
Sublingual vs Oral Misoprostol for Labor Induction
Author(s) -
Sujata Siwatch,
Goter Doke
Publication year - 2014
Publication title -
journal of postgraduate medicine, education and research
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
eISSN - 2278-0262
pISSN - 2277-8969
DOI - 10.5005/jp-journals-10028-1097
Subject(s) - misoprostol , medicine , oxytocin , sublingual administration , labor induction , vaginal delivery , anesthesia , obstetrics , uterine contraction , induction of labor , pregnancy , uterus , abortion , genetics , biology
Background This study compares the eficacy and safety of sublingual vs oral misoprostol for induction of labor. Materials and methods 160 women admitted for induction of labor at the Postgraduate Institute of Medical Education and Research, Chandigarh were randomized to receive 25 µg misoprostol orally 3 hourly or 25 µg sublingual misoprostol 4 hourly for labor induction. Outcome The two groups were compared for number of women not delivered in 24 hours, misoprostol dose required, induction delivery interval, incidence of uterine contraction abnormalities, mode of delivery, side effects and neonatal outcomes. Results Low dose of misoprostol is eficacious with both routes of administration. Majority women delivered vaginally and of them, comparable numbers in both vaginal and sublingual misoprostol groups delivered within 24 hours of induction (93.1 and 83.7%). The sublingual route is associated with a statistically signiicant lesser induction to delivery interval (14.8 ± 6.2 hours vs 17.67 ± 7.32 hours) and lesser requirement of oxytocin augmentation (62.5 vs 35%). The occurrence of uterine contraction abnormalities and neonatal outcome was similar in both groups. Conclusion The low dose of 25 µg is eficacious and safe by both sublingual and oral routes. Sublingual route has lesser induction to delivery interval and lesser requirement for oxytocin augmentation. How to cite this article Siwatch S, Doke G, Kalra J Bagga R. Sublingual vs Oral Misoprostol for Labor Induction. J Postgrad Med Edu Res 2014;48(1):33-36.