misoprostol and Dystocia

misoprostol has been researched along with Dystocia* in 4 studies

Reviews

1 review(s) available for misoprostol and Dystocia

ArticleYear
Titrated oral misoprostol versus static regimen of oral misoprostol for induction of labour: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
    Journal of obstetrics and gynaecology : the journal of the Institute of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, 2022, Volume: 42, Issue:6

    We aimed to conduct a systematic review and meta-analysis to compare the efficacy and safety of titrated oral misoprostol versus static oral misoprostol for labour induction. We searched for the available randomised clinical trials (RCTs) in the Cochrane Library, PubMed, ISI web of science, Scopus, and ClinicalTrials.gov. We included RCTs compared titrated oral misoprostol versus static regimen of oral misoprostol during labour induction. Our main outcomes were vaginal and caesarean delivery rates, uterine tachysystole, misoprostol side effects, and neonatal adverse events. Three RCTs met our inclusion criteria with a total number of 360 patients. The vaginal delivery rate did not significantly differ between both groups (p = 0.49). Titrated oral misoprostol was associated with significant increase in the caesarean delivery rate compared to static oral misoprostol (p = 0.04). Moreover, titrated oral misoprostol led to significant increase in the uterine tachysystole and misoprostol side effects (p = 0.01 & p = 0.003, respectively). There were no differences among both groups regarding different neonatal adverse events. In conclusion, titrated oral misoprostol increases the incidence of caesarean delivery, uterine tachysystole, and misoprostol side effects with a similar vaginal delivery rate compared to static dose misoprostol. Thus, static oral misoprostol should be used instead of titrated oral misoprostol during labour induction. Impact Statement

    Topics: Administration, Intravaginal; Cervical Ripening; Delivery, Obstetric; Dystocia; Female; Humans; Infant, Newborn; Labor, Induced; Misoprostol; Oxytocics; Pregnancy

2022

Trials

3 trial(s) available for misoprostol and Dystocia

ArticleYear
Cervical Ripening Efficacy of Synthetic Osmotic Cervical Dilator Compared With Oral Misoprostol at Term: A Randomized Controlled Trial.
    Obstetrics and gynecology, 2022, 06-01, Volume: 139, Issue:6

    To evaluate whether a synthetic osmotic cervical dilator is noninferior to oral misoprostol for cervical ripening.. In an open-label, noninferiority randomized trial, pregnant women undergoing induction of labor at 37 weeks of gestation or more with Bishop scores less than 6 were randomized to either mechanical cervical dilation or oral misoprostol. Participants in the mechanical dilation group underwent insertion of synthetic osmotic cervical dilator rods, and those in the misoprostol group received up to six doses of 25 micrograms orally every 2 hours. After 12 hours of ripening, oxytocin was initiated, with artificial rupture of membranes. Management of labor was at the physician's discretion. The primary outcome was the proportion of women achieving vaginal delivery within 36 hours of initiation of study intervention. Secondary outcomes included increase in Bishop score, mode of delivery, induction-to-delivery interval, total length of hospital stay, and patient satisfaction. On the basis of a noninferiority margin of 10%, an expected primary outcome frequency of 65% for misoprostol and 71% for mechanical methods, and 85% power, a sample size of 306 participants was needed.. From November 2018 through January 2021, 307 women were randomized, with 151 evaluable participants in the synthetic osmotic cervical dilator group and 152 in the misoprostol group (there were four early withdrawals). The proportion of women achieving vaginal delivery within 36 hours was higher with mechanical cervical dilation compared with misoprostol (61.6% vs 59.2%), with an absolute difference of 2.4% (95% CI -9% to 13%), indicating noninferiority for the prespecified margin. No differences were noted in the mode of delivery. Tachysystole was more frequent in the misoprostol group (70 [46.4%] vs 35 [23.3%]; P=.01). Participants in the synthetic osmotic cervical dilator group reported better sleep, less unpleasant abdominal sensations, and lower pain scores (P<.05).. Synthetic osmotic cervical dilator is noninferior to oral misoprostol for cervical ripening. Advantages of synthetic osmotic cervical dilator include a better safety profile and patient satisfaction, less tachysystole, lower pain scores, and U.S. Food and Drug Administration approval.. ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT03670836.. Medicem Technology s.r.o., Czech Republic.

    Topics: Administration, Intravaginal; Cervical Ripening; Dilatation; Dystocia; Female; Humans; Labor, Induced; Misoprostol; Oxytocics; Pain; Pregnancy

2022
Misoprostol administered sublingually at a dose of 12.5 μg versus vaginally at a dose of 25 μg for the induction of full-term labor: a randomized controlled trial.
    Reproductive health, 2020, Apr-10, Volume: 17, Issue:1

    Labor induction is defined as any procedure that stimulates uterine contractions before labor begins spontaneously. The vaginal and oral routes of administration of misoprostol are those most used for the induction of labor in routine practice, with the recommended dose being 25 μg. Nevertheless, the sublingual route may reduce the number of vaginal examinations required, increasing patient comfort and lowering the risk of maternal and fetal infection. Based on a previous systematic review, the objective of this study was to compare the frequency of tachysystole as the main outcome measure when misoprostol is administered sublingually at the dose of 12.5 μg versus vaginally at a dose of 25 μg to induce labor in a full-term pregnancy with a live fetus.. A randomized, placebo-controlled, triple-blind clinical trial was conducted at two maternity hospitals in northeastern Brazil. Two hundred patients with a full-term pregnancy, a live fetus, Bishop score ≤ 6 and an indication for induction of labor were included. Following randomization, one group received 12.5 μg misoprostol sublingually and a vaginal placebo, while the other group received a sublingual placebo and 25 μg misoprostol vaginally. The primary outcome was the frequency of tachysystole. Student's t-test, the chi-square test of association and Fisher's exact test were used, as appropriate. Risk ratios and their 95% confidence intervals were calculated.. The frequency of tachysystole was lower in the group using 12.5 μg misoprostol sublingually compared to the group using 25 μg misoprostol vaginally (RR = 0.15; 95%CI: 0.02-0.97; p = 0.002). Failure to achieve vaginal delivery within 12 and 24 h was similar in both groups. Sublingual administration was preferred to vaginal administration by women in both groups; however, the difference was not statistically significant.. The effectiveness of labor induction with low-dose sublingual misoprostol was similar to that achieved with vaginal administration of the recommended dose; however, the rate of tachysystole was lower in the sublingual group, and this route of administration may prove a safe alternative.. Registration number: NCT01406392, ClinicalTrials.gov. Date of registration: August 1, 2011.

    Topics: Administration, Intravaginal; Administration, Sublingual; Adult; Brazil; Dystocia; Female; Humans; Labor, Induced; Misoprostol; Oxytocics; Pregnancy; Treatment Outcome; Young Adult

2020
Oral misoprostol or vaginal dinoprostone for labor induction: a randomized controlled trial.
    American journal of obstetrics and gynecology, 2003, Volume: 188, Issue:1

    The objective of the study was to compare the effectiveness, safety, and side effects of low-dose oral misoprostol with vaginal dinoprostone for cervical ripening and labor induction.. Women with Bishop score 6 or less admitted for labor induction at term were eligible for this randomized controlled trial. Exclusion criteria were multiple pregnancy, breech, fetal distress, or previous uterine scar. The allocation to the oral misoprostol group (20 microg given every 2 hours increased to 40 microg depending on uterine contractions) or to the vaginal dinoprostone group (2 mg twice, 6 hours apart) was contained in a sealed, opaque, and consecutively numbered envelope.. Two hundred women (100 in each group) were included. The proportion of vaginal delivery within 24 hours was 56% in the misoprostol group and 62% in the dinoprostone group (relative risk 0.90, 95% CI 0.72-1.14). The risk of cesarean section was 18% and 19%, respectively. The median interval to delivery, calculated from survival analysis, was longer in the misoprostol group (1305 minutes) compared with the dinoprostone group (1080 minutes). The log-rank test was not significant (P =.35). Uterine hyperstimulation occurred in 9% of women in the misoprostol group compared with 14% in the dinoprostone group (P =.27). The only significant difference in neonatal outcomes was a more frequent presence of thick meconium in the misoprostol group (P =.03).. We found no difference in terms of effectiveness and safety between low-dose oral misoprostol and vaginal dinoprostone used for induction of labor. This regimen avoids the excessive uterine contractility noted in previous studies, where higher doses of misoprostol were administered at longer intervals.

    Topics: Administration, Intravaginal; Administration, Oral; Adult; Birth Weight; Cesarean Section; Delivery, Obstetric; Dinoprostone; Dystocia; Female; Fetal Membranes, Premature Rupture; Heart Rate, Fetal; Humans; Infant, Newborn; Labor, Induced; Length of Stay; Meconium; Misoprostol; Oxytocics; Pregnancy; Pregnancy Outcome

2003