Effectiveness and safety of vaginal versus sublingual misoprostol for cervical ripening and induction of labor: A randomized controlled trial

R. Okonkwo, A. Onyeabochukwu, E. Izuka, O. Onyegbule, C. Duke-Onyeabo, C. Obiora-Izuka, U. Nwagha
{"title":"Effectiveness and safety of vaginal versus sublingual misoprostol for cervical ripening and induction of labor: A randomized controlled trial","authors":"R. Okonkwo, A. Onyeabochukwu, E. Izuka, O. Onyegbule, C. Duke-Onyeabo, C. Obiora-Izuka, U. Nwagha","doi":"10.4103/ijmh.ijmh_59_22","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Background: Vaginal misoprostol is a highly effective method of cervical ripening and induction of labor; however, it is associated with some complications. Therefore, there is need to explore other routes of administration that may be safer, acceptable, and also effective. Objective: The aim of this study was to compare the effectiveness and safety of vaginal versus sublingual misoprostol for cervical ripening and induction of labor. Materials and Methods: This was a randomized controlled trial conducted among booked antenatal women in Owerri, South-East Nigeria. The eligible participants were randomized to receive either 25 μg of misoprostol vaginally (n = 90) or 25 μg sublingually (n = 90). Outcome measures included delivery within 24 h, induction to delivery interval, cesarean section rate, side effects of misoprostol, Apgar Score at birth, and admission into the Neonatal Intensive Care Unit. Results: There was no significant difference in the effectiveness and side effects of both routes of administration (p > 0.05). The results were comparable in both groups, except for the time to reach the active phase of labor (vaginal route 16.64 ± 9.12 vs. sublingual route 13.78 ± 7.47, P = 0.023) and the number of doses of misoprostol used (vaginal route 2.81 ± 1.53 vs. sublingual route 2.34 ± 1.49, P = 0.040). Conclusion: The effectiveness of cervical ripening and induction of labor is comparable in both groups and the side effect profile is also similar. Hence, the sublingual route is as effective and as safe as the vaginal route but with added advantage of shortening the duration of active phase of labor and requiring less doses for induction of labor.","PeriodicalId":14106,"journal":{"name":"International Journal of Medicine and Health Development","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2023-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"International Journal of Medicine and Health Development","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.4103/ijmh.ijmh_59_22","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: Vaginal misoprostol is a highly effective method of cervical ripening and induction of labor; however, it is associated with some complications. Therefore, there is need to explore other routes of administration that may be safer, acceptable, and also effective. Objective: The aim of this study was to compare the effectiveness and safety of vaginal versus sublingual misoprostol for cervical ripening and induction of labor. Materials and Methods: This was a randomized controlled trial conducted among booked antenatal women in Owerri, South-East Nigeria. The eligible participants were randomized to receive either 25 μg of misoprostol vaginally (n = 90) or 25 μg sublingually (n = 90). Outcome measures included delivery within 24 h, induction to delivery interval, cesarean section rate, side effects of misoprostol, Apgar Score at birth, and admission into the Neonatal Intensive Care Unit. Results: There was no significant difference in the effectiveness and side effects of both routes of administration (p > 0.05). The results were comparable in both groups, except for the time to reach the active phase of labor (vaginal route 16.64 ± 9.12 vs. sublingual route 13.78 ± 7.47, P = 0.023) and the number of doses of misoprostol used (vaginal route 2.81 ± 1.53 vs. sublingual route 2.34 ± 1.49, P = 0.040). Conclusion: The effectiveness of cervical ripening and induction of labor is comparable in both groups and the side effect profile is also similar. Hence, the sublingual route is as effective and as safe as the vaginal route but with added advantage of shortening the duration of active phase of labor and requiring less doses for induction of labor.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
阴道与舌下米索前列醇用于宫颈成熟和引产的有效性和安全性:一项随机对照试验
背景:阴道米索前列醇是一种非常有效的宫颈成熟和引产方法;然而,它与一些并发症有关。因此,有必要探索其他可能更安全、可接受且有效的给药途径。目的:本研究的目的是比较阴道米索前列醇与舌下米索前列醇用于宫颈成熟和引产的有效性和安全性。材料和方法:这是一项随机对照试验,在尼日利亚东南部奥韦里的预定产前妇女中进行。符合条件的参与者随机接受25 μg的米索前列醇阴道治疗(n = 90)或25 μg舌下治疗(n = 90)。结局指标包括24小时内分娩、诱导分娩间隔、剖宫产率、米索前列醇副作用、出生时Apgar评分、新生儿重症监护病房入住情况。结果:两种给药方式的疗效和不良反应比较,差异均无统计学意义(p > 0.05)。除了到达产程的时间(阴道途径16.64±9.12 vs舌下途径13.78±7.47,P = 0.023)和使用米索前列醇的剂量(阴道途径2.81±1.53 vs舌下途径2.34±1.49,P = 0.040)外,两组的结果具有可比性。结论:两组的宫颈催熟和引产效果相当,不良反应也相似。因此,舌下路径与阴道路径一样有效和安全,但具有缩短产程活跃期持续时间和较少引产剂量的额外优势。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Analysis of the incidence of polypharmacy in cases of adverse drug reactions at a Tertiary Care Centre in India Knowledge, perception, and readiness of health professionals towards the use of electronic health record during COVID-19 pandemic in Lagos, Nigeria Diet-mediated immune optimization as a preventive and therapeutic adjunct for management of multiple endocrine neoplasia Unmet need for assisted reproductive technology in Nigerian Tertiary Hospitals: An unspoken menace Factors influencing routine vaccination uptake and completion among children aged 12–23 months in Ilorin, North-Central Nigeria: A cross-sectional survey
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1