Misoprostol: An effective agent for cervical ripening and labor induction

Objective: Our purpose was to compare the safety and efficacy of intravaginal misoprostol versus intracervical prostaglandin E2 gel (dinoprostone) for preinduction cervical ripening and induction of labor. Study design: Two hundred seventy-six patients with indications for induction of labor and unfavorable cervices were randomly assigned to receive either intravaginal misoprostol or intracervical dinoprostone. Twenty-five micrograms of misoprostol were placed in the posterior vaginal fornix every 3 hours, with a potential maximum of eight doses. Prostaglandin E2 in gel form, 0.5 mg, was placed in the endocervix every 6 hours, with a maximum of three doses. Further medication was withheld with the occurence of spontaneous rupture of membranes, entry into active phase of labor, or a “prolonged contraction response.” Results: Among those evaluated, 138 received misoprostol and 137 received dinoprostone. The average interval from start of induction to vaginal delivery was shorter in the misprostal group (1323.0 ± 844.4 minutes) than in the dinoprostone group (1532.4 ± 706.5 minutes) (p< 0.05). Need for oxytocin augmentation of labor occurred more commonly in the dinoprostone group (72.6%) than in the misprostol group (45.7%) (p< 0.0001). There were no significant differences in the routes of delivery. Twenty-eight of the misoprostol-treated patients (20.3%) and thirty-eight of the dinoprostone-treated patients (27.7%) required abdominal delivery. Complications such as uterine lachysystole and thick meconium passage occurred with similar frequency in the two treatment groups. Conclusions: Intravaginal administration of misoprostol appears to be as effective as intracervical dinoprostone for cervical ripening and labor induction. Complications associated with prostaglandin administration were not statistically different between the two treatment groups. The cost of misoprostol ($0.36/100μg) is much less than that of dinoprostone ($75/0.5mg).