DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.18203/2320-1770.ijrcog20162647

Comparative study to assess the safety of misoprostol and dinoprostone for cervical ripening and induction of labour

Neelima V. Nair, Divya R. Prasad, Geethanjali S. Mohan

Abstract


Background: To compare safety of induction of labour with dinoprostone and misoprostol with respect to maternal complications like fever, diarrhoea, vomiting, hyperstimulation, tachysystole; and Neonatal outcomes like APGAR score of baby, meconium aspiration, birth asphyxia, hyperbilirubinemia and NICU admission.

Methods: 200 Patients admitted to labour ward of Sree Gokulam Medical College and Research Foundation with an indication of induction of labour and unfavourable cervices were randomly assigned to receive either intravaginal misoprostol or intracervical dinoprostone between December 2012 and May 2014.

Results: There was no significant difference in maternal or neonatal complications between the two groups. Apgar at 1 minute was significantly higher for Misoprostol group while at 5 minutes Apgar was comparable between the two groups.

Conclusions: Misoprostol is as safe as dinoprostone for the induction of labour.


Keywords


Misoprostol, Dinoprostone, Induction of labour, PPH, Hyperstimulation, Meconium staining

Full Text:

PDF

References


Arulkumaran. The management of labour. 3rd ed. 2011.

Denguezli W, Trimech A, Haddad A, Hajjaji A, Saidani Z, Faleh R, et al. Efficacy and safety of six hourly vaginal misoprostol versus intracervical dinoprostone: a randomized controlled trial. Arch Gynecol Obstet. 2007;276(2):119-24.

Calder AA, Loughney AD, Weir CJ, Barber JW. Induction of labour in nulliparous and multiparous women: a UK, multicentre, open-label study of intravaginal misoprostol in comparison with dinoprostone. BJOG Int J Obstet Gynaecol. 2008;115(10):1279-88.

Prager M, Eneroth-Grimfors E, Edlund M, Marions L. A randomised controlled trial of intravaginal dinoprostone, intravaginal misoprostol and transcervical balloon catheter for labour induction. BJOG Int J Obstet Gynaecol. 2008;115(11):1443-50.

Chitrakar NS. Comparison of Misoprostol versus Dinoprostone for pre-induction cervical ripening at-term. J Nepal Health Res Counc. 2012;10(1):10-5.

Neiger R, Greaves PC. Comparison between vaginal misoprostol and cervical dinoprostone for cervical ripening and labor induction. Tenn Med J Tenn Med Assoc. 2001;94(1):25-7.

Lapaire O, Zanetti-Dällenbach R, Weber P, Hösli I, Holzgreve W, Surbek D. Labor induction in preeclampsia: is misoprostol more effective than dinoprostone? J Perinat Med. 2007;35(3):195-9.

Sifakis S, Angelakis E, Avgoustinakis E, Fragouli Y, Mantas N, Koukoura O, et al. A randomized comparison between intravaginal misoprostol and prostaglandin E2 for labor induction. Arch Gynecol Obstet. 2007;275(4):263-7.

Oliveira TA, Melo EMV de, Aquino MMA de, Mariani Neto C. Efficacy of dinoprostone and misoprostol for labor induction in nulliparous women. Rev Bras Ginecol E Obstetrícia Rev Fed Bras Soc Ginecol E Obstetrícia. 2011;33(3):118-22.

Ramsey PS, Meyer L, Walkes BA, Harris D, Ogburn PL, Heise RH, et al. Cardiotocographic abnormalities associated with dinoprostone and misoprostol cervical ripening. Obstet Gynecol. 2005;105(1):85-90.

Sanchez-Ramos L, Kaunitz AM, Wears RL, Delke I, Gaudier FL. Misoprostol for cervical ripening and labour induction: a meta-analysis. Obstet Gynecol.1997;89(4):633-42.

Gaudineau A, Vayssière C. Cervical ripening with misoprostol with a live fetus. J Gynécologie Obstétrique Biol Reprod. 2014;43(2):169-78.