A randomised double-blind study of vaginal misoprostol vs dinoprostone for cervical ripening and labour induction in prolonged pregnancy
Lee, H.Y.
Singapore Medical Journal 38(7): 292-294
1997
ISSN/ISBN: 0037-5675 PMID: 9339095 Document Number: 269544
Background: 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. Methods: A randomised double-blind study involving 50 pregnant women with prolonged pregnancy, treated at a government hospital in Malaysia, was carried out. Two hundred mu-g of intravaginal misoprostol were compared with 3 mg of dinoprostone in each treatment arm. Results: 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. Conclusion: The study showed that misoprostol was a more effective drug in labour induction.