Subscribe to RSS
DOI: 10.1055/a-1538-2200
Labour Induction with Misoprostol in German Obstetric Clinics: What Are the Facts on Such Use?
Article in several languages: English | deutsch
Abstract
Subject While the synthetic prostaglandin E1 analogue misoprostol is the most effect labour induction agent, its use is off-label for the most part. For this reason, and in view of its potential adverse effects and varying approaches to its administration, the drug has recently once again become a focus of critical attention. The objective of this survey was thus to establish a record of labour induction with misoprostol in German clinics and determine the impact of the negative reporting on everyday obstetric practice.
Material and Methods In this cross-sectional study, 635 obstetrics and gynaecology departments in Germany were requested by email to participate in our survey in February/March 2020. Online responses to 19 questions were requested regarding the clinic, use of misoprostol before and after the critical reporting, use of misoprostol (sourcing, method of administration, dosage, monitoring) and other labour induction methods.
Results A total of 262 (41.3%) of the clinics solicited for the survey completed the questionnaire. There were no differences regarding the care level (Perinatal Centre Level I, Perinatal Centre Level II, Clinic with Perinatal Focus or Obstetric/Private Clinic; p = 0.2104) or birth counts (p = 0.1845). In most cases, misoprostol was prepared in the clinicʼs own pharmacy (54%) or imported from another country (46%) and administered orally in tablet form (95%). Misoprostol dosage levels varied (25 µg [48%], 50 µg [83%], 75 µg [6%], 100 µg [47%] and > 100 µg [5%]). Most of the clinics used premanufactured tablets/capsules (59%), although Cytotec tablets were also divided (35%) or dissolved in water (5%). Misoprostol administration intervals were mainly every 4 hours (64%) or every 6 hours (30%). CTG checks were run in most cases before and after administration of a dose of misoprostol (78% and 76%) and before and after administration of a dose of prostaglandin E2 (both 88%). Presence of contractions led to no misoprostol (59%) or no prostaglandin E2 (64%) being administered in most cases. The critical reporting resulted in discontinuation of use of misoprostol in 17% of the clinics – mainly smaller obstetric/private clinics with fewer than 1000 births. Labour cocktails were used mainly in obstetric and private clinics (61%).
Conclusion Misoprostol is an established agent for labour induction in German clinics. The dosing schemes used vary. Improvements of currently common management practices are required, especially in the area of labour induction (CTG checks before and after administration of labour-inducing medication, no administration of prostaglandin if contractions are ongoing). The discussion of use of misoprostol in the media resulted in stoppage of its use mainly in smaller clinics.
Publication History
Received: 07 April 2021
Accepted after revision: 25 June 2021
Article published online:
09 August 2021
© 2021. The Author(s). This is an open access article published by Thieme under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonDerivative-NonCommercial License, permitting copying and reproduction so long as the original work is given appropriate credit. Contents may not be used for commecial purposes, or adapted, remixed, transformed or built upon. (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/)
Georg Thieme Verlag KG
Rüdigerstraße 14, 70469 Stuttgart, Germany
-
References/Literatur
- 1 Ornat L, Alonso-Ventura V, Bueno-Notivol J. et al. Health Outcomes and Systematic Analyses (HOUSSAY) Research Group. Misoprostol combined with cervical single or double balloon catheters versus misoprostol alone for labor induction of singleton pregnancies: a meta-analysis of randomized trials. J Matern Fetal Neonatal Med 2020; 33: 3453-3468
- 2 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: 1462-1470
- 3 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
- 4 Chen W, Xue J, Gaudet L. et al. Meta-analysis of Foley catheter plus misoprostol versus misoprostol alone for cervical ripening. Int J Gynaecol Obstet 2015; 129: 193-198
- 5 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
- 6 Liu A, Lv J, Hu Y. et al. Efficacy and safety of intravaginal misoprostol versus intracervical dinoprostone for labor induction at term: a systematic review and meta-analysis. J Obstet Gynaecol Res 2014; 40: 897-906
- 7 Fox NS, Saltzman DH, Roman AS. et al. Intravaginal misoprostol versus Foley catheter for labour induction: a meta-analysis. BJOG 2011; 118: 647-654
- 8 Hofmeyr GJ, Gülmezoglu AM, Pileggi C. Vaginal misoprostol for cervical ripening and induction of labour. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2010; 2010 (10) CD000941
- 9 Austin SC, Sanchez-Ramos L, Adair CD. Labor induction with intravaginal misoprostol compared with the dinoprostone vaginal insert: a systematic review and metaanalysis. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2010; 202: 624.e1-624.e9
- 10 Souza AS, Amorim MM, Feitosa FE. Comparison of sublingual versus vaginal misoprostol for the induction of labour: a systematic review. BJOG 2008; 115: 1340-1349
- 11 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
- 12 Rahman H, Pradhan A, Kharka L. et al. Comparative evaluation of 50 microgram oral misoprostol and 25 microgram intravaginal misoprostol for induction of labour at term: a randomized trial. J Obstet Gynaecol Can 2013; 35: 408-416
- 13 Schweizerische Gesellschaft für Gynäkologie und Geburtshilfe (SGGG). Expertenbrief Nr. 63, Misoprostol zur Geburtseinleitung. Accessed February 15, 2021 at: https://www.sggg.ch/fileadmin/user_upload/63_Misoprostol_zur_Geburtseinleitung.pdf
- 14 American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists Committee on Obstetric Practice. ACOG Committee Opinion No. 342: induction of labor for vaginal birth after cesarean delivery. Obstet Gynecol 2006; 108: 465-468
- 15 Kehl S, Hösli I, Pecks U. et al. Induction of labour. Guideline of the German Society of Gynecology and Obstetrics (S2k, AWMF Registry No. 015-088, December 2020). Accessed February 14, 2021 at: https://www.awmf.org/leitlinien/detail/ll/015-088.html
- 16 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
- 17 Wing DA, Lovett K, Paul RH. Disruption of prior uterine incision following misoprostol for labor induction in women with previous cesarean delivery. Obstet Gynecol 1998; 91 (5 Pt 2): 828-830
- 18 Ophir E, Odeh M, Hirsch Y. et al. Uterine rupture during trial of labor: controversy of inductionʼs methods. Obstet Gynecol Surv 2012; 67: 734-745
- 19 Rath W, Tsikouras P. Misoprostol for Labour Induction after Previous Caesarean Section – Forever a “No Go”?. Geburtshilfe Frauenheilkd 2015; 75: 1140-1147
- 20 Alfirevic Z, Aflaifel N, Weeks A. Oral misoprostol for induction of labour. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2014; (06) CD001338
- 21 Scharl A, Abou-Dakn M, Kehl S. „Zur Geburt ein Magenmittel“ – ein Lehrstück. Geburtshilfe Frauenheilkd 2020; 80: 480-483
- 22 Voigt F, Goecke TW, Najjari L. et al. Off-label use of misoprostol for labor induction in Germany: a national survey. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol 2015; 187: 85-89
- 23 Rote-Hand-Brief zu Cytotec® (Misoprostol): Risiken im Zusammenhang mit einer Anwendung zur Geburtseinleitung außerhalb der Zulassung („off-label-use“) 2020. Accessed December 20, 2020 at: https://www.bfarm.de/SharedDocs/Risikoinformationen/Pharmakovigilanz/DE/RHB/2020/rhb-cytotec.pdf?__blob=publicationFile&v=5
- 24 WHO. WHO Recommendations for Induction of Labour. Geneva: World Health Organization; 2011. Accessed December 13, 2020 at: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK131963/
- 25 Gebrauchsinformation: Information für Patienten, Angusta® 25 Mikrogramm Tabletten. 2020. Accessed April 02, 2021 at: https://medikamio.com/downloads/drugs/angusta-25-mikrogramm-tabletten.pdf
- 26 Henrich W, Dudenhausen JW, Hanel C. et al. [Oral misoprostol against vaginal dinoprostone for labor induction at term: a randomized comparison]. Z Geburtshilfe Neonatol 2008; 212: 183-188
- 27 Kehl S, Weiss C, Dammer U. et al. [Induction of Labour In Growth Restricted and Small for Gestational Age Fetuses – A Historical Cohort Study]. Z Geburtshilfe Neonatol 2019; 223: 40-47
- 28 Puhl A, Weiss C, Schneid A. et al. [Does Induction of Labor for Preterm Premature Rupture of Membranes at 34 Weeks of Gestation Increase the Risk for Cesarean Section?]. Z Geburtshilfe Neonatol 2020; 224: 269-274
- 29 Helmig RB, Hvidman LE. An audit of oral administration of Angusta(R) (misoprostol) 25 microg for induction of labor in 976 consecutive women with a singleton pregnancy in a university hospital in Denmark. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand 2020; 99: 1396-1402
- 30 AWMF-Leitlinie 015/031 (S1). Anwendung von Prostaglandinen in Geburtshilfe und Gynäkologie. 2010. Accessed December 17, 2020 at: https://www.awmf.org/uploads/tx_szleitlinien/015-031_S1_Anwendung_von_Prostaglandinen_in_Geburtshilfe_und_Gynaekologie_abgelaufen.pdf
- 31 RCOG Green-top Guideline No. 45. Birth after previous caesarean birth. October 2015. Accessed December 13, 2020 at: https://www.rcog.org.uk/globalassets/documents/guidelines/gtg_45.pdf
- 32 Society of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists of Canada. SOGC clinical practice guidelines. Guidelines for vaginal birth after previous caesarean birth. Number 155 (Replaces guideline Number 147), February 2005. Int J Gynaecol Obstet 2005; 89: 319-331
- 33 Holmes OM. Induction of Labor: Using Quinin, Castor Oil, Rupture of Membranes, and Nasal Pituitrin. Cal West Med 1934; 41: 241-244
- 34 Nabors GC. Castor oil as an adjunct to induction of labor: critical re-evaluation. Am J Obstet Gynecol 1958; 75: 36-38
- 35 Kelly AJ, Kavanagh J, Thomas J. Castor oil, bath and/or enema for cervical priming and induction of labour. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2013; 2013 (07) CD003099
- 36 Knauß A, Strunz K, Wöckel A. et al. Geburtseinleitung mit Rizinusöl – Ergebnisse der Ulmer Rizinus-Studie. Die Hebamme 2009; 22: 216-218
- 37 National Institute for Health and Care Excellence. Inducing labor (NICE guideline CG70). 2008. Accessed September 10, 2019 at: https://www.nice.org.uk/Guidance/CG70
- 38 Bossung V, Rath W, Rody A. et al. Heterogenous use of misoprostol for induction of labour: results of an online survey among midwives in German-speaking countries. Arch Gynecol Obstet 2021;