Buccal versus Vaginal Misoprostol for Term Induction of Labor: A Retrospective Cohort Study

Abstract

Objective To compare the efficacy of similar buccal and vaginal misoprostol doses for induction of labor.

Study Design Retrospective chart review of 207 consecutive women undergoing term induction of labor with misoprostol. Misoprostol route and dosing were collected. Time to delivery and other labor outcomes (e.g., vaginal delivery less than 24 hours) were compared between women receiving buccal and vaginal misoprostol.

Results There was no significant difference in time to delivery for women receiving buccal (median 18.2 hour, 95% confidence interval [CI] = [14.9, 21.5]) versus vaginal (median 18.3 hour, 95% CI = [15.0, 20.4]) misoprostol (p = 0.428); even after adjusting for covariates (p = 0.381). Women who presented with premature rupture of membranes were more likely to receive buccal misoprostol (92.7% received buccal vs. 7.3% received vaginal, p < 0.001). A similar number of women delivered vaginally in the buccal group (88.2%) and vaginal misoprostol group (86.8%, p = 0.835). The proportion of women who experienced uterine tachysystole or chorioamnionitis did not significantly differ by route of administration.

Conclusion We found no significant differences in time to delivery or other labor outcomes between buccal or vaginal dosing of misoprostol in women undergoing labor induction at term.

Keywords

misoprostol - buccal - vaginal - labor induction - term pregnancy

Note

These results were presented as a poster presentation at the 2016 Annual Clinical and Scientific Meeting of the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists in Washington, DC on May 15, 2016. Content is solely the responsibility of the authors. The supporting organizations had no role in data acquisition, analysis or interpretation, manuscript creation, or the decision to submit for publication.

• References

• 1 Martin JA, Hamilton BE, Osterman MJK, Driscoll AK, Drake P. Births: final data for 2016. Natl Vital Stat Rep 2018; 67 (01) 1-55
• 2 ACOG Committee on Practice Bulletins--Obstetrics. ACOG practice bulletin no. 107: induction of labor. Obstet Gynecol 2009; 114 (2, Pt 1): 386-397
• 3 Hofmeyr GJ, Gülmezoglu AM, Pileggi C. Vaginal misoprostol for cervical ripening and induction of labour. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2010; (10) CD000941
• 4 Souza AS, Amorim MM, Feitosa FE. Comparison of sublingual versus vaginal misoprostol for the induction of labour: a systematic review. BJOG 2008; 115 (11) 1340-1349
• 5 Saeed GA, Fakhar S, Nisar N, Alam AY. Misoprostol for term labor induction: a randomized controlled trial. Taiwan J Obstet Gynecol 2011; 50 (01) 15-19
• 6 Carlan SJ, Blust D, O'Brien WF. Buccal versus intravaginal misoprostol administration for cervical ripening. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2002; 186 (02) 229-233
• 7 Macones GA, Hankins GD, Spong CY, Hauth J, Moore T. The 2008 National Institute of Child Health and Human Development workshop report on electronic fetal monitoring: update on definitions, interpretation, and research guidelines. Obstet Gynecol 2008; 112 (03) 661-666
• 8 Pencina MJ, D'Agostino RB. ; J. PM. Overall C as a measure of discrimination in survival analysis: model specific population value and confidence interval estimation. Stat Med 2004; 23 (13) 2109-2123
• 9 Tang OS, Gemzell-Danielsson K, Ho PC. Misoprostol: pharmacokinetic profiles, effects on the uterus and side-effects. Int J Gynaecol Obstet 2007; 99 (Suppl. 02) S160-S167
• 10 Khan RU, El-Refaey H, Sharma S, Sooranna D, Stafford M. Oral, rectal, and vaginal pharmacokinetics of misoprostol. Obstet Gynecol 2004; 103 (5, Pt 1): 866-870
• 11 Muzonzini G, Hofmeyr GJ. Buccal or sublingual misoprostol for cervical ripening and induction of labour. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2004; (04) CD004221
• 12 Bennett KA, Butt K, Crane JM, Hutchens D, Young DC. A masked randomized comparison of oral and vaginal administration of misoprostol for labor induction. Obstet Gynecol 1998; 92 (4, Pt 1): 481-486
• 13 Bartusevicius A, Barcaite E, Nadisauskiene R. Oral, vaginal and sublingual misoprostol for induction of labor. Int J Gynaecol Obstet 2005; 91 (01) 2-9
• 14 Caliskan E, Bodur H, Ozeren S, Corakci A, Ozkan S, Yucesoy I. Misoprostol 50 microg sublingually versus vaginally for labor induction at term: a randomized study. Gynecol Obstet Invest 2005; 59 (03) 155-161
• 15 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 (06) 1054-1060
• 16 Towns R, Quinney SK, Pierson RC, Haas DM. Survey of provider preferences regarding the route of misoprostol for induction of labor at term. AJP Rep 2017; 7 (03) e158-e162