Oral or vaginal misoprostol for induction of labor
- 1 February 1997
- journal article
- clinical trial
- Published by Wiley in International Journal of Gynecology & Obstetrics
- Vol. 56 (2) , 135-139
- https://doi.org/10.1016/s0020-7292(96)02805-6
Abstract
Objective: To compare vaginal versus oral misoprostol for induction of labor. Method: Induction of labor was carried out in 40 women near term in two equal and randomized groups (according to a computer generated table) using misoprostol. Group I received vaginal misoprostol (100 μg) every 3 h while group II patients were given the same dose via the oral route. The dose was doubled if no response was detected under continuous cardiotocographic (CTG) tracings. Result: The vaginal route of administration induced a higher success rate in a shorter time interval using a lower dose but was associated with more abnormal FHR patterns and instances of uterine hyperstimulation. Conclusion: It is recommended to use the vaginal approach with cardiotocographic monitoring.Keywords
This publication has 10 references indexed in Scilit:
- Nasal Administration of Prostaglandins for Uterine Stimulation and Induction of LabourAsia-Oceania Journal of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, 2010
- Pregnacny: The abortifacient effect of misoprostol in the second trimester. A randomized comparison with gemeprost in patients pre-treated with mifepristone (RU486)Human Reproduction, 1993
- The Clandestine Epidemic: The Practice of Unsafe Abortion in Latin AmericaStudies in Family Planning, 1993
- Intravaginal misoprostol as a cervical ripening agentBJOG: An International Journal of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, 1993
- The Brazilian Experience with CytotecStudies in Family Planning, 1993
- Uterine contractility and induction of abortion in early pregnancy by misoprostol and mifepristoneThe Lancet, 1991
- Selling abortifacients over the counter in pharmacies in Fortaleza, BrazilThe Lancet, 1991