEGY

We searched the Cochrane Pregnancy and Childbirth Group trials register (8 December 2003), the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (The Cochrane Library, Issue 4, 2003), and bibliographies of relevant papers.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised controlled trials comparing buccal or sublingual misoprostol used for third trimester cervical ripening or labour induction with placebo/no treatment or other methods listed above it on a predefined list of labour induction methods.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

A generic strategy was developed to deal with the large volume and complexity of trial data relating to labour induction. Data were extracted onto standardized forms, checked for accuracy, and analysed using RevMan software.

MAIN RESULTS

Three studies (502 participants) compared buccal/sublingual misoprostol respectively with a vaginal regimen (200 microg versus 50 microg) and with oral administration (50 versus 50 microg and 50 versus 100microg).The buccal route was associated with a trend to fewer caesarean sections than with the vaginal route (18/73 versus 28/79; relative risk (RR) 0.70; 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.42 to 1.15). There were no significant differences in any other outcomes. When the same dosage was used sublingually versus orally, the sublingual route was associated with less failures to achieve vaginal delivery within 24 hours (12/50 versus 19/50; RR 0.63, 95% CI 0.34 to 1.16), reduced oxytocin augmentation (17/50 versus 23/50; RR 0.74, 95% CI 0.45 to 1.21) and reduced caesarean section (8/50 versus 15/50; RR 0.53, 95% CI 0.25 to 1.14), but the differences were not statistically significant. When a smaller dose was used sublingually than orally, there were no differences in any of the outcomes.

REVIEWERS' CONCLUSIONS

Based on only three small trials, sublingual misoprostol appears to be at least as effective as when the same dose is administered orally. There are inadequate data to comment on the relative complications and side-effects. Sublingual or buccal misoprostol should not enter clinical use until its safety and optimal dosage have been established by larger trials.