Comparison of Sublingual Misoprostol and Per Vaginal Dinoprostone for Induction of Labour
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.70749/ijbr.v3i5.1504Keywords:
Induction of Labour, Sublingual Misoprostol, Intravaginal DinoprostoneAbstract
Introduction: Misoprostol and dinoprostone are two widely used induction agents. Our study was designed to compare both these drugs in terms of induction to labour time, ceserean section rate and meconium staining. Objective: To compare the outcome of sublingual misoprostol and per-vaginal dinoprostone for induction of labour. Methods: A total of 110 patients were enrolled using blocked randomization sampling, with 55 patients in each group. The primary outcome was the mode of delivery. The need for an emergency cesarean section was recorded in cases of reduced labor pains, failed induction, pathological cardiotocography, or thick meconium-stained liquor. Additional outcome variables were determined for all enrolled subjects which were the success of induction (induction was considered successful if delivery occurred within 12 hours of induction), induction-to-delivery interval (the time from induction to fetal delivery was recorded in minutes), meconium passage and the total number of doses administered from the first dose until delivery. Results: Both groups exhibited comparable baseline characteristics, including age, BMI, gestational age, and parity. Dinoprostone was shown to be better than misoprostol in all study outcomes. Conclusions: Our study suggests that dinoprostone was associated with a significantly shorter induction-to-delivery interval and a higher proportion of deliveries within 12 hours compared to misoprostol. The increased incidence of meconium-stained amniotic fluid in the misoprostol group highlights a potential risk factor that needs further investigation.
Downloads
References
Carlson, N., Ellis, J., Page, K., Dunn Amore, A., & Phillippi, J. (2021). Review of evidence‐based methods for successful labor induction. Journal of Midwifery & Women's Health, 66(4), 459-469.
https://doi.org/10.1111/jmwh.13238
Wheeler, V., Hoffman, A., & Bybel, M. (2022). Cervical ripening and induction of labor. American family physician, 105(2), 177-186.
https://www.aafp.org/pubs/afp/issues/2022/0200/p177.html
Tsakiridis, I., Mamopoulos, A., Athanasiadis, A., & Dagklis, T. (2020). Induction of labor: An overview of guidelines. Obstetrical & Gynecological Survey, 75(1), 61-72.
https://doi.org/10.1097/ogx.0000000000000752
Chatsis, V., & Frey, N. (2019). Misoprostol for cervical ripening and induction of labour: A review of clinical effectiveness, cost-effectiveness and guidelines.
https://europepmc.org/article/NBK/nbk538944?report=printable
Sanchez-Ramos, L., Levine, L. D., Sciscione, A. C., Mozurkewich, E. L., Ramsey, P. S., Adair, C. D., Kaunitz, A. M., & McKinney, J. A. (2024). Methods for the induction of labor: Efficacy and safety. American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology, 230(3), S669-S695.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajog.2023.02.009
Pergialiotis, V., Panagiotopoulos, M., Constantinou, T., Vogiatzi Vokotopoulou, L., Koumenis, A., Stavros, S., Voskos, A., & Daskalakis, G. (2022). Efficacy and safety of oral and sublingual versus vaginal misoprostol for induction of labour: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Archives of Gynecology and Obstetrics, 308(3), 727-775.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s00404-022-06867-9
Sire, F., Ponthier, L., Eyraud, J., Catalan, C., Aubard, Y., & Coste Mazeau, P. (2022). Comparative study of dinoprostone and misoprostol for induction of labor in patients with premature rupture of membranes after 35 weeks. Scientific Reports, 12(1).
https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-022-18948-5
Taliento, C., Manservigi, M., Tormen, M., Cappadona, R., Piccolotti, I., Salvioli, S., Scutiero, G., & Greco, P. (2023). Safety of misoprostol vs dinoprostone for induction of labor: A systematic review and meta-analysis. European Journal of Obstetrics & Gynecology and Reproductive Biology, 289, 108-128.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejogrb.2023.08.382
Chang, T., Li, Y., & Ding, D. (2024). Oxytocin and vaginal dinoprostone in labor induction: A systematic review and meta‐analysis. International Journal of Gynecology & Obstetrics, 166(2), 626-638.
https://doi.org/10.1002/ijgo.15443
Jahangir, J., & Mohd, F. Z. (2020). Sublingual misoprostol versus dinoprostone gel in labour induction. The New Indian Journal of OBGYN, 6(2), 127-130.
https://doi.org/10.21276/obgyn.2020.6.2.13
Raghavan, J. V., Pillai, S. K., & Meera, D. (2017). Intracervical dinoprostone versus sublingual misoprostol for preinduction ripening of cervix. Indian J Obstet Gynecol Res, 4(1), 71-76.
https://doi.org/10.18231/2394-2754.2017.0015
Young, D. C., Delaney, T., Armson, B. A., & Fanning, C. (2020). Oral misoprostol, low dose vaginal misoprostol, and vaginal dinoprostone for labor induction: Randomized controlled trial. PLOS ONE, 15(1), e0227245.
https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0227245
Papanikolaou, E. G., Plachouras, N., Drougia, A., Andronikou, S., Vlachou, C., Stefos, T., Paraskevaidis, E., & Zikopoulos, K. (2004). Comparison of misoprostol and dinoprostone for elective induction of labour in nulliparous women at full term: a randomized prospective study. Reproductive Biology and Endocrinology, 2(1), 70.
https://doi.org/10.1186/1477-7827-2-70
Mlodawski, J., Mlodawska, M., Armanska, J., Swiercz, G., & Gluszek, S. (2021). Misoprostol vs dinoprostone vaginal insert in labour induction: Comparison of obstetrical outcome. Scientific Reports, 11(1).
https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-021-88723-5
Hostinská, E., Šinská, A., Ľubušký, M., & Pilka, R. (2021). Comparison of dinoprostone, misoprostol and amniotomy in labor induction. Česká gynekologie, 86(6), 368-373.
https://doi.org/10.48095/cccg2021368
Gaudineau, A., Senat, M., Ehlinger, V., Gallini, A., Morin, M., Olivier, P., Roth, E., Orusco, E., Javoise, S., Fort, J., Lavergne, C., Arnaud, C., Rozenberg, P., & Vayssiere, C. (2021). Induction of labor at term with vaginal misoprostol or a prostaglandin E2 pessary: A noninferiority randomized controlled trial. American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology, 225(5), 542.e1-542.e8.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajog.2021.04.226
Ramadan, M., Bashour, G., Eldokmery, E., Alkhawajah, A., Alsalhi, K., Badr, Y., Emad, A., & Labieb, F. (2024). The efficacy and safety of oral and vaginal misoprostol versus dinoprostone on women experiencing labor: A systematic review and updated meta-analysis of 53 randomized controlled trials. Medicine, 103(40), e39861.
https://doi.org/10.1097/md.0000000000039861
Erhardt, D., Radan, A., Mathis, J., & Surbek, D. (2024). Vaginal dinoprostone insert compared with two different oral misoprostol regimens for labor induction in nulliparous and multiparous women. Acta Obstetricia et Gynecologica Scandinavica, 103(11), 2306-2313.
https://doi.org/10.1111/aogs.14956
Young, D. C., Delaney, T., Armson, B. A., & Fanning, C. (2024). Correction: Oral misoprostol, low dose vaginal misoprostol, and vaginal dinoprostone for labor induction: Randomized controlled trial. PLOS ONE, 19(5), e0304233.
https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0304233
Sahu, R., & Janjewal, K. (2021). A randomized prospective comparative study to evaluate the efficacy of prostaglandin E2 (Dinoprostone) controlled release vaginal insert versus sublingual prostaglandin E1(Misoprostol) in induction of labor in term gestation. Indian Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology Research, 8(4), 457-462.
https://doi.org/10.18231/j.ijogr.2021.096
Matonhodze, B. B., Katsoulis, L. C., & Hofmeyr, G. J. (2002). Labor induction and meconium: In vitro effects of oxytocin, dinoprostone and misoprostol on rat ileum relative to myometrium. Journal of Perinatal Medicine, 30(5).
https://doi.org/10.1515/jpm.2002.063
Petersen, J. F., Bergholt, T., & Løkkegaard, E. C. (2013). Safe induction of labour with low-dose misoprostol, but less effective than the conventional dinoprostone regimen. Dan Med J, 60(9), A4706.
Downloads
Published
How to Cite
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2025 Indus Journal of Bioscience Research
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
