Misoprostol for induction of labour at term: a more effective agent than dinoprostone vaginal gel. A randomised controlled trial comparing low dose vaginal misoprostol and dinoprostone vaginal gel for inducing labour at term. Induction of labour with intravaginal misoprostol and prostaglandin E2 gel: a comparative study. Induction of labour in nulliparous and multiparous women: a UK, multicentre, open-label study of intravaginal misoprostol in comparison with dinoprostone. Misoprostol: an effective agent for cervical ripening and labor induction. A randomised controlled trial of intravaginal dinoprostone, intravaginal misoprostol and transcervical balloon catheter for labour induction. Labor induction with prostaglandin E1 misoprostol compared with dinoprostone vaginal insert: a randomized trial. A randomised double-blind study of vaginal misoprostol vs dinoprostone for cervical ripening and labour induction in prolonged pregnancy. A comparison of misoprostol and prostaglandin E2 gel for preinduction cervical ripening and labor induction. Randomized controlled trial of vaginal misoprostol versus dinoprostone vaginal insert for labor induction. Oral misoprostol for induction of labour at term: randomised controlled trial. Induction of labour with a viable infant: a randomised clinical trial comparing intravaginal misoprostol and intravaginal dinoprostone. Misoprostol versus dinoprostone for cervical priming prior to induction of labour in term pregnancy: a randomised controlled trial. A comparison of intermittent vaginal administration of two different doses of misoprostol suppositories with continuous dinoprostone for cervical ripening and labor induction. Oral and vaginal misoprostol compared with dinoprostone for induction of labor: a randomized controlled trial. Oral misoprostol or vaginal dinoprostone for labor induction: a randomized controlled trial. Comparison of misoprostol and dinoprostone for elective induction of labour in nulliparous women at full term: a randomized prospective study. A comparison of intermittent vaginal administration of misoprostol with continuous dinoprostone for cervical ripening and labor induction. A randomised trial comparing low dose vaginal misoprostol and dinoprostone for labour induction. Six hourly vaginal misoprostol versus intracervical dinoprostone for cervical ripening and labor induction. Influence of misoprostol or prostaglandin E(2) for induction of labor on the incidence of pathological CTG tracing: a randomized trial. Misoprostol for cervical ripening at and near term--a comparative study. Oral misoprostol and intracervical dinoprostone for cervical ripening and labor induction: a randomized comparison. Comparison between vaginal misoprostol and cervical dinoprostone for cervical ripening and labor induction. Comparative efficacy and cost of the prostaglandin analogs dinoprostone and misoprostol as labor preinduction agents. Outpatient misoprostol compared with dinoprostone gel for preinduction cervical ripening: a randomized controlled trial. A randomized comparison between misoprostol and dinoprostone for cervical ripening and labor induction in patients with unfavorable cervices. Dinoprostone versus misoprostol: a randomized study of nulliparous women undergoing induction of labor. Randomized controlled trial of 50 and 100 mcg of misoprostol for induction of labor at term. A randomized comparison of one single dose of vaginal 50 microg misoprostol with 3 mg dinoprostone in pre-induction cervical ripening. Prospective randomised controlled trial to compare safety and efficacy of intravaginal Misoprostol with intracervical Cerviprime for induction of labour with unfavourable cervix. Efficacy of dinoprostone, intracervical foleys and misoprostol in labor induction. Randomized comparison between intravaginal misoprostol and dinoprostone for cervical ripening and induction of labor. Cervical ripening and induction of labor with misoprostol, dinoprostone gel, and a Foley catheter: a randomized trial of 3 techniques. A double-blind comparison of the safety and efficacy of intravaginal misoprostol and prostaglandin E2 to induce labor. Oral misoprostol versus intracervical dinoprostone for induction of labor. Randomized comparison of misoprostol and dinoprostone for preinduction cervical ripening and labor induction. Vaginal misoprostol for induction of labor: a randomized controlled trial. Comparative study of misoprostol vs dinoprostone for induction of labour.
To compare the efficacy of vaginal misoprostol and dinoprostone vaginal gel for induction of labour at term.
                A single-blind randomised comparative trial.
                Induction and labour wards of a UK teaching hospital.
                Two hundred and eleven pregnant women at term in whom induction of labour was indicated, and with no contra-indication to the use of prostaglandins for the induction of labour.
                The women were randomly assigned to receive vaginal administration of either misoprostol 50 microg four hourly (to a maximum of four doses) or dinoprostone gel 1 mg six hourly (to a maximum of three doses).
                Time from induction to delivery, oxytocin requirement in labour, analgesic requirement, mode of delivery, neonatal outcome.
                The misoprostol group had a highly significant reduction in median induction-delivery interval compared with the dinoprostone group (14.4 hours vs 22.9 hours; P < 0.00001). In addition, more women delivered after only one dose (77% vs 49%; P < 0.0001, OR 3.51, 95% CI 1.94-6.35), and within 12 and 24 hours. There was a reduced need for oxytocin augmentation in labour (21% vs 47%; P < 0.0001, OR 0.30, 95% CI 0.16-0.54). There was no difference in analgesia requirement in labour, or in mode of delivery. There were no adverse neonatal outcomes associated with the use of misoprostol. Women in the misoprostol group experienced more pain in the interval between induction and being given analgesia in labour, but this did not reach statistical significance.
                Misoprostol 50 microg vaginally is a more effective induction agent than 1 mg dinoprostone vaginal gel, with no apparent adverse effects on mode of delivery, or on the fetus. The higher pain scores in the misoprostol group must be balanced against the reduction in time spent having labour induced, and the reduction in need for intravenous oxytocin augmentation. Further randomised studies must continue to exclude the possibility of rare adverse side effects. To compare the efficacy of low dose vaginal misoprostol and dinoprostone vaginal gel for induction of labour at term.
                A single-blind randomised controlled trial.
                Antenatal and labour ward of a UK district general hospital.
                Two hundred and sixty-eight women requiring induction of labour at term (>37 weeks of gestation) with no significant fetal or medical condition, no previous uterine surgery and no contraindication to prostaglandin.
                Misoprostol 25 microg (one-quarter of a 100 microg tablet) was inserted into the posterior vaginal fornix every 4 hours (to a maximum of six doses) or dinoprostone vaginal gel 1-2 mg 6 hourly (maximum of 3 mg in 24 hours).
                Induction-to-vaginal delivery interval.
                Requirements for oxytocin, mode of delivery, number of women delivering < 24 hours, incidence of uterine contraction abnormalities, incidence of abnormal cardiotocograph (CTG) recordings, 5-minute Apgar scores, umbilical cord pH recordings, analgesia requirements, admission to NICU and blood loss at delivery.
                There were no significant differences between the two groups in induction-to-vaginal delivery interval, mode of delivery, number of women delivering within 24 hours and neonatal outcomes. The incidence of uterine contraction abnormalities (tachysystole and hyperstimulation) and the incidence of abnormal CTG recordings were also similar for both groups.
                Low dose vaginal misoprostol is as effective as dinoprostone gel for inducing labour at term. There would be substantial cost savings, estimated at around 3.9 million UK pounds per annum, for maternity services if low dose misoprostol became the agent of choice for inducing labour in the UK. A prospective study was carried out at a tertiary care hospital on 100 pregnant women admitted for induction of labour to compare the effect of misoprostol and dinoprostone on the induction of labour. The patients were divided randomly into two groups of 50 each. Group I received 25 microg misoprostol intravaginally every 3 h (maximum dose 200 microg), and Group II received 0.5 mg PGE(2) gel (dinoprostonev) intracervically every 6 h (maximum three doses in 24 h) until good uterine contractions started. The primary outcome measure was vaginal delivery occurring within 24 h of administration of the first dose of either study drug (successful induction). Statistical analysis were conducted using chi(2) test, Fisher exact test, Student's t-test and relative risk (RR) with 95% confidence interval (CI). In the misoprostol group, more patients achieved successful inductions as compared with the dinoprostone group, 80% vs. 62% (P = 0.0473, RR 1.63, 95% CI 0.95-2.81). The mean induction to delivery interval (IDI) was shorter in the misoprostol group, 13.30+/-8.74 (3-40.15) hours, as compared with the dinoprostone group, 18.53+/-11.33 (2-48.07) hours (P = 0.011). Misoprostol was associated with significantly less oxytocin use (18% vs. 50%) as compared with dinoprostone (P = 0.001 RR 0.36, 95% CI 0.19-0.69). In conclusion, although both misoprostol and dinoprostone appear to be effective agents for labour induction, misoprostol is cheaper, stable at room temperature, has shorter IDI and requires less oxytocin. These results make misoprostol superior to dinoprostone for induction of labour especially in developing and tropical countries. To compare the efficacy and safety of a 25-microgram vaginal tablet of misoprostol (APL202) with dinoprostone (3-mg vaginal tablet) in cervical ripening and labour induction.
                A randomised, open-label, noninferiority, comparative study in two maternal populations.
                Eighteen NHS study centres across the UK.
                Nulliparous or multiparous women with a singleton pregnancy eligible for induction of labour.
                Women were randomised to receive either misoprostol, initially 25 micrograms (50 micrograms in nulliparous women with Bishop score < or =4) followed by 25 micrograms after 4 and 8 hours, or dinoprostone, initially 3 mg followed by 3 mg after 6 hours. Clinical noninferiority of misoprostol was defined as an absolute difference between treatments of no more than 10% for the primary outcome.
                The number of vaginal deliveries achieved within 24 hours of labour induction. Maternal and fetal safety outcomes.
                A total of 626 women were randomised to misoprostol (n = 318) or dinoprostone (n = 308) treatment. The rate of vaginal deliveries achieved within 24 hours of induction did not significantly differ between the misoprostol and dinoprostone (43 versus 47%; 3.74% difference, 95% CI -3.58 to 11.05, respectively) treatment groups. The treatments were generally comparable for other secondary efficacy measures. Maternal and fetal adverse events were similarly distributed across the misoprostol and dinoprostone groups.
                Low-dose misoprostol is efficacious in cervical ripening and labour induction and demonstrates a similar fetal and maternal safety profile to dinoprostone. Our purpose was to compare the safety and efficacy of intravaginal misoprostol versus intracervical prostaglandin E2 gel (dinoprostone) for preinduction cervical ripening and induction of labor.
                Two hundred seventy-six patients with indications for induction of labor and unfavorable cervices were randomly assigned to receive either intravaginal misoprostol or intracervical dinoprostone. Twenty-five micrograms of misoprostol were placed in the posterior vaginal fornix every 3 hours, with a potential maximum of eight doses. Prostaglandin E2 in gel form, 0.5 mg, was placed in the endocervix every 6 hours, with a maximum of three doses. Further medication was withheld with the occurrence of spontaneous rupture of membranes, entry into active phase of labor, or a "prolonged contraction response."
                Among those evaluated, 138 received misoprostol and 137 received dinoprostone. The average interval from start of induction to vaginal delivery was shorter in the misoprostol group (1323.0 +/- 844.4 minutes) than in the dinoprostone group (1532.4 +/- 706.5 minutes) (p < 0.05). Need for oxytocin augmentation of labor occurred more commonly in the dinoprostone group (72.6%) than in the misoprostol group (45.7%) (p < 0.0001). There were no significant differences in the routes of delivery. Twenty-eight of the misoprostol-treated patients (20.3%) and thirty-eight of the dinoprostone-treated patients (27.7%) required abdominal delivery. Complications such as uterine tachysystole and thick meconium passage occurred with similar frequency in the two treatment groups.
                Intravaginal administration of misoprostol appears to be as effective as intracervical dinoprostone for cervical ripening and labor induction. Complications associated with prostaglandin administration were not statistically different between the two treatment groups. The cost of misoprostol ($0.36/100 micrograms) is much less than that of dinoprostone ($75/0.5 mg). To compare the efficacy and safety of induction of labour by vaginal application of dinoprostone or misoprostol or transcervical insertion of a balloon (Bard) catheter.
                A non-blinded, randomised, controlled trial.
                A tertiary level Swedish hospital.
                A total of 592 women who had undergone full-term pregnancies, not previously been subjected to a caesarean section, and required induction of labour for common, routine indications.
                Women were randomly assigned to induction of labour using intravaginal dinoprostone (2 mg once every 6 hours) or misoprostol (25 micrograms once every 4 hours) or a transcervical balloon catheter.
                The time interval between induction to delivery in general and vaginal delivery in particular, the mode of delivery, maternal and neonatal parameters of outcome.
                Of the 588 subjects included in the final intention-to-treat analysis, 191 were assigned to treatment with dinoprostone, 199 with misoprostol and 198 with the balloon catheter. The shortest mean induction-to-delivery interval was obtained with the catheter (12.9 hours versus 16.8 and 17.3 hours for dinoprostone and misoprostol, respectively). The efficacies of the two prostaglandins were similar. The maternal and neonatal outcomes associated with each of the three procedures were similar.
                Induction of labour with a transcervical balloon catheter is effective and safe and can be recommended as the first choice. The two prostaglandins, dinoprostone and misoprostol, were shown to be equally effective and safe, while misoprostol costs significantly less and is easier to store. To compare the safety, efficacy, and costs of intravaginal misoprostol versus dinoprostone vaginal inserts for cervical ripening and labor induction.
                Two hundred twenty-three labor induction patients were assigned randomly to one of two treatment groups: 1) intravaginal misoprostol or 2) dinoprostone vaginal inserts. Fifty micrograms of misoprostol were placed in the posterior vaginal fornix every 3 hours for a maximum period of 24 hours. Ten milligrams of dinoprostone was administered in a single application as a vaginal insert for 12 hours.
                Among 223 patients evaluated, 108 were allocated to the misoprostol group and 115 to the dinoprostone group. The median interval from induction to vaginal delivery was significantly shorter in the misoprostol group: 698 (range 395-1053) versus 1041 (range 792-1531) minutes (P < .001). Vaginal delivery within 12 hours of ripening occurred in 40.7% of patients who received misoprostol compared with 19.1% for those receiving dinoprostone (P < .001); no significant difference between the groups was noted for vaginal delivery within 24 hours. Uterine tachysystole occurred more frequently in patients in the misoprostol group (21.3%) than in the dinoprostone group (7.0%) (P = .004). Nevertheless, no statistically significant differences were noted between the groups with respect to intrapartum complications, including uterine hyperstimulation, mode of delivery, and neonatal or maternal adverse outcomes. The average cost per patient for misoprostol treatment was $85 compared with $606 for treatment with the vaginal insert.
                Intravaginal misoprostol and the dinoprostone vaginal insert appear to be safe agents for cervical ripening and labor induction. However, misoprostol is less expensive and more effective than the dinoprostone vaginal insert. Dinoprostone, is presently used in our standard protocol for cervical ripening and labour induction. In search for a cheaper alternative, misoprostol has been found to be a good substitute. In view of the potential saving it might offer, we set out to test its efficacy against the standard dinoprostone.
                A randomised double-blind study involving 50 pregnant women with prolonged pregnancy, treated at a government hospital in Malaysia, was carried out. Two hundred micrograms of intravaginal misoprostol were compared with 3 mg of dinoprostone in each treatment arm.
                In the misoprostol group, labour was successfully established in 92% of cases compared to 64% in the dinoprostone group (p = 0.04). The induction-delivery interval was shorter with more women delivering within 12 hours (72% vs 28%, p = 0.047). Maternal and neonatal complications, mode of delivery, the need for oxytocin and pethidine were quite similar statistically. Polysystole was more frequent (28% vs 12%, p = 0.28) in the misoprostol group but it was not associated with fetal distress.
                The study showed that misoprostol was a more effective drug in labour induction. Our purpose was to compare the safety and efficacy of intravaginal misoprostol versus intracervical prostaglandin E2 (dinoprostone) gel for preinduction cervical ripening and induction of labor.
                One hundred thirty-five patients with indications for induction of labor and unfavorable cervices were randomly assigned to receive either intravaginal misoprostol or intracervical dinoprostone. Fifty microgram tablets of misoprostol were placed in the posterior vaginal fornix every 3 hours for a maximum of six doses. Prostaglandin E2 in gel form, 0.5 mg, was placed into the endocervix every 6 hours for a maximum of three doses. Medication was not given after either spontaneous rupture of membranes or beginning of active labor.
                Among 135 patients enrolled, 68 received misoprostol and 67 received dinoprostone. The average interval from start of induction to vaginal delivery was shorter in the misoprostol group (903.3 +/- 482.1 minutes) than in the dinoprostone group (1410.9 +/- 869.1 minutes) (p < 0.001). Oxytocin augmentation of labor occurred more often in the dinoprostone group (65.7%) than in the misoprostol group (33.8%) (p < 0.001). There were no significant differences between routes of delivery. Ten of the misoprostol-treated patients (14.7%) and 13 of the dinoprostone-treated patients (19.4%) had cesarean deliveries. There was a higher prevalence of tachysystole (six or more uterine contractions in a 10-minute window for two consecutive 10-minute periods) in the misoprostol group (36.7%) than in the dinoprostone group (11.9%) (p < 0.001). However, there were no significant differences in frequency of uterine hyperstimulation or hypertonus. There was a higher prevalence of meconium passage in the misoprostol group (27.9%) than in the dinoprostone group (10.5%) (p < 0.05). There was no significant difference in frequency of abnormal fetal heart rate tracings, 1- or 5-minute Apgar scores < 7, neonatal resuscitations, or admissions to the neonatal intensive care unit between the two groups.
                Vaginally administered misoprostol is an effective agent for cervical ripening and induction of labor; however when given at this dosage, it is associated with a higher prevalence of tachysystole and meconium passage than is dinoprostone. Further studies to compare the safety of misoprostol to that of dinoprostone and to delineate an optimal dosing regimen for misoprostol are needed. To compare the safety and efficacy of vaginal misoprostol versus dinoprostone vaginal inserts for cervical ripening and labor induction.
                Two hundred singleton gestations with an indication for cervical ripening and induction of labor were randomized to receive either 50 microg of misoprostol intravaginally every 3 h or a 10-mg dinoprostone vaginal insert every 12 h for a maximum of 24 h. Statistical analysis included Student's t test, the Mann-Whitney U test, chi2 analysis and Fisher's exact test.
                Ninety-seven women received vaginal misoprostol while 89 women received the dinoprostone vaginal insert. Fourteen women were removed from the study after randomization. The interval from start of induction to vaginal delivery (794.5 +/-408 min vs. 1005.3 +/- 523 min; p < 0.02) was significantly shorter in the misoprostol group. Women receiving misoprostol were more likely to deliver vaginally both in < 12 h (44% vs. 12%; p < 0.0001) and < 24 h (68% vs. 38%; p < 0.001). A non-reassuring fetal heart rate tracing was the indication for 71.4% (20/28) of Cesarean deliveries in the misoprostol group compared to 40% (14/35) in the dinoprostone group (p = 0.03). There were no significant differences in neonatal outcomes.
                Intravaginal misoprostol and dinoprostone are safe and effective medications for use in cervical ripening before labor induction. Misoprostol results in a shorter interval from induction to delivery. However, Cesarean delivery for a non-reassuring fetal heart rate tracing was more common with misoprostol. To compare oral misoprostol solution with vaginal prostaglandin gel (dinoprostone) for induction of labour at term to determine whether misoprostol is superior.
                Randomised double blind placebo controlled trial.
                Maternity departments in three hospitals in Australia. Population Pregnant women with a singleton cephalic presentation at > or = 36+6 weeks' gestation, with an indication for prostaglandin induction of labour.
                20 mug oral misoprostol solution at ourly intervals and placebo vaginal gel or vaginal dinoprostone gel at six hourly intervals and placebo oral solution.
                Vaginal birth within 24 hours; uterine hyperstimulation with associated changes in fetal heart rate; caesarean section (all); and caesarean section for fetal distress.
                741 women were randomised, 365 to the misoprostol group and 376 to the vaginal dinoprostone group. There were no significant differences between the two treatment groups in the primary outcomes: vaginal birth not achieved in 24 hours (misoprostol 168/365 (46.0%) v dinoprostone 155/376 (41.2%); relative risk 1.12, 95% confidence interval 0.95 to 1.32; P = 0.134), caesarean section (83/365 (22.7%) v 100/376 (26.6%); 0.82, 0.64 to 1.06; P = 0.127), caesarean section for fetal distress (32/365 (8.8%) v 35/376 (9.3%); 0.91, 0.57 to 1.44; P = 0.679), or uterine hyperstimulation with changes in fetal heart rate (3/365 (0.8%) v 6/376 (1.6%); 0.55, 0.14 to 2.21; P = 0.401). Although there were differences in the process of labour induction, there were no significant differences in adverse maternal or neonatal outcomes.
                This trial shows no evidence that oral misoprostol is superior to vaginal dinoprostone for induction of labour. However, it does not lead to poorer health outcomes for women or their infants, and oral treatment is preferred by women.
                National Health and Medical Research Council, Perinatal Trials, PT0361. To compare the efficacy and safety of vaginal misoprostol (50 microg) with vaginal dinoprostone.
                Double-blind randomised trial.
                Obstetrics Department, Poissy Hospital, France.
                370 patients with medical indications for induction of labour.
                Vaginal deliveries within 24 hours, as well as time to vaginal deliveries, caesarean rates, costs, and fetal, neonatal and maternal condition.
                Compared with vaginal dinoprostone, vaginal misoprostol resulted in greater efficacy in several areas: vaginal delivery within 24 hours; time to vaginal delivery; and vaginal delivery within 12 hours. There was a non-significant increase in the caesarean section rate for fetal distress in the misoprostol group, but fewer caesarean sections for failed induction. Fetal tolerance was similar in the two groups, although significantly more neonates had a cord pH <7.20 and (non-significantly) none had meconium stained amniotic fluid in the misoprostol group. The incidence of poor neonatal outcome was similar in both groups. Subgroup analysis by indication for induction showed that the higher rates of arterial cord pH <7.20 and of meconium-stained amniotic fluid with misoprostol persisted only in possible fetal compromise. Poor neonatal outcome was less frequent in the misoprostol group in cases of induction for non-fetal indications.
                Vaginal misoprostol resulted in successful and earlier induction of labour more often than dinoprostone, but the safety of misoprostol raises some concern in potentially compromised infants. Misoprostol should be preferred to dinoprostone in cases of induction for non-fetal indications. A prospective randomised controlled trial was performed to compare the efficacy and safety of intravaginal misoprostol to that of intravaginal dinoprostone when used for cervical priming prior to the induction of labour; 126 women were recruited to the study and randomised to receive either intravaginal dinoprostone (n = 63) or misoprostol (n = 63) for cervical priming prior to induction of labour. The mean time from insertion of the priming agent to vaginal delivery was significantly shorter in the misoprostol group (925.8 versus 1577.6 minutes), the mean duration of the active length of labour was significantly shorter in the misoprostol group (353.7 versus 496.8 minutes) and more women in the misoprostol group delivered in less than 12 hours (92% versus 76.5%). Women in the misoprostol group were less likely to require a repeated dose of prostaglandin for cervical priming and less likely to require oxytocin for augmentation of labour. There was no difference in the number of women who were delivered vaginally or by Ceasarean section between the two groups. More women developed hyperstimulation during labour in the misoprostol group; however there was no difference between the groups in neonatal outcome in respect to low cord pH or Apgar score at delivery or admission to the neonatal special care nursery. To compare the efficacy of a vaginal insert administering continuous dinoprostone with vaginal suppositories containing two different doses of misoprostol for cervical ripening and induction of labor.
                In this prospective, randomized, double-blinded study, 118 patients with indications for induction of labor and an unfavorable Bishop score were randomly assigned to receive either continuous dinoprostone, misoprostol 35-microg suppositories, or misoprostol 50-microg suppositories.
                No significant differences were noted among the three groups in the change of Bishop score, induction of active labor or the time from initial treatment to delivery. Active labor occurred in roughly two-thirds of the patients in an average of about 5.7-6.7 h regardless of treatment assignment. When the two misoprostol groups were combined, a shorter interval from insertion to vaginal delivery was observed in the nulliparous women receiving misoprostol than those receiving continuous dinoprostone (21.3 vs. 27.2 h, p = 0.019). Except for the significantly lower incidence of tachysystole observed in the combined misoprostol group (3.8% vs. 15.4%, p = 0.036), there were no other significant differences between the groups in mode of delivery or in adverse maternal, fetal, or neonatal effects.
                Misoprostol suppositories appeared to be as effective and safe as continuous dinoprostone in inducing cervical ripening in this sample. To evaluate the efficacy of oral and vaginal misoprostol compared with the standard regimen using dinoprostone for induction of labor.
                We conducted a multicenter, randomized controlled trial in Cape Town, South Africa. A total of 573 women admitted for induction of labor were randomized to receive oral misoprostol, vaginal misoprostol, or the control, dinoprostone. Misoprostol was given orally or vaginally as a 50-microg dose at 6-hour intervals to a maximum of four doses. The dinoprostone gel was given as a 1-mg dose in the posterior fornix every 6 hours (maximum two doses).
                There was no significant difference in vaginal delivery rate in 24 hours between the vaginal misoprostol and dinoprostone groups. However, significantly fewer women delivered vaginally in the oral misoprostol group compared with those in the dinoprostone group (relative risk 0.71, 99% confidence interval 0.51, 0.99). The median induction to vaginal delivery time in the vaginal misoprostol, oral misoprostol, and dinoprostone groups was 12 hours, 23 hours, and 14 hours, respectively. The cesarean rate was approximately 33% in all the groups. There were more cesareans performed for fetal distress in the vaginal misoprostol group compared with the dinoprostone group (relative risk 2.86, 99% confidence interval 1.49, 5.46). There was a higher incidence of tachysystole in the vaginal misoprostol group (5.8%) compared with the other two groups: oral misoprostol (0.8%) and dinoprostone (0.8%), but this difference was not statistically significant. There were no differences in maternal or fetal complications.
                Vaginal misoprostol is as effective as dinoprostone in induction of labor, but it is associated with more tachysystole and cesarean sections for fetal distress compared with dinoprostone. Oral misoprostol results in fewer vaginal deliveries in 24 hours, but it is not associated with increased tachysystole or fetal distress. 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. The objective of this randomized prospective study was to compare the efficacy of 50 mcg vaginal misoprostol and 3 mg dinoprostone, administered every nine hours for a maximum of three doses, for elective induction of labor in a specific cohort of nulliparous women with an unfavorable cervix and more than 40 weeks of gestation.
                One hundred and sixty-three pregnant women with more than 285 days of gestation were recruited and analyzed. The main outcome measures were time from induction to delivery and incidence of vaginal delivery within 12 and 24 hours. Admission rate to the neonatal intensive care unit within 24 hours post delivery was a secondary outcome.
                The induction-delivery interval was significantly lower in the misoprostol group than in the dinoprostone group (11.9 h vs. 15.5 h, p < 0.001). With misoprostol, more women delivered within 12 hours (57.5% vs. 32.5%, p < 0.01) and 24 hours (98.7% vs. 91.4%, p < 0.05), spontaneous rupture of the membranes occurred more frequently (38.8% vs. 20.5%, p < 0.05), there was less need for oxytocin augmentation (65.8% vs. 81.5%, p < 0.05) and fewer additional doses were required (7.5% vs. 22%, p < 0.05). Although not statistically significant, a lower Caesarean section (CS) rate was observed with misoprostol (7.5% vs. 13.3%, p > 0.05) but with the disadvantage of higher abnormal fetal heart rate (FHR) tracings (22.5% vs. 12%, p > 0.05). From the misoprostol group more neonates were admitted to the intensive neonatal unit, than from the dinoprostone group (13.5% vs. 4.8%, p > 0.05). One woman had an unexplained stillbirth following the administration of one dose of dinoprostone.
                Vaginal misoprostol, compared with dinoprostone in the regimens used, is more effective in elective inductions of labor beyond 40 weeks of gestation. Nevertheless, this is at the expense of more abnormal FHR tracings and more admissions to the neonatal unit, indicating that the faster approach is not necessarily the better approach to childbirth. Our purpose was to compare the effect of vaginal administration of misoprostol (Cytotec) with that of dinoprostone (Cervidil) on cervical ripening and labor induction.
                Two hundred patients with indications for induction of labor and unfavorable cervical examinations were randomly assigned to receive vaginally administered misoprostol (prostaglandin E1) or the dinoprostone (prostaglandin E2) vaginal insert. Twenty-five microgram tablets of misoprostol were placed in the posterior vaginal fornix every 4 hours for a maximum of six doses. Additional misoprostol was not given after either spontaneous rupture of membranes, adequate cervical ripening (Bishop score of > or = 8 or cervical dilatation of > or = 3 cm), or beginning of active labor. The vaginal insert, Cervidil, containing 10 mg of dinoprostone in a timed-release preparation was placed in the posterior vaginal formix for a maximum period of 24 hours. The vaginal insert was removed for spontaneous rupture of membranes, entry into active labor, adequate cervical ripening, or abnormality of uterine contractile pattern or fetal cardiac activity.
                Of the 200 patients enrolled, 99 were randomized to misoprostol and 101 to dinoprostone. The average interval from start of induction to vaginal delivery was 1 hour shorter in the misoprostol group (1296.7 +/- 722.1 minutes) than in the dinoprostone group (1360.0 +/- 792.0 minutes), but this difference was not statistically significant (p = 0.97). Oxytocin augmentation of labor was used in 50 (50.5%) misoprostol-treated patients and 43 (43.5%) dinoprostone-treated patients (relative risk 1.14, 95% confidence interval 0.86 to 1.51, p = 0.35). There were no significant differences between routes of delivery with misoprostol or dinoprostone. Overall, 38 patients (19.3%) had cesarean deliveries. There was a significantly lower prevalence of tachysystole (six or more uterine contractions in a 10-minute window for two consecutive 10-minute periods) in the misoprostol group (7.1%) than in the dinoprostone group (18.4%) (relative risk 0.52, 95% confidence interval 0.31 to 0.89, p = 0.02). There were no significant differences in frequency of uterine hyperstimulation or hypertonus. Abnormal fetal heart rate tracings were found in 23 (23.2%) of misoprostol-treated patients and 35 (35.7%) of dinoprostone-treated patients (relative risk 0.73, 95% confidence interval 0.52 to 1.01, p = 0.0546). No significant differences were found in meconium passage, 1- or 5-minute Apgar scores < 7, neonatal resuscitations, or admissions to the neonatal intensive care unit between the two groups.
                Vaginally administered misoprostol is as effective as dinoprostone for cervical ripening and the induction of labor. Mean time intervals to delivery, need for oxytocin augmentation, and routes of delivery were similar between the two groups. Incidence of uterine tachysystole with misoprostol every 4 hours was significantly less than with dinoprostone. To compare vaginal misoprostol with dinoprostone for induction of labour.
                Randomised multicentre trial.
                Labour wards of one university hospital and two teaching hospitals.
                Six hundred and eighty-one women with indication for labour induction at >or=36 weeks of gestation, singleton pregnancy and no previous ceasarean section.
                Misoprostol (25 mcg, hospital-prepared capsule) in the posterior vaginal fornix, every four hours, maximum three times daily or dinoprostone gel (1 mg) every four hours. Oxytocin was administered if necessary.
                Primary: 'adverse neonatal outcome' (5-minute Apgar score <7 and/or umbilical cord pH <7.15). Secondary: labour duration, mode of delivery and patient satisfaction.
                Three hundred and forty-one women received misoprostol and 340 dinoprostone. The median induction-delivery interval was longer in the misoprostol group compared with the dinoprostone group (25 versus 19 hours, P= 0.008). The caesarean section rate was lower in the misoprostol group: 16.1%versus 21%, but this difference was not statistically significant RR = 0.8 (95% CI 0.6-1.04). 'Adverse neonatal outcome' was found to be similar in both groups: 21% in the misoprostol and 23% in the dinoprostone groups. Significantly fewer neonates were admitted to NICU in the misoprostol group compared with dinoprostone 19%versus 26% (RR = 0.7, 95% CI 0.5-0.98).
                Misoprostol in this dosing regimen is a safe method of labour induction. NICU admission rates were lower in the misoprostol group. No difference could be detected in patient satisfaction between groups. Prospective clinical trials were conducted to assess the safety and efficacy of 6-hourly vaginal misoprostol versus intracervical dinoprostone for induction of labor.
                A total of 120 pregnant women requiring induction of labor were recruited. Cases were randomized to receive either 50 microg vaginal misoprostol 6 hourly (group 1, n = 60) or 0.5 mg intracervical dinoprostone 6 hourly (group II, n = 60). Outcome measures, such as change in Bishop's score, need of oxytocin, induction delivery interval; complications like tachysystoly, hyperstimulation, abnormal fetal heart rate, and meconium passage were compared between two groups. Statistical analysis was performed by Wilcoxan's Rank sum and Student's t-test.
                Bishop score rise, after 6 h of initiation of therapy was significantly higher in the misoprostol group than dinoprostone, 2.98 +/- 2.57 versus 2.05 +/- 1.83 (P = 0.04). The need of oxytocin augmentation was reduced in misoprostol versus dinoprostone group, 16.6% versus 78.3% (P = <0.001). Induction delivery interval was shorter in misoprostol; 12.8 +/- 6.4 h versus 18.53 +/- 8.5 h in dinoprostone group (P = <0.01). One case (1.6%) in misoprostol group, but none in dinoprostone had tachystole (P = 1.00). Abnormal heart rate pattern was found more in misoprostol than dinoprostone 16.6% versus 4.9% (P = 0.14) and so was the incidence of cesarean section, 26.6 versus 15%, respectively (P = 0.47). Meconium passage was the same in both groups, 10% in each group.
                Vaginal misoprostol 50 microg 6-hourly is safe and effective for induction of labor with lesser need of oxytocin augmentation and shorter induction delivery interval. To compare the efficacy and safety of misoprostol (prostaglandin E(1) (PGE(1))) with dinoprostone (prostaglandin E(2) (PGE(2))) for third trimester cervical ripening and labor induction.
                Patients requiring induction of labor were randomly assigned to receive either 50 microg of intravaginal misoprostol every 4 h or 0.5 mg of intracervical dinoprostone gel every 6 h. Eligibility criteria included gestation = 36 weeks. Primary outcome was the time interval from induction to delivery; secondary outcomes were mode of delivery, perinatal outcome, and interpretation of cardiotocogram (CTG) records.
                Two hundred women were randomly enrolled to receive either misoprostol (n = 100) or dinoprostone (n = 100). Time induction-to-delivery at 12, 24 and 48 h and the need for oxytocin were reduced with misoprostol (P < 0.05). Pathological CTG tracing according to FIGO and Melchior scores were more frequent in the misoprostol-treated group (P < 0.001).
                Misoprostol shortened the induction-to-delivery interval, but is associated with a higher incidence of abnormal CTG than prostaglandin E(2). To compare the safety and efficacy of misoprostol with that of dinoprostone for the induction of labour at term, or near term.
                Three hundred and ninety-six women with term pregnancies were randomised to receive either oral or vaginal misoprostol, or dinoprostone. Women who had had a previous caesarean section (CS) or those with a malpresentation or who were parity > or = 5, were excluded. The control group received dinoprostone 1 mg inserted in the posterior fornix and repeated 6-hourly to a maximum of three doses. The study group received either oral misoprostol 20 micrograms 2-hourly to a maximum of four doses (80 micrograms), or vaginal misoprostol 25 micrograms in the posterior fornix with a switch to the oral misoprostol regimen if there was no change in the Bishop's score or no palpable uterine contractions.
                There was no significant difference in vaginal delivery rate within 24 hours between the groups (58.1% v. 58%, p = 0.633). There were no significant differences in CS rates between the groups; however, more CSs were performed for fetal distress in the misoprostol group than in the dinoprostone group (28% v. 25%). There was a significantly higher incidence of hyperstimulation in the vaginal misoprostol group (21.4%) than in the other two groups (oral misoprostol 16.5%, dinoprostone 8.9%) (p = 0.004). The incidence of meconium staining of liquor was comparable between the groups.
                In selected women, the efficacy of misoprostol for the induction of labour at term is similar to that of dinoprostone but misoprostol is associated with a higher incidence of hyperstimulation. To compare efficacy, safety, and tolerance of oral misoprostol with intracervical dinoprostone for cervical ripening and labor induction.
                Two hundred women were randomized to receive single doses of oral misoprostol 200 microg or 0.5 mg of dinoprostone intracervically every 6 hours for a maximum four doses.
                The intervals from administration of the drug to active phase of labor (11.1 hours [7-24] versus 15.8 hours [7.5-29.62], P =. 01), to delivery (14.0 hours [8.42-27.61] versus 20.2 hours [16.7-32. 8], P =.01), and to rupture of membranes (10.0 hours [4.95-24.7] versus 15.6 hours [8.2-29.2], P =.003) were significantly shorter in the misoprostol group. All those variables were not distributed normally, so results are presented as median and interquartile range. The rates of women who needed oxytocin (68% versus 52%, P =.03) and cesarean for failed induction (9% versus 1%, P =.01) were higher in the dinoprostone group.
                A single dose of 200 microg oral misoprostol was more effective for cervical ripening and labor induction than 0.5 mg of dinoprostone intracervically every 6 hours, with a maximum of four doses. To compare the efficacy of intravaginal misoprostol (Cytotec) to intracervical dinoprostone (Prepidil) for pre-induction cervical ripening.
                Sixty-one patients admitted for induction of labor, whose cervices were unfavorable (Bishop score: 4), were randomly assigned to either intravaginal placement of a 50 micrograms misoprostol tablet or intracervical administration of dinoprostone gel.
                Eighteen women (56%) in the misoprostol group and five (17%) in the dinoprostone group achieved cervical ripening within 12 hours (P = 0.007). Fewer doses of misoprostol were required to achieve cervical ripening, and the interval from induction of labor to delivery was shorter in the misoprostol group. Sixteen patients (50%) in the misoprostol group required oxytocin, whereas 26 (90%) in the dinoprostone group required oxytocin augmentation (P = 0.008). There was no significant difference in mode of delivery or neonatal outcome between the two groups.
                Vaginal misoprostol appears to be a more effective cervical ripening agent than cervical dinoprostone. The purpose of this study was to compare the relative efficacy and cost of three commercially available prostaglandin analogs, misoprostol (Cytotec), dinoprostone gel (Prepidil), and dinoprostone insert (Cervidil), as labor preinduction agents.
                One-hundred eleven women with an unfavorable cervix who underwent labor induction were assigned randomly to receive either misoprostol 50 microg every 6 hours for two doses, dinoprostone gel 0.5 mg every 6 hours for two doses, or dinoprostone insert 10 mg for one dose intravaginally. Twelve hours later, oxytocin induction was initiated per standardized protocol. Efficacy and cost of the labor preinduction/induction with the study treatments were compared.
                Mean Bishop score change (+/-SD) over the initial 12-hour interval was significantly greater in the misoprostol group (5.2 +/- 3.1) compared with the dinoprostone insert (3.2 +/- 2.3) or the dinoprostone gel groups (2.2 +/- 1.3, P <.0001). The proportion of women who reached complete dilation (68.4%, 50.0%, 51.4%, respectively; P =.14) and who were delivered (60.5%, 47.4%, 40.0%, respectively; P =.10) within 24 hours of the initiation of induction were not significantly different between the misoprostol, dinoprostone insert, and dinoprostone gel groups. Induction-to-delivery intervals, however, were significantly shorter among women who treated with misoprostol (24.0 +/- 10.8 hours) compared with either the dinoprostone gel (31.6 +/- 13.4 hours) or the dinoprostone insert (32.2 +/- 14.7 hours, P <.05). Overall mean cost per patient that was incurred by labor induction was significantly less for the misoprostol group ($1036.13) compared with the dinoprostone insert group ($1565.72) or the dinoprostone gel group ($1572.92, P <.0001). No significant differences were noted with respect to the mode of delivery or to the adverse maternal/neonatal outcome.
                Misoprostol is more cost-effective than the comparable commercial dinoprostone prostaglandin preparations as an adjuvant to labor induction in women with an unfavorable cervix. To determine whether a single outpatient dose of intravaginal misoprostol (versus intracervical dinoprostone gel) reduces the oxytocin use for induction. Despite the numerous trials examining misoprostol for induction, the efficacy of a single outpatient dose of misoprostol followed by oxytocin induction is unknown.
                Patients with a term, vertex, singleton pregnancy and a Bishop score of 6 or less were randomly assigned to receive misoprostol (n = 42, 0.25 microg intravaginally) or dinoprostone gel (n = 42, 0.5 mg intracervically) the evening before oxytocin induction. Patients were monitored for 3 hours after administration and discharged to home if fetal assessment was reassuring, for readmission the next morning for oxytocin. Primary outcomes were oxytocin dose, time, and dose intensity (dose divided by duration). Secondary outcomes were incidence of labor, uterine hyperstimulation, cesarean delivery, Apgar score. Statistics used were chi(2), Student t test, Mann-Whitney rank sum test, and Fisher exact test. P < .05 was accepted as statistically significant.
                A single dose of misoprostol significantly decreased the cumulative dose of oxytocin, the cumulative time of oxytocin administration, and the dose intensity of oxytocin (dose divided by time). Data are as follows (mean +/- standard error of the mean): oxytocin dose-dinoprostone 10,929 +/- 219 mU, misoprostol 6,081 +/- 170 mU, P = .008; oxytocin time-dinoprostone 798 +/- 11 minutes, misoprostol 531 +/- 11 minutes, P = .009; dose intensity-dinoprostone 11.3 +/- 0.1 mU/min, misoprostol 7.4 +/- 0.2 mU/min, P = .003. Misoprostol induced labor during the ripening period in 19 of 41 of patients, compared with 6 of 42 after dinoprostone (P = .002). There was no difference in cesarean delivery (dinoprostone, 8/42; misoprostol, 9/42; P = 1.00). There was no difference in short-term neonatal outcome. No patient had hyperstimulation or required cesarean delivery for nonreassuring fetal assessment during the ripening period.
                A single dose of misoprostol administered in the outpatient setting significantly decreases oxytocin use, largely due to labor within the ripening period. To compare the efficacy and safety of two prostaglandin derivatives, misoprostol and dinoprostone, for ripening the cervix and inducing labor in women with an unfavorable cervix.
                One hundred fifty-five women admitted for induction of labor to St. John's Mercy Medical Center, a teaching community hospital, were randomized to one of two methods: intravaginal misoprostol, 50 microg every 4 hours up to three doses (n = 76); and intracervical dinoprostone gel, 0.5 mg every 6 hours up to three doses (n = 79).
                Misoprostol was more effective than dinoprostone in causing cervical ripening (P = .01), inducing labor (P < .001), shortening the duration of labor (P < .001), and decreasing the need for oxytocin augmentation (P < .001). Nonreassuring fetal heart monitoring patterns associated with hyperstimulation were significantly more frequent (P < .001), and the incidence of cesarean deliveries because of this indication was significantly higher (P = .002) in patients receiving misoprostol.
                Misoprostol is an effective agent for cervical ripening and labor induction, but it causes an increase in cesarean deliveries associated with uterine hyperstimulation. The objectives of the study were to compare the efficacy and safety of intravaginal misoprostol and intravaginal dinoprostone for induction of labor and to quantify the clinical response to suspicious cardiotocographic (CTG) readings.
                One hundred and ninety-one patients were randomized to receive either 50 micro g misoprostol initially then a further identical dose 6 h later or 2 mg dinoprostone initially followed by 1 mg 6 h later, over a period of 24 h. If not in labor after 24 h, then both arms of the study would thereafter receive dinoprostone alone as per hospital protocol.
                The induction to delivery interval (1047 vs. 1355 min, p = 0.01), delivery within 12 h (35.4% vs. 18.9%, p = 0.02) and delivery within 24 h (83.3% vs. 63.3%, p = 0.01) were all shorter in the misoprostol arm. There were no differences in rates of oxytocin augmentation (p = 0.47), tachysystole (p = 0.32) and hyperstimulation syndrome (p = 0.82). There was an increase in the median number of times a doctor was called to advise on a suspicious CTG in the misoprostol group (1 vs. 2 occasions, p = 0.052), but there was no difference in neonatal outcome.
                Intravaginal misoprostol led to a shorter, more efficient labor, and although there was more anxiety related to the CTG, there was no increase in neonatal adverse effects. To compare the safety and efficacy of two different regimens of misoprostol for labor induction at term, we conducted a randomized controlled trial on women presenting for induction of labor at > or =37 weeks' gestation. Eligible women were randomized to receive intravaginal misoprostol 50 microg every 4 h or 100 microg every 6 h until any of the following: 1) adequate contraction pattern (3 contractions/10 min); 2) dilatation >3 cm; 3) artificial rupture of membranes; or 4) signs of uterine hyperstimulation. Use of oxytocin during labor was at the discretion of the managing clinician. The main outcome variable considered for analysis was cesarean section rate. Secondary outcome measures were induction to delivery interval and neonatal outcome (Apgar scores, meconium staining, and umbilical artery pH). A total of 58 women were randomized to receive either misoprostol 100 microg (n=26) or 50 microg (n=32). The 100 and 50 microg groups had similar mean Bishop's scores at induction (4.0+/-2.3 vs 4.1+/-2.2, p=0.87), rates of nulliparity, use of epidural anesthesia, and oxytocin augmentation. The number of doses of misoprostol used was similar in the two groups (1.4+/-0.6 vs 1.8+/-1.2). The mean+/-standard deviation time to delivery (hours) (11.9+/-7.3 vs 14.3+/-9.6 h, p=0.30) and cesarean section rate (35% vs 19%, p=0.30, relative risk: 1.8, 95% confidence interval 0.7-5.4) were not different in the 100 vs 50 microg group. Power analysis demonstrated that 132 women would be required in each group to achieve statistical significance in the primary outcome measure (alpha=0.05, beta=0.80). Similarly, rates of 5-minute Apgar scores <7 (4% vs 3%, p=1.0), and of meconium passage (17% vs 25%, p=0.73) were not significantly different between the two groups. To compare the efficacy and safety of one single dose of 50 pg misoprostol to one single dose of 3 mg dinoprostone administered vaginally for pre-induction cervical ripening in term-pregnant women, who had indications for induction of labor with unripe cervices.
                A randomized double-blind controlled trial.
                Bangkok Metropolitan Administration Medical College and Vajira Hospital, Bangkok, Thailand.
                One hundred and forty-three singleton pregnant women of > or = 37 weeks of gestation, who had indications for termination of pregnancy. All patients had a Bishop score of 0-6, without contraindications for labor induction.
                The subjects were stratified by parity to nullipara and multipara group. The subjects in each stratum were allocated by randomization to receive a single dose of 50 microg misoprostol or 3 mg dinoprostone, administered vaginally. Twenty-four hours after medication, oxytocin augmentation was given to both groups. Main outcome measure: The Bishop score of cervix at 24 hours after insertion of the studied drugs, the occurrence of abnormal uterine contraction, and the number of vaginal deliveries within 24, 48 hours.
                The demographic data and the initial Bishop score (median score 3.5 versus 4.0) were comparable in both groups. The change of score at 24 hours was one unit higher in misoprostol-treated patients compared with dinoprostone-treated patients (mean change score 6.5 versus 5.5, with 95 per cent CI 0.04 to 2.1, p=0.042) but was not of clinical importance. There was a higher frequency of hyperstimulation syndrome in the misoprostol group (6.9% vs 0%) during 8 hours of cervical ripening. Although the difference was not statistically significant (p=0.058), it was clinically important. Comparing vaginal deliveries between the misoprostol and dinoprostone groups, the frequencies of delivery within 24 hours were 46.3 per cent versus 35.7 per cent (p=0.350), and within 48 hours were 88.9 per cent versus 89.3 per cent (p>0.05), non-significantly different. No significant differences were noted between misoprostol and dinoprostone in terms of interval from start of medication to vaginal delivery and neonatal outcomes.
                The efficacy of a single 50 microg dose of vaginally administered misoprostol, is not clinically different to 3 mg dinoprostone in cervical ripening. Although the study was not sufficiently large to detect the differences in abnormal uterine contractions between the two groups, there was a higher frequency of hyperstimulation syndrome in the misoprostol group compared to the dinoprostone group. Close utero-fetal monitoring in misoprostol-treated patients is needed. A randomised prospective trial was carried out to compare the efficacy and safety of intravaginal Misoprostol with intracervical dinoprostone gel for induction of labour in cases of unfavourable cervix. One hundred women with an unfavourable cervix requiring induction of labour were randomised to receive either 25 microm vaginal Misoprostol 4-hourly or 0.5 mg of intracervical dinoprostone 12 hourly. The outcome measured was change in Bishop's score, percentage of women going into labour, induction to delivery interval, need for oxytocin, mode of delivery and complications. The parity, mean period of gestation and Bishop's score were similar in both the groups. The improvement in Bishop's score at 12 h was significantly better in the Misoprostol group. Induction to delivery interval was shorter in the Misoprostol group, 16.59 +/- 5.13 h vs 27.77 +/- 12.71 h. The rate of complications was comparable. Vaginal Misoprostol 25 microg 4-hourly is safe and effective for induction of labour with shorter induction to delivery interval. To compare the efficacy for Dinoprostone, intracervical foleys and misoprostol in labor trial regarding effects on cervical ripening, mode of delivery, induction to delivery interval and maternal complications i.e. tachysystole and postpartum haemorrhage.
                Randomized clinical trial. Place and Duration of Study: Hamdard University Hospital and Patel Hospital between July 2004-June 2005.
                Randomized trial was conducted such that group-A received Dinoprostone at 6 hourly intervals upto two doses. Group-B was induced with intracervical foley catheter. Group-C received 50 micro g oral misoprostol 4 hourly to a maximum of four doses. Cervical ripening, induction to delivery time interval, mode of delivery and maternal morbidity were main outcome measures. Test of proportions was used to compare the significance between the managements.
                In 226 cases, 219 (97%) were successfully induced while 7(3%) did not respond the labour induction. The rates of caesarean section in dinoprostone, intracervical foley and misoprostol were 14.7%, 14.1% and 12.3%, respectively, however, this difference was insignificant among three groups (p=0.911). Rate of earlier response (< or = 12 hours) to labor induction among three groups was insignificant (3.8% vs 4% and 13.7% respectively, p=0.125). Marginal significance of higher rate of complications was observed in those patients who were given misoprostol (p=0.08).
                In this series, all three agents were equally effective in terms of cervical ripening, induction-delivery interval, mode of delivery and maternal complications. We sought to evaluate the efficacy and safety of intravaginal misoprostol and dinoprostone for labor induction.
                One hundred eighty-nine women with singleton term pregnancies and unfavorable cervices were randomly assigned to receive intravaginal misoprostol or dinoprostone. The outcome variables were change in Bishop score, time from application to active phase of labor and delivery, fetal and maternal morbidity, and the incidence of cesarean deliveries.
                The interval from application of the initial dose to the beginning of the active phase of labor was 9.8 +/- 5.8 and 14.2 +/- 10.2 hours (P <.01), and the interval from initial dose to delivery was 15.3 +/- 9.8 and 19.1 +/- 13.2 hours (P =.027) for the misoprostol and dinoprostone groups, respectively. There were no significant differences in Bishop score change, cesarean delivery rate, and the incidence of tachysystole, hypersystole, and hyperstimulation. No maternal and neonatal adverse effects were noted.
                Intravaginal misoprostol is more effective than intravaginal dinoprostone for labor induction in low-risk patients at term with unfavorable cervices. The purpose of this study was to compare the efficacy of 3 different techniques of cervical ripening and induction.
                Patients who required cervical ripening and induction were randomized to one of 3 groups: (1) supracervical Foley catheter and intravaginal dinoprostone gel, (2) supracervical Foley catheter and 100 microg oral doses of misoprostol, or (3) serial 100-microg oral doses of misoprostol. Intravenous oxytocin was administered when a protraction disorder of labor was identified.
                There were 339 women randomized. There was no significant difference in the time from first intervention to delivery in the 3 groups (P =.546). In each group, a similar percentage of women required oxytocin (P =.103). The rates of cesarean delivery were equivalent among the groups (P =.722). Rates of tachysystole were high but statistically equivalent among the 3 groups. There were no significant differences in Apgar scores or umbilical artery pH.
                Oral 100 microg serial doses of misoprostol, with or without the use of a supracervical Foley catheter, were equivalent to the use of a supracervical Foley catheter and serial 4-mg doses of dinoprostone gel for cervical ripening and the induction of labor. Our purpose was to compare the safety and efficacy of intravaginally administered misoprostol versus prostaglandin E2 for labor induction in a double-blind, randomized trial.
                One hundred three patients with indications for labor induction (including prelabor rupture of membranes) were randomized and received either misoprostol 50 micrograms or prostaglandin E2 (dinoprostone) 3 mg intravaginally. The dose was repeated 6, 24, and 30 hours after the first dose until active labor was achieved. For proper blinding, the drugs were prepared as identical-looking vaginal tablets.
                With use of a random number-generated table 52 patients were allocated to the misoprostol group and 51 to the prostaglandin E2 group. After exclusion of 3 patients, 50 in each group were evaluated. Delivery within 24 hours after administration occurred more often in the misoprostol group (70% vs 46% in the prostaglandin E2 group, p = 0.009), and fewer patients in this group needed more than two doses (12% vs 30%, p = 0.027). No difference in cesarean section rate (12% vs 14%, p = 0.67), fetal heart rate anomalies (33% vs 34%, p = 0.89), tachysystole (8% vs 14%, p = 0.37), hyperstimulation syndrome (0% vs 2%, not significant), meconium passage (28% vs 18%, p = 0.22), and fetal outcome (Apgar score at 1 and 5 minutes, arterial and venous umbilical cord blood pH, transfer to neonatal intensive care unit) was noted between the two groups.
                Intravaginal misoprostol is a safe drug for labor induction with superior effectiveness compared with intravaginal prostaglandin E2. To compare oral misoprostol with dinoprostone for induction of labor and their effects on the fetal heart rate patterns.
                In a randomized controlled trial, 200 patients received either misoprostol 50 mug orally for every 4 h, or dinoprostone 0.5 mg intracervically for every 6 h. Cardiotocographic recordings, in 10-min windows 30, 60, and 80 min after prostaglandin administration during induction and continuously during labor, were compared between the two groups. Primary outcome for effectiveness and safety was assessed in terms of the number of vaginal deliveries within 24 h and fetal heart rate abnormalities during induction and labor respectively.
                Data from 96 patients in the misoprostol group and 95 in the dinoprostone group were analyzed. There were no significant differences in respect of the number of vaginal deliveries within 24 h (RR 1.12; 95% CI 0.88-1.42). The frequency of suspicious and pathological fetal heart rate patterns did not differ significantly but significantly more cardiotocographs in the dinoprostone group had non-reassuring baseline variability 60 min after dose administration (RR 0.33; 95% CI 0.14-0.77). Maternal and neonatal outcomes did not differ significantly.
                Oral misoprostol is as effective as intracervical dinoprostone for induction of labor with no difference in the frequency of fetal heart rate abnormalities. This study attempts to evaluate the clinical effects of prostaglandin (PG) E analogues in preinduction cervical ripening and labor induction and to compare the perinatal outcomes of these medications. Sixty women with term singleton pregnancies were randomized to receive dinoprostone vaginal tablets (group I) or misoprostol vaginal tablets (group II). The Bishop scores were evaluated before drug insertion and every 4 hours during induction. Clinical data and perinatal outcomes were also recorded. There were no significant differences in the preinduction conditions on mean initial Bishop scores between these two groups. Twelve hours after drug insertion, the mean Bishop scores were significantly better in group II (9.7 +/- 3.1 vs 7.3 +/- 2.5, p < 0.05). The mean time from insertion to delivery was shorter in group II (16.5 +/- 2.7 h vs 25.7 +/- 3.8 h, p < 0.001). There were no significant differences in spontaneous labor rate, need for oxytocin augmentation, type of delivery, and Doppler flow velocity waveforms of the umbilical artery. The average number of doses given per patient was 1.8 +/- 1.4 in group II vs 2.7 +/- 0.3 in group I (p < 0.05). The perinatal outcome was similar in the two groups. In conclusion, misoprostol not only appears to be a safe and effective agent for cervical ripening and labor induction but is also more efficient than dinoprostone. To evaluate the effectiveness and safety of the vaginal application of misoprostol for induction of labor at term, with the interval duration from labor induction to vaginal birth as the primary outcome measure.
                Two hundred twenty-two women with indications for induction of labor at term were randomized to receive either misoprostol 50 micrograms per vagina every 4 hours as needed or our standard approach (physician-chosen combinations of intracervical or vaginal dinoprostone every 6 hours, artificial rupture of membranes, and oxytocin infusion).
                Mean (+/-standard deviation) time to vaginal delivery was 753 +/- 588 minutes for misoprostol versus 941 +/- 506 minutes for the physician-chosen combination (P = .018). Oxytocin infusion was used less frequently (relative risk [RR] 0.48, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.31-0.74). There was no significant difference in cesarean rate or maternal morbidity. Neonatal outcomes, including cord-blood acid-base analysis, were not significantly different. The estimated cost per patient in Canadian dollars for prostaglandins was $0.22 with misoprostol and $70.00 with standard therapy.
                Vaginal misoprostol is a cost-effective alternative to current labor-induction protocols. We found no evidence of harm to mother or newborn in substantive outcomes. Various methods of induction of labour may be associated with risk and complications. Therefore, this study has been undertaken to compare the safety and efficacy of intra-vaginal misoprostol (PGE1 analogue) with intra-cervical dinoprostone (PGE2) in progress and induction of labour, the maternal side effects and the foetal outcome. 40 pregnant women aged between 16-35 years with indication of induction of labour participated in the study. Twenty patients (control) were administered 0.5 mg dinoprostone intra-cervically, 12 hourly while 20 patients (study group) were given misoprostol 100 microg, 4 hourly, intravaginally. The mean induction of labour initiation interval was 2.08 +/- 1.46 hours in study group and 2.21 +/- 1.20 hours in dinoprostone group. The Induction delivery interval was 6.92 +/- 4.01 hours in misoprostol group and 12.54 +/- 7.73 in dinoprostone group, whereas vaginal route of delivery was 95% in misoprostol group and 85% in dinoprostone group. Average dosages required were 1.55 +/- 1.02 in misoprostol group and 1.30 +/- 0.46 in dinoprostone group. All these result were statistically significant. Very few maternal side effects were reported in study group. There was no significant difference in foetal out come in either group. Therefore, it can be concluded that misoprostol is easy to administer and is cheap, effective, safe and convenient drug for induction of labour.
OM as an induction agent is effective at achieving vaginal delivery. It is more effective than placebo, as effective as vaginal misoprostol and results in fewer caesarean sections than vaginal dinoprostone.
Where misoprostol remains unlicenced for the induction of labour, many practitioners will prefer the legal protection of using a licenced product like dinoprostone. If using OM, clinicians should use a dose of 20 to 25 mcg in solution. Given that safety is the primary concern, the oral regimens are recommended over vaginal regimens. This is especially important in situations where the risk of ascending infection is high and the lack of staff means that women cannot be intensely monitored.