Comparison of Misoprostol for Labor Induction: Vaginal Insert Versus Oral Application Concerning Efficiency and Safety.

Abstract

Background/aim: The aim of the present retrospective study was to examine the efficiency and safety of the induction of labor with Misoprostol, administered either vaginally or orally.

Patients and methods: This retrospective cohort study included pregnant women with a gestational age of ≥36 +0 weeks and a singleton pregnancy who underwent induction of labor with Misoprostol as vaginal insert or as tablet (oral) between January 2014 and January 2019 at the Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology of the University Hospital of Cologne. The objective of this study was to analyze the time until delivery and the maternal and neonatal outcomes.

Results: A total of 1,511 patients were included in this retrospective analysis, of whom 1,035 patients (68.5%) underwent induction of labor with a misoprostol vaginal insert (MVI) and 476 (31.5%) with tablets (oral misoprostol: OM). MVI significantly shortened the time from application to delivery (p<0.001) in comparison to OM, reduced the need for epidural anesthesia (EA) (p=0.018) without an increase in caesarean sections (CS) (p=1), ventouse deliveries (VD) (p=0.715), maternal birth injuries or a reduced neonatal outcome (APGAR-Score, umbilical cord pH).

Conclusion: MVI is superior to OM in terms of efficiency (primary outcome: time from application to delivery) and is equally safe (primary outcome: CS rate). Our study, along with existing literature, highlights the need for further research, particularly regarding neonatal outcomes. Additionally, it underscores the importance of careful consideration when inducing labor and ensuring informed consent.