Background/Aim: Labor is induced in 1 out of 5 pregnancies. This is why we aimed to compare two different protocols of orally administered misoprostol for the induction of labor (IOL),… Click to show full abstract
Background/Aim: Labor is induced in 1 out of 5 pregnancies. This is why we aimed to compare two different protocols of orally administered misoprostol for the induction of labor (IOL), with special regard to maternal and fetal outcome, delivery mode and duration. Patients and Methods: One hundred and twenty four patients with a medical indication for IOL were divided into two groups: Group A (n=63), which initially received 50 μg misoprostol escalated to 100 and, subsequently, to 200 μg every 4 h with a daily maximum of 600μg, between 11/2007 and 01/2008; and Group B (n=61), which initially received 25 μg misoprostol followed by 100 μg every 4 h with a daily maximum of 300 μg, between 12/2009 and 04/2010. Results: The mean administration-delivery interval was significantly lower in Group A (19.0 h) compared to Group B (27.1 h, p<0.05). Overall caesarean section rate, average birth weight, APGAR score, umbilical cord pH and meconium-stained fluid rates were similar between both groups. Conclusion: A higher dosage protocol of orally administered misoprostol significantly reduces the mean induction-delivery interval without increasing the risk for an adverse maternal or fetal outcome.
               
Click one of the above tabs to view related content.