Citation Information :
Shetty J, Upadhya R, Rajendran R. Oral Misoprostol Solution more Effective than a Sublingual Route for Induction of Labor: A Prospective Comparative Trial at Tertiary Care Center. J South Asian Feder Obs Gynae 2023; 15 (2):163-167.
Objective: To assess the safety and effectiveness of 25 µg of oral misoprostol solution at the same dose as sublingual misoprostol for labor induction.
Design: A prospective comparative trial.
Materials and methods: The study included 82 women with term singleton pregnancies who were selected for labor induction. Forty-two patients received sublingual misoprostol every 3 hours, and 40 patients had oral misoprostol solution every 2 hours (six doses).
Results: Within 24 hours of induction, 82.5% of the oral group's women delivered vaginally. The sublingual group had 66% women. The Chi-square test was applied to compare two routes, and the result revealed no statistically considerable difference with a p-value of 0.101. In comparison to the oral group (4.43 ± 2.8 hours), the sublingual group (6.25 ± 3.7 hours) had a longer mean interval between the last misoprostol dosage and the onset of labor. Sublingual and oral groups had mean induction to vaginal delivery intervals of 12 ± 5.2 hours and 9 ± 4.5 hours, respectively. A p-value of 0.02 indicated that the difference was statistically considerable. In the sublingual group, 14.2% of patients had meconium-stained liquor, and in the oral group, 10% of patients had meconium-stained liquor.
Conclusion: As per the study outcomes, oral misoprostol solution and 25 µg of sublingual misoprostol are both secure and reliable approaches to induce labor in females with an unfavorable cervix. For several measurements, including induction time and vaginal birth rate, we discovered that oral misoprostol solution was more efficient than the sublingual method.
Ten Eikelder MLG, Mast K, van der Velden A, et al. Induction of labor using a foley catheter or misoprostol: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Obstet Gynecol Surv 2016;71(10):620–630. DOI: 10.1097/OGX.0000000000000361.
Rosenstein MG, Snowden JM, Cheng YW, et al. The mortality risk of expectant management compared with delivery stratified by gestational age and race and ethnicity. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2014;211(6):660.e1-e8. DOI: 10.1016/j.ajog.2014.06.008.
Grobman WA, Rice MM, Reddy UM, et al. Labor induction versus expectant management in low-risk nulliparous women. N Engl J Med 2018;379(6):513–523. DOI: 10.1056/NEJMoa1800566.
Sotiriadis A, Petousis S, Thilaganathan B, et al. Maternal and perinatal outcomes after elective induction of labor at 39 weeks in uncomplicated singleton pregnancy: A meta-analysis. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 2019;53(1):26–35. DOI: 10.1002/uog.20140.
Chen W, Xue J, Peprah MK, et al. A systematic review and network meta-analysis comparing the use of Foley catheters, misoprostol, and dinoprostone for cervical ripening in the induction of labour. BJOG 2016;123(3):346–354. DOI: 10.1111/1471-0528.13456.
Tang OS, Gemzell-Danielsson K, Ho PC. Misoprostol: Pharmacokinetic profiles, effects on the uterus and side-effects. Int J Gynecol Obstet 2007;99(Suppl 2):S160–S167. DOI: 10.1016/j.ijgo.2007.09.004.
Alfirevic Z, Keeney E, Dowswell T, et al. Methods to induce labour: A systematic review, network meta-analysis and cost-effectiveness analysis. BJOG 2016;123(9):1462–1470. DOI: 10.1111/1471-0528.13981.
WHO recommendations for induction of labour. World Health Organization; 2011. ISBN: 978-92-4-150115-6.
Tang J, Kapp N, Dragoman M, et al. WHO recommendations for misoprostol use for obstetric and gynecologic indications. Int J Gynecol Obstet 2013;121(2):186–189. DOI: 10.1016/j.ijgo.2012.12.009.
Weeks AD, Navaratnam K, Alfirevic Z. Simplifying oral misoprostol protocols for the induction of labour. BJOG 2017;124(11):1642–1645. DOI: 10.1111/1471-0528.14657.
Shetty A, Mackie L, Danielian P, et al. Sublingual compared with oral misoprostol in term labour induction: A randomised controlled trial. BJOG 2002;109(6):645–650. DOI: 10.1111/j.1471-0528.2002.01459.x.
Thaisomboon A, Russameecharoen K, Wanitpongpan P, et al. Comparison of the efficacy and safety of titrated oral misoprostol and a conventional oral regimen for cervical ripening and labor induction. Int J Gynecol Obstet 2012;116(1):13–16. DOI: 10.1016/j.ijgo.2011.07.027.
Aalami-Harandi R, Karamali M, Moeini A. Induction of labor with titrated oral misoprostol solution versus oxytocin in term pregnancy: Randomized controlled trial. Rev Bras Ginecol Obstet 2013;35(2):60–65. DOI: 10.1590/s0100-72032013000200004.
Deshmukh VL, Rajamanya AV, Yelikar KA. Oral misoprostol solution for induction of labour. J Obstet Gynecol India 2017;67(2):98–103. DOI: 10.1007/s13224-016-0937-4.
Sharami SH, Milani F, Faraji R, et al. Comparison of 25 μg sublingual and 50 μg intravaginal misoprostol for cervical ripening and labor: A randomized controlled equivalence trial. Arch Iran Med 2014;17(10):652–656. PMID: 25305762.
Ayati S, Vahidroodsari F, Farshidi F, et al. Vaginal versus sublingual misoprostol for labor induction at term and post term: A randomized prospective study. Iran J Pharm Res 2014;13(1):299–304. PMID: 24734084.
Jahromi BN, Poorgholam F, Yousefi G, et al. Sublingual versus vaginal misoprostol for the induction of labor at term: A randomized, triple-blind, placebo-controlled clinical trial. Iran J Med Sci 2016;41(2):79–85. PMID: 26989277.
Mundle S, Bracken H, Khedikar V, et al. Foley catheterisation versus oral misoprostol for induction of labour in hypertensive women in India (INFORM): A multicentre, open-label, randomised controlled trial. Lancet 2017;390(10095):669–680. DOI: 10.1016/S0140-6736(17)31367-3.
Jyoti R, Mahajan M, Gupta KB, et al. Comparison of oral and vaginal administration of low-dose misoprostol for labor induction. J South Asian Fed Obstet Gynecol 2012;4(3):137–140. DOI: 10.5005/jp-journals-10006-1196.
Das T, Thapa M. Induction of labor with oral misoprostol vs oxytocin: A comparative study. J South Asian Fed Obstet Gynecol 2022;14(6):710–713. DOI: 10.5005/jp-journals-10006-2147.