Comparative Study of 25 µg Vaginal Misoprostol V/S Cerviprime Gel for Induction of Labour at Term at Obstetrics and Gynaecology Department of DMCH, Laheriasarai, Bihar
- 1. Senior Resident, Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, Darbhanga Medical College & Hospital, Laheriasarai, Bihar
- 2. Professor, Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, Darbhanga Medical College & Hospital, Laheriasarai, Bihar
Description
Background: This comparative study was conducted to compare the effectiveness of 25 µg of intravaginal misoprostol with intracervical cerviprime gel in terms of efficacy of drug, foeto-maternal outcome, side effects and complications of drugs. Methods: 100 primigravida at term; who were admitted for induction of labour were included in this study. They were randomly selected to receive either intravaginal misoprostol or intracervical cerviprime gel. 50 women received intravaginal 25 µg Misoprostol (Group A) every 6 hours for maximum of 5 doses and 50 women received 0.5 mg (2.5 ml) of intracervical cerviprime gel (Group B) till maximum of 3 doses. Comparison was done in terms of time taken for induction to delivery, mean time taken for onset of labour, APGAR score at 1 and 5 minutes and the neonatal outcome in either of the groups. Results: The mean time taken for onset of labour was less in the misoprostol group than in the cerviprime group (6.5hours v/s 8 hours, P = 0.49). Similarly duration from induction to delivery was less (20.08 ± 8.24 hours v/s 23.19 ± 9.59 hours, P >0.05) for misoprostol than cerviprime gel. Need for Oxytocin augmentation was less (16%) in misoprostol group as compared to cerviprime group (46%), P = 0.001. Cesarean section rate was slightly higher in misoprostol group (8% v/s 6%). Maternal complications were minimal in either group & the neonatal outcome was good in both the groups. The induction cost was much less in the misoprostol group. Conclusion: Compared to cerviprime gel; misoprostol is safe, efficacious, cheap, well tolerated drug by mother andfetus. It was found to be a better inducing agent, has short induction to delivery interval thus short duration of labour with similar maternal and fetal safety profile.
Abstract (English)
Background: This comparative study was conducted to compare the effectiveness of 25 µg of intravaginal misoprostol with intracervical cerviprime gel in terms of efficacy of drug, foeto-maternal outcome, side effects and complications of drugs. Methods: 100 primigravida at term; who were admitted for induction of labour were included in this study. They were randomly selected to receive either intravaginal misoprostol or intracervical cerviprime gel. 50 women received intravaginal 25 µg Misoprostol (Group A) every 6 hours for maximum of 5 doses and 50 women received 0.5 mg (2.5 ml) of intracervical cerviprime gel (Group B) till maximum of 3 doses. Comparison was done in terms of time taken for induction to delivery, mean time taken for onset of labour, APGAR score at 1 and 5 minutes and the neonatal outcome in either of the groups. Results: The mean time taken for onset of labour was less in the misoprostol group than in the cerviprime group (6.5hours v/s 8 hours, P = 0.49). Similarly duration from induction to delivery was less (20.08 ± 8.24 hours v/s 23.19 ± 9.59 hours, P >0.05) for misoprostol than cerviprime gel. Need for Oxytocin augmentation was less (16%) in misoprostol group as compared to cerviprime group (46%), P = 0.001. Cesarean section rate was slightly higher in misoprostol group (8% v/s 6%). Maternal complications were minimal in either group & the neonatal outcome was good in both the groups. The induction cost was much less in the misoprostol group. Conclusion: Compared to cerviprime gel; misoprostol is safe, efficacious, cheap, well tolerated drug by mother andfetus. It was found to be a better inducing agent, has short induction to delivery interval thus short duration of labour with similar maternal and fetal safety profile.
Files
IJPCR,Vol16,Issue5,Article351.pdf
Files
(327.4 kB)
| Name | Size | Download all |
|---|---|---|
|
md5:899c1ba27907ecfedc95041408e3b8d5
|
327.4 kB | Preview Download |
Additional details
Dates
- Accepted
-
2024-03-10
Software
- Repository URL
- https://impactfactor.org/PDF/IJPCR/16/IJPCR,Vol16,Issue5,Article351.pdf
- Development Status
- Active
References
- 1. American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists. New U.S. food and drug administration labeling on cytotec (Misoprostol) use and pregnancy. In: ACOG, eds. Committee Opinion. Washington, DC: American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists; 1999: 283. 2. Arias F. Pharmacology of oxytocin and prostaglandins. ClinObstet Gynecol. 2000; 43:455- 68. 3. Beischer NA. Maternal well-being during pregnancy. In: Beischer NA, Mackay EV, Colditz PB, eds. Obstetrics and the Newborn. An Illustrated Textbook. 3rd ed. Philadelphia: Saunders; 1997: 449. 4. Calder AA, Loughney AD, Weir CJ, Barber JW. Induction of labour in nulliparous and multiparous women: a UK, multicentre, openlabel study of intravaginal misoprostol in comparison with cerviprime. BJOG. 2008; 115(10): 1279-88. 5. F. Gary Cunningham, Kenneth J. Leveno, Steven L. Bloom, John C, Rouse, Spong. Williams Obstetrics. 2010; 23:502. 6. Greagson S, Waterstone M., Norman I., Murrells T. A randomized controlled trial comparing low dose vaginal misoprostol and dinoprostone vaginal gel for inducing labour at term. BJOG. 2005; 112:438-44. 7. Houghton Mifflin Company. Induction of labour. In: American Heritage Dictionary, eds. The American Heritage Dictionary. 4th ed. Boston, MA: Houghton Mifflin Harcourt; 2006: 1074. 8. Murthy BK, Arkalgud MS. Misoprostol alone versus a combination of cerviprime and oxytocin for induction of labour. J Obstet Gynecol India. 2006;56(5):413-6. 9. Patil KP, Swamy MK, Rao Radhika K. Oral Misoprostol vs. intra-cervical cerviprime for cervical ripening and labour induction. J Obstet Gynecol India. 2005;55(2):128-31. 10. Sheela CN, Mhaskar A, George S. Comparison of vaginal misoprostol and oral misoprostol with intracervicaldinoprostol gel for induction of labour at term. J Obstet Gynecol India. 2007 July/Aug;57(4):327-30. 11. Latika S, Biswajit C. Comparison of prostaglandin E1 (Misoprostol) with prostaglandin E2 (Cerviprime) for labour induction. J Obstet Gynecol India. 2004;54(2):139-42. 12. Witter FR. Prostaglandin E2 preparations for pre-induction cervical ripening. Clin Obstet Gynecol. 2000; 43:469-74.