DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.18203/2320-1770.ijrcog20151625

A comparative study between PGE1 and PGE2 for induction of labour in premature rupture of membrane at term

Abhishek Oza, Jagruti M. Shah, Bhavna Mewada, Rajal Thaker

Abstract


Background: Premature rupture of membranes at term can be managed expectantly with good results. However, low bishop score may lead to undue latency. It can lead to complications if no intervention done. So, timely intervention by labour induction in selected cases can improve maternal and fetal outcome. Prostaglandins has very vital role for induction of labour. This study is to compare the effectiveness between the two molecules of prostaglandins PGE1 and PGE2 for induction of labour in term premature rupture of membrane (PROM).

Methods: It is a prospective interventional study performed at a tertiary hospital attached to a medical college. It was conducted upon randomly selected 100 women of term PROM from April 2011 to April 2015. They were divided into two comparable groups each containing 50 women. Both the groups were comparable in age, parity and bishop score. One group was induced with PGE1 (Tab Misoprostol) and the other with PGE2 (Dinoprostone gel).

Results: Among 100 women, a good number of women were primigravida (76%). Majority of women were induced in between 6 to 12 hours after PROM (69%). Vaginal deliveries were 68% in tab. Misoprostol group while 80% in dinoprostone gel group which are comparable in both the groups. The significant difference observed was average induction delivery interval, which was 11.26 hours in tab. misoprostol group and 14.72 hours in dinoprostone gel group (P=0.004). The other women (26%) underwent cesarean section. Among them 46.15% were done for fetal distress and 43.84% for induction failure.

Conclusions: Both the molecules of prostaglandins are efficient for labour induction in term PROM.  Though, PGE1 (tab. Misoprostol) is faster acting as compare to PGE2 (dinoprostone gel) even with low bishop score. But it can lead to complications like hyperstimulation, fetal distress and postpartum hemorrhage if not used properly. So, tab misoprostol is not a safe drug where continuous monitoring of women is not available.

Keywords


Term PROM, Tab Misoprostol, PGE1, Dinoprostone gel, PGE2, Induction of labour

Full Text:

PDF

References


Term Premature Rupture of Membranes (Term PROM). The Royal Australian and New Zealand College of Obstretics and Gynecologists. 2014:3-5.

Clinical Practice Guideline No.13, Management of Prelabour Rupture of Membranes at Term, Association of Ontario Midwives. 2010:4-6.

Gandhi M, Shah F, Panchal C. Obstretic Outcome in Premature Rupture Of Membrane (prom). The Internet Journal of Gynecology and Obstretics. 2012;16(2).

Kothapally KR, Kavati V, Bongu V. Study of induction of labour with vaginal misoprostol in tertiary hospital in rural area of Telangana, India. Int J Reprod Contracept Obstet Gynecol. 2015;4(2): 465-9.

Gupta A, Kumari S. Prostaglandin E1 tablet versus prostaglandin E2 gel for induction of labor in prelabor rupture of membrane at term. International journal of enhanced research in medicines and dental care. 2015;2(6):1-7.

Chaudhary S, Mitra SN, Benerjee PK, Biswas PK, Bhattacharya S. Comparison of vaginal misoprostol tablets and prostaglandin E2 gel for the induction of labor in premature rupture of membrane at term: A randomized comparative trial. J Obstet Gynecol Res. 2011;37:1564-71.

Frohn WE, Simmons S, Carlan SJ. Prostaglandin E2 gel versus misoprostol for cervical ripening in patients with premature rupture of membranes after 34 weeks. Obstet Gynecol. 2002;99:206-10.

Abraham C, Meirowitz N, Kohn N. Labor induction for premature rupture of membranes using vaginal misoprostol versus dinoprostone vaginal insert. Am J Perinatol. 2014;31(3):181-6.

Shah K, Doshi H. Premature Rupture of Membrane at Term: Early Induction Versus Expectant Management. J Obstet Gynaecol India. 2012;62(2): 172-5.