Cargando…
Vaginal Versus Sublingual Misoprostol for Labor Induction at Term and Post Term: a Randomized Prospective Study
We want to compare the efficacy and safety of vaginal versus sublingual misoprostol for cervical ripening and induction of labor. This randomized clinical trial was performed on 140 women with medical or obstetric indications for labor induction. The patients were randomly divided into two groups: v...
Autores principales: | , , , , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
Shaheed Beheshti University of Medical Sciences
2014
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3985259/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24734084 |
_version_ | 1782311548398600192 |
---|---|
author | Ayati, Sedigheh Vahidroodsari, Fatemeh Farshidi, Farnoosh Shahabian, Masoud Afzal Aghaee, Monavar |
author_facet | Ayati, Sedigheh Vahidroodsari, Fatemeh Farshidi, Farnoosh Shahabian, Masoud Afzal Aghaee, Monavar |
author_sort | Ayati, Sedigheh |
collection | PubMed |
description | We want to compare the efficacy and safety of vaginal versus sublingual misoprostol for cervical ripening and induction of labor. This randomized clinical trial was performed on 140 women with medical or obstetric indications for labor induction. The patients were randomly divided into two groups: vaginal and sublingual administration of misoprostol. In first group, 25 µg misoprostol was placed in the posterior fornix of the vagina and second group received 25 µg misoprostol sublingually, every 6 hours for 24 h. Maternal and neonatal outcomes were analyzed. There was no significant difference in the demographic characteristics between two groups. The main indication for cesarean section in both groups was fetal distress, followed by absence of active labor progress. Evaluation of cesarean indication was not significantly different in two groups; including fetal distress, absence of active labor, uterine over activity and failure to progress. The maternal complication in sublingual group included residual placenta (2%), tachysystole (2%), vomiting (12%), atoni (3.3%) and abdominal pain (5.5%), although there was no significant difference between two groups. Sublingual misoprostol is as effective as vaginal misoprostol for induction of labor at term. However, sublingual misoprostol has the advantage of easy administration and may be more suitable than vaginal misoprostol. |
format | Online Article Text |
id | pubmed-3985259 |
institution | National Center for Biotechnology Information |
language | English |
publishDate | 2014 |
publisher | Shaheed Beheshti University of Medical Sciences |
record_format | MEDLINE/PubMed |
spelling | pubmed-39852592014-04-14 Vaginal Versus Sublingual Misoprostol for Labor Induction at Term and Post Term: a Randomized Prospective Study Ayati, Sedigheh Vahidroodsari, Fatemeh Farshidi, Farnoosh Shahabian, Masoud Afzal Aghaee, Monavar Iran J Pharm Res Original Article We want to compare the efficacy and safety of vaginal versus sublingual misoprostol for cervical ripening and induction of labor. This randomized clinical trial was performed on 140 women with medical or obstetric indications for labor induction. The patients were randomly divided into two groups: vaginal and sublingual administration of misoprostol. In first group, 25 µg misoprostol was placed in the posterior fornix of the vagina and second group received 25 µg misoprostol sublingually, every 6 hours for 24 h. Maternal and neonatal outcomes were analyzed. There was no significant difference in the demographic characteristics between two groups. The main indication for cesarean section in both groups was fetal distress, followed by absence of active labor progress. Evaluation of cesarean indication was not significantly different in two groups; including fetal distress, absence of active labor, uterine over activity and failure to progress. The maternal complication in sublingual group included residual placenta (2%), tachysystole (2%), vomiting (12%), atoni (3.3%) and abdominal pain (5.5%), although there was no significant difference between two groups. Sublingual misoprostol is as effective as vaginal misoprostol for induction of labor at term. However, sublingual misoprostol has the advantage of easy administration and may be more suitable than vaginal misoprostol. Shaheed Beheshti University of Medical Sciences 2014 /pmc/articles/PMC3985259/ /pubmed/24734084 Text en © 2014 by School of Pharmacy, Shaheed Beheshti University of Medical Sciences and Health Services This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/) which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. |
spellingShingle | Original Article Ayati, Sedigheh Vahidroodsari, Fatemeh Farshidi, Farnoosh Shahabian, Masoud Afzal Aghaee, Monavar Vaginal Versus Sublingual Misoprostol for Labor Induction at Term and Post Term: a Randomized Prospective Study |
title | Vaginal Versus Sublingual Misoprostol for Labor Induction at Term and Post Term: a Randomized Prospective Study |
title_full | Vaginal Versus Sublingual Misoprostol for Labor Induction at Term and Post Term: a Randomized Prospective Study |
title_fullStr | Vaginal Versus Sublingual Misoprostol for Labor Induction at Term and Post Term: a Randomized Prospective Study |
title_full_unstemmed | Vaginal Versus Sublingual Misoprostol for Labor Induction at Term and Post Term: a Randomized Prospective Study |
title_short | Vaginal Versus Sublingual Misoprostol for Labor Induction at Term and Post Term: a Randomized Prospective Study |
title_sort | vaginal versus sublingual misoprostol for labor induction at term and post term: a randomized prospective study |
topic | Original Article |
url | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3985259/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24734084 |
work_keys_str_mv | AT ayatisedigheh vaginalversussublingualmisoprostolforlaborinductionattermandposttermarandomizedprospectivestudy AT vahidroodsarifatemeh vaginalversussublingualmisoprostolforlaborinductionattermandposttermarandomizedprospectivestudy AT farshidifarnoosh vaginalversussublingualmisoprostolforlaborinductionattermandposttermarandomizedprospectivestudy AT shahabianmasoud vaginalversussublingualmisoprostolforlaborinductionattermandposttermarandomizedprospectivestudy AT afzalaghaeemonavar vaginalversussublingualmisoprostolforlaborinductionattermandposttermarandomizedprospectivestudy |