Download PDF
Am J Perinatol 2019; 36(07): 765-772
DOI: 10.1055/s-0038-1675219
Original Article
Thieme Medical Publishers 333 Seventh Avenue, New York, NY 10001, USA.

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

Meredith L. Dorr
1   Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Indiana University School of Medicine, Indianapolis, Indiana
,
Rebecca C. Pierson
1   Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Indiana University School of Medicine, Indianapolis, Indiana
2   Division of Clinical Pharmacology, Indiana University School of Medicine, Indianapolis, Indiana
,
Joanne Daggy
3   Department of Biostatistics, Indiana University School of Medicine, Indianapolis, Indiana
,
Sara K. Quinney
1   Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Indiana University School of Medicine, Indianapolis, Indiana
2   Division of Clinical Pharmacology, Indiana University School of Medicine, Indianapolis, Indiana
,
David M. Haas
1   Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Indiana University School of Medicine, Indianapolis, Indiana
2   Division of Clinical Pharmacology, Indiana University School of Medicine, Indianapolis, Indiana
› Author Affiliations Funding There was no funding source for this work other than internal department funds for resident research. Dr. Pierson's time as an OB-Clinical Pharmacology was supported by NIH-NIGMS: Indiana University Comprehensive Training in Clinical Pharmacology (T32GM008425).
Further Information

Publication History

30 June 2018

04 September 2018

Publication Date:
31 October 2018 (online)

Also available at
    Permissions and Reprints

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
    PubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 2 ACOG Committee on Practice Bulletins--Obstetrics. ACOG practice bulletin no. 107: induction of labor. Obstet Gynecol 2009; 114 (2, Pt 1): 386-397
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 3 Hofmeyr GJ, Gülmezoglu AM, Pileggi C. Vaginal misoprostol for cervical ripening and induction of labour. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2010; (10) CD000941
    PubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 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
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 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
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 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
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 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
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 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
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 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
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 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
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 11 Muzonzini G, Hofmeyr GJ. Buccal or sublingual misoprostol for cervical ripening and induction of labour. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2004; (04) CD004221
    PubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 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
    PubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 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
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 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
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 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
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 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
    Thieme ConnectPubMedSearch in Google Scholar