Download PDF
Am J Perinatol 2021; 38(03): 224-230
DOI: 10.1055/s-0039-1696642
Original Article

Oxytocin Compared to Buccal Misoprostol for Induction of Labor after Term Prelabor Rupture of Membranes

Taylor S. Freret
1   Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, Massachusetts
,
Kelly M. Chacón 
1   Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, Massachusetts
,
Allison S. Bryant
1   Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, Massachusetts
,
Anjali J. Kaimal
1   Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, Massachusetts
,
Mark A. Clapp
1   Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, Massachusetts
› Author Affiliations
› Further Information
    Permissions and Reprints

Abstract

Objective This study was aimed to determine if admission-to-delivery times vary between term nulliparous women with prelabor rupture of membranes (PROM) who initially receive oxytocin compared with buccal misoprostol for labor induction.

Study Design This is a retrospective cohort of 130 term, nulliparous women with PROM and cervical dilation of ≤2 cm who underwent induction of labor with intravenous oxytocin or buccal misoprostol. The primary outcome was time from admission to delivery. Linear regressions with log transformation were used to estimate the effect of induction agent on time to delivery.

Results Women receiving oxytocin had faster admission-to-delivery times than women receiving misoprostol (16.9 vs. 19.9 hours, p = 0.013). There were no significant differences in secondary outcomes between the groups. In the adjusted model, women who received misoprostol had a 22% longer time from admission to delivery (95% CI 5.0–42.0%) compared with women receiving oxytocin.

Conclusion In term nulliparous patients with PROM, intravenous oxytocin is associated with faster admission-to-delivery times than buccal misoprostol.

Keywords

prelabor rupture of membrane - induction of labor - buccal misoprostol - oxytocin

Note

This study was presented as a poster presentation at the ACOG Annual Meeting in Nashville, TN, on May 5, 2019.




Publication History

Received: 09 April 2019

Accepted: 22 July 2019

Article published online:
06 September 2019

© 2019. Thieme. All rights reserved.

Thieme Medical Publishers, Inc.
333 Seventh Avenue, 18th Floor, New York, NY 10001, USA

 

  • References

  • 1 Hannah ME, Ohlsson A, Farine D. et al. Induction of labor compared with expectant management for prelabor rupture of the membranes at term. TERMPROM Study Group. N Engl J Med 1996; 334 (16) 1005-1010
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 2 Committee on Practice B-O. ACOG Practice Bulletin No. 188: Prelabor rupture of membranes. Obstet Gynecol 2018; 131 (01) e1-e14
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 3 Magos AL, Noble MC, Wong Ten Yuen A, Rodeck CH. Controlled study comparing vaginal prostaglandin E2 pessaries with intravenous oxytocin for the stimulation of labour after spontaneous rupture of the membranes. Br J Obstet Gynaecol 1983; 90 (08) 726-731
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 4 Alfirevic Z, Aflaifel N, Weeks A. Oral misoprostol for induction of labour. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2014; (06) CD001338
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 5 Thorbiornson A, Vladic T, Stjernholm YV. Oral versus vaginal prostaglandin for labor induction. J Matern Fetal Neonatal Med 2017; 30 (07) 789-792
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 6 Dobert M, Brandstetter A, Henrich W. et al. The misoprostol vaginal insert compared with oral misoprostol for labor induction in term pregnancies: a pair-matched case-control study. J Perinat Med 2018; 46 (03) 309-316
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 7 Dorr ML, Pierson RC, Daggy J, Quinney SK, Haas DM. Buccal versus vaginal misoprostol for term induction of labor: a retrospective cohort study. Am J Perinatol 2019; 36 (07) 765-772
    Article in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 8 Alfirevic Z, Keeney E, Dowswell T. et al. Methods to induce labour: a systematic review, network meta-analysis and cost-effectiveness analysis. BJOG 2016; 123 (09) 1462-1470
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 9 Shetty A, Danielian P, Templeton A. Sublingual misoprostol for the induction of labor at term. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2002; 186 (01) 72-76
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 10 Pourali L, Saghafi N, Eslami Hasan Abadi S. et al. Induction of labour in term premature rupture of membranes; oxytocin versus sublingual misoprostol; a randomised clinical trial. J Obstet Gynaecol 2018; 38 (02) 167-171
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 11 Kim SY, Park JY, Bak SE. et al. Effect of maternal age on emergency cesarean section. J Matern Fetal Neonatal Med 2019. Doi: 10.1080/14767058.2019.1593958
    Google Scholar
  • 12 Hermann M, Le Ray C, Blondel B, Goffinet F, Zeitlin J. The risk of prelabor and intrapartum cesarean delivery among overweight and obese women: possible preventive actions. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2015; 212 (02) 241 e241-249
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 13 Attanasio LB, Hardeman RR, Kozhimannil KB, Kjerulff KH. Prenatal attitudes toward vaginal delivery and actual delivery mode: variation by race/ethnicity and socioeconomic status. Birth 2017; 44 (04) 306-314
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 14 Bregand-White JM, Kominiarek MA, Hibbard JU. Hypertension and patterns of induced labor at term. Pregnancy Hypertens 2017; 10: 57-63
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 15 Committee on Practice B-O. ACOG Practice Bulletin No. 190: Gestational diabetes mellitus. Obstet Gynecol 2018; 131 (02) e49-e64
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 16 Yin H, Hu R. A cohort study of the impact of epidural analgesia on maternal and neonatal outcomes. J Obstet Gynaecol Res 2019; 45 (08) 1435-1441
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 17 McCoy J, Downes KL, Srinivas SK, Levine LD. Postdates induction with an unfavorable cervix and risk of cesarean. J Matern Fetal Neonatal Med 2019; 32 (17) 2874-2878
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 18 Butt KD, Bennett KA, Crane JM, Hutchens D, Young DC. Randomized comparison of oral misoprostol and oxytocin for labor induction in term prelabor membrane rupture. Obstet Gynecol 1999; 94 (06) 994-999
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 19 Ngai SW, Chan YM, Lam SW, Lao TT. Labour characteristics and uterine activity: misoprostol compared with oxytocin in women at term with prelabour rupture of the membranes. BJOG 2000; 107 (02) 222-227
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 20 Mozurkewich E, Horrocks J, Daley S. et al. The MisoPROM study: a multicenter randomized comparison of oral misoprostol and oxytocin for premature rupture of membranes at term. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2003; 189 (04) 1026-1030
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 21 Lin MG, Nuthalapaty FS, Carver AR, Case AS, Ramsey PS. Misoprostol for labor induction in women with term premature rupture of membranes: a meta-analysis. Obstet Gynecol 2005; 106 (03) 593-601
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 22 Shetty A, Mackie L, Danielian P, Rice P, Templeton A. Sublingual compared with oral misoprostol in term labour induction: a randomised controlled trial. BJOG 2002; 109 (06) 645-650
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 23 Apgar BS. Current trends in cervical ripening and labor induction. Am Fam Physician 1999; 60 (02) 418-420
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 24 Bricker L, Peden H, Tomlinson AJ. et al. Titrated low-dose vaginal and/or oral misoprostol to induce labour for prelabour membrane rupture: a randomised trial. BJOG 2008; 115 (12) 1503-1511
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 25 Yount SM, Lassiter N. The pharmacology of prostaglandins for induction of labor. J Midwifery Womens Health 2013; 58 (02) 133-144 , quiz 238–139
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 26 Arrowsmith S, Wray S. Oxytocin: its mechanism of action and receptor signalling in the myometrium. J Neuroendocrinol 2014; 26 (06) 356-369
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 27 Kelly AJ, Tan B. Intravenous oxytocin alone for cervical ripening and induction of labour. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2001; (03) CD003246
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 28 Macones GA, Cahill A, Stamilio DM, Odibo AO. The efficacy of early amniotomy in nulliparous labor induction: a randomized controlled trial. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2012; 207 (05) 403 e401-405
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 29 Seaward PG, Hannah ME, Myhr TL. et al. International Multicentre Term Prelabor Rupture of Membranes Study: evaluation of predictors of clinical chorioamnionitis and postpartum fever in patients with prelabor rupture of membranes at term. Am J Obstet Gynecol 1997; 177 (05) 1024-1029
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar