Abstract
Keywords
Introduction
Induction of labor is usually performed when the risks of continuing pregnancy are higher than the benefits of delivery (1-3). Undoubtedly, uterine cervical tissue ripening or its softening has a close relationship with success rate of delivery.
There are several effective methods for cervix ripening including mechanical with osmotic dilators (4) or balloon catheters (5), and biochemical with prostaglandins (6), antiprogestins (7), or nitric oxide donors (8). Among many proper methods for cervical ripening, there is still no agreement on which method is the best for labor induction of cases with unripe cervix.
Among prostaglandins, Misoprostol (PGE1) is widely used for «induction of labor» and cervical ripening (9-11). Cervical ripening occurs by the activation of prostaglandin E2 receptor.
The most effective therapy for peptic ulcer is still unknown and prompts people to make great efforts to find better and more modern natural or synthetic agents (12). The prostaglandin E1 analogue (Misoprostol), synthetic 15 deoxxy-16 hydroxy-16-methyl is administrated for peptic ulcers therapy (9) (suppressed prostaglandin) used for cervical ripening and labor induction as well. Due to finding the Misoprostol, a relatively cheap and stable substance at room temperature without need to refrigeration for storage, like the other prostaglandins, with good proven efficacies, recently it is frequently used in obstetrics and gynecology for termination of pregnancy, especially at third trimester (13). However, some major complications are reported after administration of high doses of misoprostol, likewise uterine hyperstimulation and rupture (14). Vaginal and sublingual misoprostol have a rapid onset action, due to their prolonged activity and bioavailability (11). A sublingual dose of 50 mg every 4 h in most of cases, induce vaginal delivery within 24 hours and compared to an equivalent oral dose, less oxytocin augmentation is required (15,16). However, the previous studies found few significant differences among the effectiveness of different doses of the Misoprostol, oral, vaginal or sublingual (17). So this study is performed to compare the efficacy and safety of vaginal versus sublingual misoprostol with four hours interval for six doses for cervical ripening and induction of labor.
Experimental
This randomized clinical trial was conducted on 140 pregnant women who were admitted at Department of Obstetrics, Mashhad University of Medical Sciences during September 2007 to March 2008.
Inclusion criteria were gestational age>37 weeks on the basis of last menstrual period (LMP) or ultra-sonography at first trimester, need to pregnancy termination due to fetal or maternal indication, Bishop score < 7, gestational diabetes mellitus, singleton pregnancy, reassuring fetal heart rate tracing, cephalic presentation, low-located placenta, and mild preeclampsia.
Any cases of hypersensitivity to prostaglandin, temperature > 38 °C, previous cesarean delivery or other uterine surgery, placenta previa, chorioamnionitis, vaginal bleeding, fetal distress, need to immediate delivery, macrosomy, and polyhydroamnios were excluded from the study.
The women were randomly divided into two groups: 50 cases in vaginal misoprostol group (group 1) and 90 cases in sublingual misoprostol group (group 2). The sample size was calculated with NCSS software (Power = 80%, Alpha = 0.05). The method of randomization was simple randomization. At first, all conditions of the study were completely explained for the women; if written informed consent was obtained, they were entered to the study. This study was approved by the Ethics Committee of Mashhad University of Medical Sciences.
After randomization, for women in group 1, 25 µg misoprostol was placed in the posterior fornix of the vagina; and women in group 2 received 25 µg misoprostol sublingually. In each group, if needed, prescription was repeated up to 6 doses every 4 hours and vaginal examination was performed every 4 hours (18); if uterine contractions did not begin, the patient received another dose. In the presence of spontaneous and frequent contractions (duration of at least 40-50 seconds every 3 min), the next dose was not administered. If the patient did not enter into active labor (active labor: cervical dilatation of 3 to 5 cm or more in the presence of uterine contractions; latent phase: when the mother perceives regular contractions and usually ends at between 3 and 5 cm of dilatation (19)) 4-h after the last dose of misoprostol, she was diagnosed as failed induction and oxytocin infusion was used. All data were gathered prospectively and recorded. Maternal demographic characteristics (maternal age, gestational age, parity, mode of delivery, first Bishop Score, neonatal Apgar score) were recorded for two groups and then were compared. The indication for induction and important outcomes of labor were recorded for each patient. During intervention, each patient was assessed for possible outcomes. Tachysystole was defined as the presence of at least five uterine contractions in two consecutive 10-min periods. Hyperstimulation syndrome was defined as tachysystole and/or hypertonus on cardiotocography, with fetal heart rate (FHR) alterations such as bradycardia (FHR < b110 bpm), late decelerations, and or loss fetal heart rate variability.
Outcomes Assay
The primary outcome measure was the frequency of successful induction, defined as vaginal delivery within 24 h from the start of induction. Secondary outcomes included the rates of C/S due to fetal distress, time from first dose to active labor, induction-to delivery interval, duration of labor; number of misoprostol doses administered, and need for augmentation of labor with oxytocin. Neonatal outcomes included fetal heart rate (FHR) variation during labor, intrapartum meconium passage, intrapartum fetal death, and admission to the neonatal intensive care unit (NICU).
Statistical analysis
Analysis was performed with SPSS software (SPSS, Inc., Chicago, IL version 11.5), and then compared with χ² test and Exact Fisher test for comparison of qualitative data. After check of normality, Mann-Whitney U test and Kruskal-Wallis test were used, if normality not fitted, Independent t-test and ANOVA test used if normality fitted to data. p-value less 0.05 was considered statistically significant.
Results and Discussion
A total of 140 women who admitted for termination of pregnancy were selected during the study procedure, 50 individuals received vaginal misoprostol and 90 cases attributed to the sublingual misoprostol group.
There was no significant difference in the demographic characteristics between two studied groups of women (Table 1). However the Bishop Score in the sublingual group was significantly higher than the vaginal group (P = 0.021).
Demographic characteristics of patients in both groups
| p-value | Vaginal Group | Sublingual Group | Item |
|---|---|---|---|
| 0.021 | 2.72±1.32 | 3.47±1.68 | Bishop score |
| 0.67 | 24.34±4.05 | 24.65±4.42 | Maternal Age( year) |
| 0.20 | 1.36±.63 | 1.53±.86 | Parity |
| Indication for Induction | |||
| 0.26 | 21(%42) | 40(%43.5) | Post term |
| 0.82 | 5(%10) | 6(%6.5) | Oligihydraminios |
| 0.15 | 18(%36) | 29(%31.5) | PROM |
| 0.66 | 1(%2) | 1(%1.1) | Mild Preeclampsia |
| 0.05 | 2 (%4) | 0(%0) | Mild HTN |
| 0.34 | 18(%36) | 15(%17) | Loss motion |
| 0.74 | 39.80±1.49 | 39.70±1.88 | Gestational Age (weeks) |
The clinical outcomes of induction in both groups are summarized in Table 2. Our findings showed that there weren’t any statistically significant differences between the number of administered doses of misoprostol every four hours (P > 0.05). Although the frequency of two doses were significantly higher than the other group (P = 0.43). About C/S indication, most of individuals showed absence of active labor from the sublingual group.
Clinical outcomes of induction in both groups
| p-value | Vaginal Group | Sublingual Group | Item |
|---|---|---|---|
| Number of doses | |||
| 0.43 | 2(%4) | 3(%3.3) | Failure to progress |
| 0.22 | 25(%50) | 41(%44.6) | One dose |
| 0.43 | 17(%34) | 25(%27.2) | Two dose |
| 0.19 | 3(%6) | 12(%13) | Three dose |
| 0.79 | 4(%8) | 8(%8.7) | Four dose |
| 0.94 | 1(%2) | 2(%2.2) | Five dose |
| 0.13 | 0(%0) | 4(%4.3) | Six dose` |
| Mode of delivery | |||
| 0.60 | 45(%90) | 78(%84.8) | Vaginal |
| 0.72 | 5(%10) | 13(%14.1) | CS |
| 1.00 | 0(%0) | 1(%1.1) | Vaccum |
| Indication for CS | |||
| 0.53 | 2(%4) | 4 (%4.3) | Fetal distress |
| 0.21 | 1(%2) | 6(%6.5) | Absence of active labor |
| 1.00 | 0(%0) | 0(%0) | Uterine over activity |
Table 3 compared the time and outcome delivery in vaginal and sublingual misoprostol group. There weren’t any significant difference in passive and active phase and total time of delivery in two groups (P > 0.05). The maternal complication presentations included residue of placenta, tachysystole, vomiting, atoni and abdominal pain. Although there weren’t any significant differences in two studied group (P > 0.05) but abdominal pain and vomiting were showed more in sublingual group than vaginal group. Also, the neonatal complications including meconial and prolaps weren’t different between two studied groups (P > 0.05).
Compare time and outcome in vaginal and sublingual misoprostol in delivery
| p-value | Vaginal Group | Sublingual Group | Variables |
|---|---|---|---|
| 0.46 | 0(%0) | 1(%1.1) | prolaps |
| 0.82 | 8.58±5.18 | 8.81±6.07 | Passive phase of Delivery ( Hours) |
| 0.95 | 2.87±1.72 | 2.89±1.90 | Active phase of Delivery ( Hours) |
| 0.61 | 11.08±3.41 | 11.62±6.76 | Total time of Delivery ( Hours) |
| Maternal Complication | |||
| 0.87 | 1(%2) | 2(%2.2) | Residue of Placenta |
| 0.65 | 1(%2) | 2(%2.2) | Tachysystole |
| 0.34 | 5(%10) | 11(%12) | Vomiting |
| 0.09 | 3(%6) | 3(%3.3) | Atoni |
| 0.23 | 1(%2) | 5(%5.5) | Abdominal Pain |
| Neonatal complication | |||
| 1.00 | 3(%6) | 5(%5.5) | Meconial |
The results of the present study showed that sublingual misoprostol is effective as vaginal misoprostol for induction of labor with live term fetuses.
Previous studies had already promised the beneficial effects of pharmacological over mechanical cervical ripening (20, 21). Previous studies showed that Misoprostol is an effective agent by oral, vaginal and sublingual administration for induction of labor before surgical termination of pregnancy. In our study, the vaginal and sublingual misoprostol weren’t associated with significant differences in the number of women in aspect of clinical outcomes and the maternal and neonatal complication. A randomized controlled trial evaluated the vaginal and sublingual misoprostol for second trimester abortion (22). They showed that a higher effectiveness of sublingual administration, but fever was more common in vaginal consumption (22). We didn’t evaluate these two methods in second trimester, but we found no significant difference among the maternal complication in studied period. Saxena et al. evaluated the sublingual versus vaginal routes of misoprostol in the first trimester abortions. They concluded that the sublingual form is more effective and convenient than vaginal forms for cervical dilatation (23).
Different routes of misoprostol have been administrated for cervical priming (24-28). Both oral and vaginal forms seem to be equally effective (29). However, some women found the vaginal forms inconvenient and unacceptable (30). Tang et al. (2004) compared sublingual and vaginal misoprostol for preoperative cervical priming, prior to surgical termination and found similar preoperative side-effects within groups (31). However, sublingual misoprostol has the advantages like being more convenient to administer. We found both sublingual and vaginal misoprostol similarly effective in cervical priming.
Zahran et al. (2009) like our study, evaluated sublingual versus vaginal misoprostol for induction of labor at term, but in randomized prospective placebo controlled study (32). We found similar results like Zahran et al study as fetal distress in both group had the highest frequency, but there was no difference between groups in case of induction to delivery interval, duration of labor, neonatal outcome or maternal side effects. However in comparison to their study (32), we found low number of attributed labors that had meconium staining in both studied groups, but less active labor in sublingual group.
They found sublingual route promised to higher patient’s satisfaction level (31). Although we didn’t evaluate the patient satisfaction level but our results, confirmed the previous studies results in other criterion.
Conclusion
We concluded that sublingual misoprostol seems as effective as vaginal misoprostol for induction of labor at term. Furthermore misoprostol sublingual routes poses some advantages like convenient to administer and might be more suitable than vaginal form.
Acknowledgements
References
-
1.
Riskin-Mashiah S, Wilkins I. Cervical ripening. Obstet Gynecol Clin. North Am. 1999;26:243-57. [PubMed ID: 10399759].
-
2.
Laws PJ, Sullivan EA. Australia’s mothers and babies 2002. Sydney: Australian Institute of Health and Welfare (AIHW), National Perinatal Statistics Unit (NPSU); 2004.
-
3.
Mirteimouri M, Tara F, Teimouri B, Sakhavar N, Vaezi A. Efficacy of Rectal Misoprostol for Prevention of Postpartum Hemorrhage. Iran J. Pharm. Res. 2012;12:469-474. [PubMed ID: 24250623].
-
4.
Feitosa FE, Sampaio ZS, Alencar CA Jr, Amorim MM, Passini R Jr. Sublingual vs vaginal misoprostol for induction of labor. Int J. Gynaecol Obstet. 2006;94:91. [PubMed ID: 16828095].
-
5.
Bartusevicius A, Barcaite E, Krikstolaitis R, Gintautas V, Nadisauskiene R. Sublingual compared with vaginal misoprostol for labour induction at term: A randomised controlled trial. BJOG. 2006;113:1431. [PubMed ID: 17083652].
-
6.
Shetty A, Danielian P, Templeton A. Sublingual misoprostol for the induction of labor at term. Am J. Obstet Gynecol. 2002;186:72-76. [PubMed ID: 11810088].
-
7.
Shetty A, Mackie L, Danielian P, Rice P, Templeton A. Sublingual compared with oral misoprostol in term labour induction: A randomised controlled trial. BJOG. 2002;109:645-650. [PubMed ID: 12118642].
-
8.
Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists. Induction of labour: Evidence-based. . London, England: RCOG Clinical Effectiveness Support Unit; [Cited 2 June 2001]. Available from:URL: http://www.rcog.uk/resources/public/rcog_induction_of_labour.pdf.
-
9.
Caliskan E, Bodur H, Ozeren S, Corakci A, Ozkan S, Yucesoy I. Misoprostol 50 Ag sublingually versus vaginally for labor induction at term. Gynecol Obstet. Invest. 2005;59:155-161. [PubMed ID: 15640607].
-
10.
Moraes-Filho OB, Albuquerque RM, Pacheco AJC, Ribeiro RH, Cecatti JG, Welkovic S. Sublingual versus vaginal misoprostol for labor induction of term pregnancies. Rev Bras. Ginecol Obstet. 2005;27:20-23.
-
11.
Alfirevic Z, Weeks A. Oral misoprostol for induction of labour. Cochrane Database Sys Rev.
-
12.
Biglar M, Soltani K, Nabati F, Bazl R, Mojab F, Amanlou M. A Preliminary Investigation of the Jack-Bean Urease Inhibition by Randomly Selected Traditionally Used Herbal Medicine. Iran J. Pharm. Res. 2012;11:831-837. [PubMed ID: 24250509].
-
13.
Hill JB, Thigpen BD, Bofill JA, Magann E, Moore LE, Martin JN Jr. A randomized clinical trial comparing vaginal misoprostol versus cervical foley plus oral misoprostol for cervical ripening and labor induction. Am J. Perinatol. 2009;26:33-38. [PubMed ID: 18850516].
-
14.
Shetty A, Danielian P, Templeton A. Sublingual misoprostol for the induction of labor at term. Am J. Obstet Gynecol. 2002;186:72-76. [PubMed ID: 11810088].
-
15.
Wing DA, Ham D, Paul RH. A comparison of orally administered misoprostol with vaginally administered misoprostol for cervical ripening and labor induction. Am J. Obstet Gyncol. 1999;180:1155-1160.
-
16.
Fakoor F, Mirzaei M, Naghipoor MR, Ebrahimi H, Mahdavi M. Comparison between Sublingual Misoprostol and Intravenous Oxytocin in Management of Third Stage of Labor. Iran J. Obst. Gynecol. Inferti. 2013;15:7-14.
-
17.
Muzonzini G, Hofmeyr GJ. Buccal or sublingual misoprostol for cervical ripening and induction of labour. Cochrane Database Sys Rev. 2004;18:4221.
-
18.
Cuninngham FG, Leveno KJ, Bloom SL, Hauth JC, Rouse DJ, Spong CY. Williams Obstetrics. 23rd ed. New York: McGrow-Hill; 2010. 503 p.
-
19.
Cuninngham FG, Leveno KJ, Bloom SL, Hauth JC, Rouse DJ, Spong CY. Williams Obstetrics. 23rd ed. New York: McGrow-Hill; 2010. p. 386-388.
-
20.
Schutz KF, Grimes DA, Cabes WJ. Measures to prevent cervical injury during suction curettage abortion. Lancet. 1983;1:1182-1184. [PubMed ID: 6133988].
-
21.
Gimes DA, Schulz KF, Cates WJ. Prevention of uterine perforation during curettage abortion. JAMA. 1984;251:2108-2111. [PubMed ID: 6708260].
-
22.
von Hertzen H, Piaggio G, Wojdyla D, Nguyen TM, Marions L, Okoev G, Khomassuridze A, Kereszturi A, Mittal S, Nair R, Daver R, Pretnar-Darovec A, Dickson K, Nguyen DH, Nguyen HB, Hoang TD, Peregoudov A. WHO Research Group on Post-ovulatory Methods of Fertility Regulation. Comparison of vaginal and sublingual misoprostol for second trimester abortion: randomized controlled equivalence trial. Hum Reprod. 2009;24:106-112. [PubMed ID: 18794161].
-
23.
Saxena P, Salhan S, Sarda N. Sublingual versus vaginal route of misoprostol for cervical ripening prior to surgical termination of first trimester abortions. Eur J. Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol. 2006;125:109-113. [PubMed ID: 16139942].
-
24.
Hou SP, Fang AH, Chen QF, Huang YM, Chen OJ, Cheng LN. Termination of second-trimester pregnancy by mifepristone combined with misoprostol versus intra-amniotic injection of ethacridine lactate (Rivanol®): a systematic review of Chinese trials. Contraception. 2011;84:214-223. [PubMed ID: 21843683].
-
25.
Chen QJ, Hou SP, Meads C, Huang YM, Hong QQ, Zhu HP, Cheng LN. EBM-CONNECT Collaboration. Mifepristone in combination with prostaglandins for termination of 10-16 weeks› gestation: a systematic review. Eur. J. Obstet. Gynecol. Reprod Biol. [PubMed ID: 21741747].
-
26.
Hou S, Zhang L, Chen Q, Fang A, Cheng L. One- and two-day mifepristone-misoprostol intervals for second trimester termination of pregnancy between 13 and 16 weeks of gestation. Int J. Gynaecol. Obstet. 2010;111:126-130. [PubMed ID: 20705290].
-
27.
Ellis SC, Kapp N, Vragpvoc O, Borgata L. Randomized trial of buccal versus vaginal misoprostol for induction of second trimester abortion. Contraception. 2010;81:441-445. [PubMed ID: 20399952].
-
28.
Dodd JM, Crowther CA. Misoprostol for induction of labour to terminate pregnancy in the second or third trimester for women with a fetal anomaly or after intrauterine fetal death. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2010:4901.
-
29.
Ngai SW, Chan YM, Tang OS, Ho PC. The use of misoprostol for pre-operative cervical dilatation prior to vacuum aspiration: a randomized trial. Hum Reprod. 1999;14:2139-2142. [PubMed ID: 10438440].
-
30.
Ho PC, Ngai SW, Liu KL, Wong GC, Lee SW. Vaginal misoprostol compared with oral misoprostol in termination of second trimester pregnancy. Obstet Gynecol. 1997;90:735-738. [PubMed ID: 9351755].
-
31.
Tang OS, Mok KH, Ho PC. A randomized study comparing the use of sublingual to vaginal misoprostol for pre-operative cervical priming prior to surgical termination of pregnancy in the first trimester. Hum Reprod. 2004;19:1101-1104. [PubMed ID: 15070888].
-
32.
Zahran KM, Shahin AY, Abdellah MS, Elsayh KI. Sublingual versus vaginal misoprostol for induction of labor at term: a randomized prospective placebo-controlled study. J Obstet. Gynaecol. Res. 2009;35:1054-1060. [PubMed ID: 20144171].