Fetomaternal Outcomes Following Sub-Lingual and Vaginal Misoprostol for Induction of Labour: A Randomized Controlled Trial
Main Article Content
Abstract
Background: Induction of labour may become necessary to avert adverse obstetric outcomes in the course of pregnancy. The appropriate dosage and route for misoprostol administration for induction of labour is not well understood in our clinical setting. In our setting no studies have been carried out to compare the efficacy and safety of sub-lingual and vaginal misoprostol.
Aim: To compare the fetomaternal outcome of events using the sub-lingual and vaginal routes for induction of labour.
Methodology: One hundred and forty pregnant women at term who fulfill the inclusion criteria were equally randomized into the two arms of the study to receive either 25 µg of misoprostol sublingually or 25µg vaginally and fetal outcomes were compared in the two arms of the study.
Results: The fetal and maternal outcome was not statistically significant between the vaginal and sublingual groups. The perinatal outcomes between the sublingual and vaginal misoprostol groups showed no statistically significant differences. Apgar scores at 1 and 5 minutes were similar, with few babies scoring below 7 at 1 minute and improving by 5 minutes. Neonatal intensive care unit admission was more common in the sublingual than vaginal group, but the difference was not significant. The main indications for neonatal intensive care unit admission were birth asphyxia, sepsis, and respiratory distress, with no significant difference between groups. Maternal side effects were comparable between the two groups, with no statistically significant differences across all parameters. Although the vaginal misoprostol group showed slightly higher frequencies of nausea, shivering, flushing, tachysystole, and hyperstimulation, these differences did not reach statistical significance (P > 0.05).
Conclusion: The sublingual and vaginal routes for administration of misoprostol for induction of labour showed comparable feto-maternal outcomes.
Article Details
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
References
I. Essam MS, Alaa EH, Amr AE. Randomized controlled trial between sublingual and vaginal misoprostol for induction of labour at term. 2019; 9(2): 407-415.
II. Martina K, Franziska K. Maternal and neonatal outcome of labour induction at term comparing two regimens of misoprostol. Journal of perinatal medicine. 2014; 42:603-609.
III. Guerra GV, Cecatti JG, Souza JP, Faúndes A, Morais SS, Gülmezoglu AM et al. Factors and outcomes associated with the induction of labour in Latin America. BJOG. 2009; 116:1762–72
IV. WHO Recommendations for Induction of Labour. Geneva: World Health Organization; 2011. 1, background. Available from:
V. Martin JA, Hamilton BE, Osterman MJK, Driscoll AK. Births: final data for 2019. Natl Vital Stat Rep. 2021; 70:1–51 3.
VI. European Perinatal Health Report 2010. Retrieved on the 14th November, 2023.
VII. Vasilios P, Michail P, · Therapon C, · Lito VV, Andreas K, Sofoklis S. Efficacy and safety of oral and sublingual versus vaginal misoprostol for induction of labour: a systematic review and meta analysis. Archives of Gynecology and Obstetrics. 2023; 308:727–775
https://doi.org/10.1007/s00404-022-06867-9
VIII. Ayati S, Vahidroodsari F, Farshidi F, Shahabian M, Afzal AM. Vaginal Versus Sublingual Misoprostol for Labour Induction at Term and Post Term: a Randomized Prospective Study. Iran J Pharm Res. 2014; 13(1):e125410.
IX. Nimbark N, Joshi PM, Joshi MI. A randomized comparative study of induction of labour with sublingual misoprostol 50 μg and oral misoprostol 50 μg in term patients. Int J Basic Clin Pharmacol. 2023; 12:211-5
X. Hofmeyr GJ, Gülmezoglu AM, Pileggi C. Vaginal misoprostol for cervical ripening and induction of labour. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews. In: The Cochrane Library, Issue 06, 2011. Art. No. CD000941.
XI. Muzonzini G, Hofmeyr GJ. Buccal or sublingual misoprostol for cervical ripening and induction of labour. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews. In: The Cochrane Library, Issue 06, 2011. Art. No. CD004221.
XII. Gattás DS, José RJ, Alex SR, Francisco EF, Melania MR. 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 protocol. Reproductive Health. 2018; 15:65
XIII. Ezebialu IU, Eke AC, Eleje GU, Nwachukwu CE. Methods for assessing pre-induction cervical ripening. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews. In: The Cochrane Library, Issue 6, 2015. Art. No.: CD010762.
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD010762.pub2.
XIV. Ugwuoroko HC, Eleje GU, Okafor CG, Okechukwu ZC, Eke AC, Okoro CC, et al. Obstetric Outcome of Induction of Labour in a Tertiary Hospital in Nigeria: A Five-Year Retrospective Cross-Sectional Study. Int J Innov Res Med Sci. 2023; 8(7): 235–240
XV. Kuba K, Kirby MA, Hughes F, Yellon SM. Reassessing the Bishop score in clinical practice for induction of labor leading to vaginal delivery and for evaluation of cervix ripening. Placenta Reprod Med. 2023; 2:8.
XVI. Souza AS, Amorim MM, Feitosa FE. Comparison of sublingual versus vaginal misoprostol for the induction of labour: a systematic review. BJOG: Int J Obstet Gynaecol. 2008; 115:1340–1349
XVII. Chhatani PL, Pitre D. Comparison of 25 microgram of sublingual misoprostol with 25 micrograms of vaginal misoprostol for induction of labour at term. IJCOG. 2024;8(1):28-32.
XVIII. Ifariola D, Adeniyi AA, Adewara OE, Okere AR, Adebara IO, Bakare A, et al. Randomization of vaginal and sublingual misoprostol for cervical ripening and labor induction. Trop J Obstet Gynaecol 2020; 37:78 84
XIX. Madhu J, Hangaraga US. Comparison of sublingual versus vaginal routes of misoprostol in induction of labor. Int J Reprod Contracept Obstet Gynecol. 2017; 6(7): 3062–7.
XX. Jahromi BN, Poorgholan F, Yousefi G, Sahrian L. Sublingual versus vaginal misoprostol for the induction of labor at term: A randomized, triple-blind placebo-controlled clinical trial. Iran J Med Sci 2016; 41:79-85
XXI. Feitosa FEL, Sampaio ZS, Alencar J, Amorim MMR, Passini J. Sublingual vs. vaginal misoprostol for labour induction. Int Journal Gynecol Obstet 2006; 94:91-5.
XXII. Okonkwo RI, Onyeabochukwu AD, Izuka EO, Onyegbule OA, Duke-Onyeabo CP, Obiora-Izuka CE, et al. Effectiveness and safety of vaginal versus sublingual misoprostol for cervical ripening and induction of labor: A randomized controlled trial. Int J Med Health Dev 2023; 28:31-8.
XXIII. Zahran KM, Shahin AY, Abdellah MS, Elsayh KI. Sublingual versus vaginal misoprostol for induction of labour at term: a randomized prospective placebo-controlled study. J Obstet Gynaecol Res. 2009 ;35(6):1054-60.