Misoprostol versus dinoprostone for cervical priming prior to induction of labour in term pregnancy: A randomised controlled trial

Shelley Rowlands, Robin Bell, Sue Donath, Sarah Morrow, Brian J. Trudinger

Research output: Contribution to journalArticleResearchpeer-review

11 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

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 Caesarean 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.

Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)145-152
Number of pages8
JournalAustralian and New Zealand Journal of Obstetrics and Gynaecology
Volume41
Issue number2
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - 1 Jan 2001
Externally publishedYes

Cite this