Low-dose Oral Misoprostol after Cervical Ripening with a Double-balloon Catheter: 25 µg or 50 µg?

Abstract

Purpose

Misoprostol is used in low doses for the induction of labor. It is still not clear, however, which of the approved doses (25 µg or 50 µg) is more beneficial. The aim of this study was to investigate whether oral misoprostol at a dose of 25 µg or at a dose of 50 µg should be preferred to induce labor after cervical ripening with a double-balloon catheter.

Material and Methods

This retrospective cohort study analyzed full-term pregnancies (≥ 37 + 0 GW) in which sequential induction of labor was carried out using a double-balloon catheter followed by oral administration of misoprostol. The patients were divided into two groups: Group 1 received 50 µg misoprostol every four hours and Group 2 received 25 µg misoprostol every two hours. The primary target parameter was the rate of caesarean sections. Secondary target parameters included the interval from induction to delivery, the rate of spontaneous births, vaginal operative deliveries, and neonatal outcomes.

Results

967 patients were included in the study: 514 in Group 1 and 453 in Group 2. There was no significant difference in the rate of caesarean sections between the two groups (p = 0.688). However, significantly more women in Group 2 had unsuccessful induction of labor, defined as a vaginal birth after 72 hours (15.8% vs. 8.1%, p = 0.001). But fewer neonates from Group 2 required transfer to the neonatal department (10.6% vs. 18.5%, p < 0.001).

Conclusion

The study found no difference in the rate of caesarean sections for the different doses of misoprostol. However the rate of vaginal deliveries only occurring after 72 hours was higher in the group treated with 25 µg misoprostol, while more neonates required transfer to the neonatal department in the group receiving 50 µg misoprostol.

Keywords

induction of labor - misoprostol - double-balloon cervical ripening catheter - caesarean section - neonatal outcome

Publication History

Received: 22 August 2024

Accepted after revision: 08 December 2024

Article published online:
06 February 2025

• References/Literatur

• 1 Huisman CM, Jozwiak M, de Leeuw JW. et al. Cervical ripening in the Netherlands: a survey. Obstet Gynecol Int 2013; 2013: 745159
• 2 Kehl S, Weiss C, Rath W. et al. Labour Induction with Misoprostol in German Obstetric Clinics: What Are the Facts on Such Use?. Geburtshilfe Frauenheilkd 2021; 81: 955-965
• 3 de Vaan MD, Ten Eikelder ML, Jozwiak M. et al. Mechanical methods for induction of labour. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2023; (03) CD001233
• 4 Kehl S, Hösli I, Pecks U. et al. Induction of Labour. Guideline of the DGGG, OEGGG and SGGG (S2k, AWMF Registry No. 015–088, December 2020). Geburtshilfe Frauenheilkd 2021; 81: 870-895
• 5 Alfirevic Z, Aflaifel N, Weeks A. Oral misoprostol for induction of labour. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2014; (06) CD001338
• 6 Alfirevic Z, Keeney E, Dowswell T. et al. Which method is best for the induction of labour? A systematic review, network meta-analysis and cost-effectiveness analysis. Health Technol Assess 2016; 20: 1-584
• 7 Chen W, Xue J, Peprah MK. et al. A systematic review and network meta-analysis comparing the use of Foley catheters, misoprostol, and dinoprostone for cervical ripening in the induction of labour. BJOG 2016; 123: 346-354
• 8 Robinson D, Campbell K, Hobson SR. et al. Guideline No. 432c: Induction of Labour. J Obstet Gynaecol Can 2023; 45: 70-77.e3
• 9 Kehl S, Hösli I, Pecks U. et al. Induction of Labour. Guideline of the DGGG, OEGGG and SGGG (S2k, AWMF Registry No. 015–088, December 2020). Geburtshilfe Frauenheilkd 2021; 81: 870-895
• 10 National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE). Inducing labour [Internet] (National Institute for Health and Care Excellence: Guidelines). London 2021 Accessed November 25, 2022 at: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK579537/
• 11 ACOG Practice Bulletin No. 107: Induction of labor. Obstet Gynecol [Anonym]. 2009; 114: 386-397
• 12 Gemeinsamer Bundesausschuss. Nutzenbewertungsverfahren zum Wirkstoff Misoprostol (Bekannter Wirkstoff mit neuem Unterlagenschutz: Geburtseinleitung) [Internet]. Accessed July 29, 2024 at: https://www.g-ba.de/bewertungsverfahren/nutzenbewertung/727/#beschluesse
• 13 Kerr RS, Kumar N, Williams MJ. et al. Low-dose oral misoprostol for induction of labour. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2021; (06) CD014484
• 14 McMaster K, Sanchez-Ramos L, Kaunitz A. Balancing the efficacy and safety of misoprostol: a meta-analysis comparing 25 versus 50 micrograms of intravaginal misoprostol for the induction of labour. BJOG 2015; 122: 468-476
• 15 Sanchez-Ramos L, Kaunitz AM, Delke I. Labor induction with 25 microg versus 50 microg intravaginal misoprostol: a systematic review. Obstet Gynecol 2002; 99: 145-151
• 16 Thaisomboon A, Russameecharoen K, Wanitpongpan P. et al. Comparison of the efficacy and safety of titrated oral misoprostol and a conventional oral regimen for cervical ripening and labor induction. Int J Gynaecol Obstet 2012; 116: 13-16
• 17 Deutsche Gesellschaft für Ultraschall in der Medizin e.V. (DEGUM), Deutsche Gesellschaft für Gynäkologie und Geburtshilfe e.V. (DGGG). S2e LL Ersttrimester Diagnostik und Therapie @ 11–13+6 Schwangerschaftswochen [Internet]. 2024 Accessed January 22, 2024 at: https://register.awmf.org/de/leitlinien/detail/085-002
• 18 Kehl S, Dötsch J, Hecher K. et al. Intrauterine Growth Restriction. Guideline of the German Society of Gynecology and Obstetrics (S2k-Level, AWMF Registry No. 015/080, October 2016). Geburtshilfe Frauenheilkd 2017; 77: 1157-1173
• 19 Roos N, Sahlin L, Ekman-Ordeberg G. et al. Maternal risk factors for postterm pregnancy and cesarean delivery following labor induction. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand 2010; 89: 1003-1010
• 20 Valgeirsdóttir IR, Hanson U, Schwarcz E. et al. Diet-Treated Gestational Diabetes Mellitus Is an Underestimated Risk Factor for Adverse Pregnancy Outcomes: A Swedish Population-Based Cohort Study. Nutrients 2022; 14: 3364
• 21 Patel RR, Peters TJ, Murphy DJ. Prenatal risk factors for Caesarean section. Analyses of the ALSPAC cohort of 12,944 women in England. Int J Epidemiol 2005; 34: 353-367
• 22 Pretscher J, Weiss C, Dammer U. et al. Influence of Preeclampsia on Induction of Labor at Term: A Cohort Study. In Vivo 2020; 34: 1195-1200
• 23 Tolcher MC, Holbert MR, Weaver AL. et al. Predicting Cesarean Delivery After Induction of Labor Among Nulliparous Women at Term. Obstet Gynecol 2015; 126: 1059-1068
• 24 Drummond R, Patel M, Myers M. et al. Class III obesity is an independent risk factor for unsuccessful induction of labor. AJOG Glob Rep 2022; 2: 100109
• 25 Schmidt M, Schaefer-Graf UM. The German guideline “Obesity in pregnancy”: comparison with the international approach. Arch Gynecol Obstet 2024; 309: 1699-1705