Oral or Vaginal Misoprostol for Labor Induction and Cesarean Delivery Risk

被引:12
|
作者
Handal-Orefice, Roxane C. [1 ]
Friedman, Alexander M.
Chouinard, Sujata M.
Eke, Ahizechukwu C.
Feinberg, Bruce
Politch, Joseph
Iverson, Ronald E.
Yarrington, Christina D.
机构
[1] Columbia Univ, Coll Phys & Surg, Dept Obstet & Gynecol, New York, NY 10027 USA
来源
OBSTETRICS AND GYNECOLOGY | 2019年 / 134卷 / 01期
关键词
D O I
10.1097/AOG.0000000000003274
中图分类号
R71 [妇产科学];
学科分类号
100211 ;
摘要
OBJECTIVE: To evaluate whether cervical ripening with oral misoprostol increases cesarean delivery risk and prolongs time to vaginal delivery compared with vaginal misoprostol in a predominantly overweight population. METHODS: This single center, retrospective cohort study was performed at a tertiary care academic medical center and compared labor induction outcomes with vaginal misoprostol to outcomes with oral misoprostol after a complete institutional shift to oral misoprostol. Labor induction using 25 micrograms vaginal misoprostol in 20132014 was compared with 50 micrograms oral misoprostol in 2014-2015. The primary outcome was cesarean delivery. Secondary outcomes included time to vaginal delivery, uterine tachysystole, maternal hemorrhage, and composite adverse neonatal outcomes. Demographics and outcomes were analyzed using standard statistical tests. Multivariable regression models accounting for potential confounders were created for the primary and secondary outcomes with adjusted odds ratios (aOR) as the measures of effect. RESULTS: There were 138 women in the oral and 138 women in the vaginal misoprostol groups. In the overall cohort, the median (interquartile range) body mass index was 31.7 (28.2-36.8) and most women (72%) were of either black or Hispanic race or ethnicity. The frequency of cesarean delivery was higher in the oral than the vaginal misoprostol group (32% vs 21%; P=.04). The adjusted odds of cesarean was higher with oral misoprostol (aOR 2.01; 95% CI 1.07-3.76). Among nulliparous women, the frequency of cesarean delivery was 41% in the oral and 28% in the vaginal misoprostol groups (aOR 2.79; 95% CI 1.26-6.19). Women had a longer time to vaginal delivery in the oral compared with vaginal misoprostol group (41 vs 31 hours respectively, P=.01). Tachysystole occurred more frequently with vaginal misoprostol (20% vs 11%; P=.04). CONCLUSION: Compared with vaginal misoprostol, oral misoprostol may be associated with increased risk of cesarean delivery and longer time to vaginal delivery.
引用
收藏
页码:10 / 16
页数:7
相关论文
共 50 条
  • [1] Induction of labor by vaginal misoprostol in patients with previous cesarean delivery
    Cunha, M
    Bugalho, A
    Bique, C
    Bergström, S
    ACTA OBSTETRICIA ET GYNECOLOGICA SCANDINAVICA, 1999, 78 (07) : 653 - 654
  • [2] Oral or vaginal misoprostol for induction of labor
    Toppozada, MK
    Anwar, MYM
    Hassan, HA
    ElGazaerly, WS
    INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF GYNECOLOGY & OBSTETRICS, 1997, 56 (02) : 135 - 139
  • [3] Induction of Labor: oral versus vaginal Misoprostol
    Lorenz, Judith
    GEBURTSHILFE UND FRAUENHEILKUNDE, 2019, 79 (10) : 1008 - +
  • [4] A comparison of labor induction by oral and vaginal misoprostol
    Pongsatha, S
    Vijittrawiwat, A
    Tongsong, T
    INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF GYNECOLOGY & OBSTETRICS, 2005, 88 (02) : 140 - 141
  • [5] Oral, vaginal and sublingual misoprostol for induction of labor
    Bartusevicius, A
    Barcaite, E
    Nadisauskiene, R
    INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF GYNECOLOGY & OBSTETRICS, 2005, 91 (01) : 2 - 9
  • [6] A comparison of oral and vaginal misoprostol for induction of labor
    Uludag, S
    Saricali, FS
    Madazli, R
    Cepni, I
    EUROPEAN JOURNAL OF OBSTETRICS & GYNECOLOGY AND REPRODUCTIVE BIOLOGY, 2005, 122 (01) : 57 - 60
  • [7] Oral versus vaginal misoprostol for labor induction
    Hall, R
    Duarte-Gardea, M
    Harlass, F
    OBSTETRICS AND GYNECOLOGY, 2002, 99 (06): : 1044 - 1048
  • [8] Titrated oral misoprostol solution versus vaginal misoprostol for labor induction
    Souza, Alex S. R.
    Feitosa, Francisco E. L.
    Costa, Aurelio A. R.
    Pereira, Ana P. R.
    Carvalho, Andreza S.
    Paixao, Renata M.
    Katz, Leila
    Arnorim, Melania M. R.
    INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF GYNECOLOGY & OBSTETRICS, 2013, 123 (03) : 207 - 212
  • [9] Oral versus vaginal administration of misoprostol for labor induction
    Bower, DJ
    Meurer, LN
    JOURNAL OF FAMILY PRACTICE, 1999, 48 (01): : 9 - 10
  • [10] Sublingual compared with oral and vaginal misoprostol for labor induction
    Elhassan, E. M.
    Nasr, A. M.
    Adam, I.
    INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF GYNECOLOGY & OBSTETRICS, 2007, 97 (02) : 153 - 154