Cargando…

Sublingual misoprostol vs. oral misoprostol solution for induction of labor: A retrospective study

INTRODUCTION: Induction of labor (IOL) is one of the most common obstetrical procedures, with an increasing rate. The prostaglandin E1 analogue misoprostol is frequently used as a primary method of labor induction. The optimal dose and route of administration is yet to be ascertained. AIM: To compar...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Amini, Mahdi, Wide-Swensson, Dag, Herbst, Andreas
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Frontiers Media S.A. 2022
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9520235/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/36189381
http://dx.doi.org/10.3389/fsurg.2022.968372
_version_ 1784799578885718016
author Amini, Mahdi
Wide-Swensson, Dag
Herbst, Andreas
author_facet Amini, Mahdi
Wide-Swensson, Dag
Herbst, Andreas
author_sort Amini, Mahdi
collection PubMed
description INTRODUCTION: Induction of labor (IOL) is one of the most common obstetrical procedures, with an increasing rate. The prostaglandin E1 analogue misoprostol is frequently used as a primary method of labor induction. The optimal dose and route of administration is yet to be ascertained. AIM: To compare efficiacy and safety between a regimen of sublingually administered misoprostol and a regimen of orally administered misoprostol, with cesarean delivery as primary outcome. METHODS: A retrospective study was conducted including women carrying a live, singleton fetus in a cephalic position with labor induced at >37 + 0 gestational weeks at Skåne University hospital, Lund, between January 1st 2013 to December 31st 2017. Data was obtained from computerized obstetrical charts. RESULTS: Totally 2,404 women were included; 974 induced with sublingual misoprostol and 1,430 with oral solution. In primiparous women the cesarean delivery rate was lower in primiparous women induced with oral compared to sublingual misoprostol (20.5% vs. 28.6%, p < 0.001), whereas in parous women the rates did not differ significantly 4.9% vs. 7.5%; NS). The increased risk of caesarean remained after controlling for potential confounding factors (adjusted odds ratio 1.49 (1.14–1.95). Women induced with sublingual misoprostol had a shorter time to vaginal delivery when compared to oral solution (primiparous median 16.7 h vs. 21.7 h; p < 0.001, parous median 9.9 h vs. 13.3 h; p = 0.01), and a higher rate of vaginal delivery within 24 h (primiparas 77.7% vs. 63.3%, p < 0.001, parous 93.2% vs. 84.2%; p = 0.01). CONCLUSION: IOL with oral misoprostol solution was associated with a significantly higher vaginal delivery rate when compared to sublingual misoprostol, whereas sublingual misoprostol was associated with a significantly shorter time from induction to vaginal delivery. Oral administration is considered the most safe and efficient administration of misoprostol, although more studies are needed to find the optimal route and dosage of misoprostol for IOL.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-9520235
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2022
publisher Frontiers Media S.A.
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-95202352022-09-30 Sublingual misoprostol vs. oral misoprostol solution for induction of labor: A retrospective study Amini, Mahdi Wide-Swensson, Dag Herbst, Andreas Front Surg Surgery INTRODUCTION: Induction of labor (IOL) is one of the most common obstetrical procedures, with an increasing rate. The prostaglandin E1 analogue misoprostol is frequently used as a primary method of labor induction. The optimal dose and route of administration is yet to be ascertained. AIM: To compare efficiacy and safety between a regimen of sublingually administered misoprostol and a regimen of orally administered misoprostol, with cesarean delivery as primary outcome. METHODS: A retrospective study was conducted including women carrying a live, singleton fetus in a cephalic position with labor induced at >37 + 0 gestational weeks at Skåne University hospital, Lund, between January 1st 2013 to December 31st 2017. Data was obtained from computerized obstetrical charts. RESULTS: Totally 2,404 women were included; 974 induced with sublingual misoprostol and 1,430 with oral solution. In primiparous women the cesarean delivery rate was lower in primiparous women induced with oral compared to sublingual misoprostol (20.5% vs. 28.6%, p < 0.001), whereas in parous women the rates did not differ significantly 4.9% vs. 7.5%; NS). The increased risk of caesarean remained after controlling for potential confounding factors (adjusted odds ratio 1.49 (1.14–1.95). Women induced with sublingual misoprostol had a shorter time to vaginal delivery when compared to oral solution (primiparous median 16.7 h vs. 21.7 h; p < 0.001, parous median 9.9 h vs. 13.3 h; p = 0.01), and a higher rate of vaginal delivery within 24 h (primiparas 77.7% vs. 63.3%, p < 0.001, parous 93.2% vs. 84.2%; p = 0.01). CONCLUSION: IOL with oral misoprostol solution was associated with a significantly higher vaginal delivery rate when compared to sublingual misoprostol, whereas sublingual misoprostol was associated with a significantly shorter time from induction to vaginal delivery. Oral administration is considered the most safe and efficient administration of misoprostol, although more studies are needed to find the optimal route and dosage of misoprostol for IOL. Frontiers Media S.A. 2022-09-15 /pmc/articles/PMC9520235/ /pubmed/36189381 http://dx.doi.org/10.3389/fsurg.2022.968372 Text en © 2022 Amini, Wide-Swensson and Herbst. https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY) (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/) . The use, distribution or reproduction in other forums is permitted, provided the original author(s) and the copyright owner(s) are credited and that the original publication in this journal is cited, in accordance with accepted academic practice. No use, distribution or reproduction is permitted which does not comply with these terms.
spellingShingle Surgery
Amini, Mahdi
Wide-Swensson, Dag
Herbst, Andreas
Sublingual misoprostol vs. oral misoprostol solution for induction of labor: A retrospective study
title Sublingual misoprostol vs. oral misoprostol solution for induction of labor: A retrospective study
title_full Sublingual misoprostol vs. oral misoprostol solution for induction of labor: A retrospective study
title_fullStr Sublingual misoprostol vs. oral misoprostol solution for induction of labor: A retrospective study
title_full_unstemmed Sublingual misoprostol vs. oral misoprostol solution for induction of labor: A retrospective study
title_short Sublingual misoprostol vs. oral misoprostol solution for induction of labor: A retrospective study
title_sort sublingual misoprostol vs. oral misoprostol solution for induction of labor: a retrospective study
topic Surgery
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9520235/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/36189381
http://dx.doi.org/10.3389/fsurg.2022.968372
work_keys_str_mv AT aminimahdi sublingualmisoprostolvsoralmisoprostolsolutionforinductionoflaboraretrospectivestudy
AT wideswenssondag sublingualmisoprostolvsoralmisoprostolsolutionforinductionoflaboraretrospectivestudy
AT herbstandreas sublingualmisoprostolvsoralmisoprostolsolutionforinductionoflaboraretrospectivestudy