Misoprostol administered sublingually at a dose of 12.5 μg versus vaginally at a dose of 25 μg for the induction of full-term labor: a randomized controlled trial

Daniele S M B Gattás, Melania M R de Amorim, Francisco E L Feitosa, José R da Silva-Junior, Lívia C G Ribeiro, Gustavo F A Souza, Alex S R Souza, Daniele S M B Gattás, Melania M R de Amorim, Francisco E L Feitosa, José R da Silva-Junior, Lívia C G Ribeiro, Gustavo F A Souza, Alex S R Souza

Abstract

Background: Labor induction is defined as any procedure that stimulates uterine contractions before labor begins spontaneously. The vaginal and oral routes of administration of misoprostol are those most used for the induction of labor in routine practice, with the recommended dose being 25 μg. Nevertheless, the sublingual route may reduce the number of vaginal examinations required, increasing patient comfort and lowering the risk of maternal and fetal infection. Based on a previous systematic review, the objective of this study was to compare the frequency of tachysystole as the main outcome measure when misoprostol is administered sublingually at the dose of 12.5 μg versus vaginally at a dose of 25 μg to induce labor in a full-term pregnancy with a live fetus.

Methods: A randomized, placebo-controlled, triple-blind clinical trial was conducted at two maternity hospitals in northeastern Brazil. Two hundred patients with a full-term pregnancy, a live fetus, Bishop score ≤ 6 and an indication for induction of labor were included. Following randomization, one group received 12.5 μg misoprostol sublingually and a vaginal placebo, while the other group received a sublingual placebo and 25 μg misoprostol vaginally. The primary outcome was the frequency of tachysystole. Student's t-test, the chi-square test of association and Fisher's exact test were used, as appropriate. Risk ratios and their 95% confidence intervals were calculated.

Results: The frequency of tachysystole was lower in the group using 12.5 μg misoprostol sublingually compared to the group using 25 μg misoprostol vaginally (RR = 0.15; 95%CI: 0.02-0.97; p = 0.002). Failure to achieve vaginal delivery within 12 and 24 h was similar in both groups. Sublingual administration was preferred to vaginal administration by women in both groups; however, the difference was not statistically significant.

Conclusion: The effectiveness of labor induction with low-dose sublingual misoprostol was similar to that achieved with vaginal administration of the recommended dose; however, the rate of tachysystole was lower in the sublingual group, and this route of administration may prove a safe alternative.

Trial registration: Registration number: NCT01406392, ClinicalTrials.gov. Date of registration: August 1, 2011.

Keywords: Administration, sublingual; Clinical trial; Labor, induced; Labor, obstetric; Misoprostol/administration & dosage; Multicenter study.

Conflict of interest statement

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Figures

Fig. 1
Fig. 1
Flow diagram of procedures for selection and monitoring of subjects (CONSORT)

References

    1. Guerra GV, Cecatti JG, Souza JP, Faundes A, Morais SS, Gulmezoglu AM, et al. World Health Organisation 2005 global survey on maternal and perinatal Health Research Group. Factors and outcomes associated with the induction of labour in Latin America. BJOG. 2009;116:1762–1772. doi: 10.1111/j.1471-0528.2009.02348.x.
    1. Ten Eikelder ML, Oude Rengerink K, Jozwiak M, De Leeuw JW, De Graaf IM, Van Pampus MG, et al. Induction of labour at term with oral misoprostol versus a Foley catheter (PROBAAT-II): a multicentre randomised controlled non-inferiority trial. Lancet. 2016;387:1619–1628. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(16)00084-2.
    1. World Health Organization . WHO recommendations for induction of labour. Geneva: World Health Organization; 2011.
    1. Jahromi BN, Poorgholam F, Yousefi G, Salarian L. Sublingual versus vaginal misoprostol for the induction of labor at term: a randomized, triple-blind, placebo-controlled clinical trial. Iran J Med Sci. 2016;41:79–85.
    1. Hofmeyr G, Gülmezoglu A, Pileggi C. Vaginal misoprostol for cervical ripening and induction of labour. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2010;10:CD000941.
    1. Boulvain M, Kelly A, Lohse C, Stan C, Irion O. Mechanical methods for induction of labour. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2001;4:CD001233.
    1. Weeks AD, Navaratnam K, Alfirevic Z. Simplifying oral misoprostol protocols for the induction of labour. BJOG. 2017;124:1642–1645. doi: 10.1111/1471-0528.14657.
    1. Muzonzini G, Hofmeyr GJ. Buccal or sublingual misoprostol for cervical ripening and induction of labour. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2004;4:CD004221.
    1. Nassar AH, Awwad J, Khalil AM, Abu-Musa A, Mehio G, Usta IM. A randomised comparison of patient satisfaction with vaginal and sublingual misoprostol for induction of labour at term. BJOG. 2007;114:1215–1221. doi: 10.1111/j.1471-0528.2007.01492.x.
    1. Souza AS, Amorim MM, Feitosa FE. Comparison of sublingual versus vaginal misoprostol for the induction of labour: a systematic review. BJOG. 2008;115:1340–1349. doi: 10.1111/j.1471-0528.2008.01872.x.
    1. Gattás DS, Souza AS, Souza CG, Florentino AV, Nóbrega BV, Fook VP, et al. Low dose of sublingual misoprostol (12.5 μg) for labor induction. Rev Bras Ginecol Obstet. 2012;34:164–169.
    1. Teixeira C, Lunet N, Rodrigues T, Barros H. The bishop score as a determinant of labour induction success: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Arch Gynecol Obstet. 2012;286:739–753. doi: 10.1007/s00404-012-2341-3.
    1. Conde-Agudelo A, Romero R, Kusanovic JP. Nifedipine in the management of preterm labor: a systematic review and metaanalysis. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2011;204:134.e1–134.20. doi: 10.1016/j.ajog.2010.11.038.
    1. Souza A, Costa A, Coutinho I, Noronha Neto C, Amorim M. Induction of labor: concepts and particularities. Femina. 2010;38:185–194.
    1. ACOG Committee on Practice Bulletins - Obstetrics ACOG practice bulletin no. 107: induction of labor. Obstet Gynecol. 2009;114:386–397. doi: 10.1097/AOG.0b013e3181b48ef5.
    1. American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists ACOG Practice Bulletin No. 106: Intrapartum fetal heart rate monitoring: nomenclature, interpretation, and general management principles. Obstet Gynecol. 2009;114:192–202. doi: 10.1097/AOG.0b013e3181aef106.
    1. Betran AP, Torloni MR, Zhang J, Ye J, Mikolajczyk R, Deneux-Tharaux C, et al. What is the optimal rate of caesarean section at population level? A systematic review of ecologic studies. Reprod Health. 2015;12:57. doi: 10.1186/s12978-015-0043-6.
    1. Moraes Filho OB, Albuquerque RM, Pacheco AJ, Ribeiro RH, Cecatti JC, Welkovic S. Sublingual versus vaginal misoprostol for labor induction of term pregnancies. Rev Bras Ginecol Obstet. 2005;27:24–31. doi: 10.1590/S0100-72032005000100006.
    1. Dias MA, Domingues RM, Schilithz AO, Nakamura-Pereira M, do Carmo Leal M. Factors associated with cesarean delivery during labor in primiparous women assisted in the Brazilian Public Health System: data from a National Survey. Reprod Health. 2016;13(Suppl 3):114. doi: 10.1186/s12978-016-0231-z.
    1. Caliskan E, Bodur H, Ozeren S, Corakci A, Ozkan S, Yucesoy I. Misoprostol 50 μg sublingually versus vaginally for labor induction at term: a randomized study. Gynecol Obstet Investig. 2005;59:155–161. doi: 10.1159/000083255.
    1. Bartusevicius A, Barcaite E, Krikstolaitis R, Gintautas V, Nadisauskiene R. Sublingual compared with vaginal misoprostol for labour induction at term: a randomised controlled trial. BJOG. 2006;113:1431–1437. doi: 10.1111/j.1471-0528.2006.01108.x.
    1. Tang OS, Schweer H, Seyberth HW, Lee SW, Ho PC. Pharmacokinetics of different routes of administration of misoprostol. Hum Reprod. 2002;17:332–336. doi: 10.1093/humrep/17.2.332.
    1. Feitosa FE, Sampaio ZS, Alencar CA, Jr, Amorim MM, Passini R., Jr Sublingual vs. vaginal misoprostol for induction of labor. Int J Gynaecol Obstet. 2006;94:91–95. doi: 10.1016/j.ijgo.2006.04.031.
    1. Tang OS, Gemzell-Danielsson K, Ho PC. Misoprostol: pharmacokinetic profiles, effects on the uterus and side-effects. Int J Gynaecol Obstet. 2007;99(Suppl 2):S160–S167. doi: 10.1016/j.ijgo.2007.09.004.
    1. Zahran KM, Shahin AY, Abdellah MS, Elsayh KI. Sublingual versus vaginal misoprostol for induction of labor at term: a randomized prospective placebo-controlled study. J Obstet Gynaecol Res. 2009;35:1054–1060. doi: 10.1111/j.1447-0756.2009.01030.x.
    1. Conde A, Ben S, Tarigo J, Artucio S, Varela V, Grimaldi P, et al. Comparison between vaginal and sublingual misoprostol 50 μg for cervical ripening prior to induction of labor: randomized clinical trial. Arch Gynecol Obstet. 2017;295:839–844. doi: 10.1007/s00404-017-4297-9.

Source: PubMed

Sponsoren und Mitarbeiter

Krankheiten

Drogeninterventionen

3
Abonnieren