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
  • [31] Oral misoprostol versus vaginal dinoprostone for labor induction in nulliparous women at term
    Faucett, A. M.
    Daniels, K.
    Lee, H. C.
    El-Sayed, Y. Y.
    Blumenfeld, Y. J.
    JOURNAL OF PERINATOLOGY, 2014, 34 (02) : 95 - 99
  • [32] Oral Misoprostol and Vaginal Isosorbide Mononitrate for Labor Induction A Randomized Controlled Trial
    Collingham, Justin P.
    Fuh, Katherine C.
    Caughey, Aaron B.
    Pullen, Kristin M.
    Lyell, Deirdre J.
    El-Sayed, Yasser Y.
    OBSTETRICS AND GYNECOLOGY, 2010, 116 (01): : 121 - 126
  • [33] Titrated oral compared with vaginal misoprostol for labor induction - A randomized controlled trial
    Cheng, Shi-Yann
    Ming, Ho
    Lee, Jui-Chi
    OBSTETRICS AND GYNECOLOGY, 2008, 111 (01): : 119 - 125
  • [34] Vaginal Versus Oral Administration of Misoprostol for Labor Induction Among Obese Women
    Williams, Frank, III
    Fox, Courtney
    Martin, Jane
    Luo, Qingyang
    Gala, Rajiv
    OBSTETRICS AND GYNECOLOGY, 2016, 127 : 96S - 96S
  • [35] Oral and vaginal misoprostol compared with dinoprostone for induction of labor: A randomized controlled trial
    le Roux, PA
    Olarogun, JO
    Penny, J
    Anthony, J
    OBSTETRICS AND GYNECOLOGY, 2002, 99 (02): : 201 - 205
  • [36] Oral misoprostol versus vaginal dinoprostone for labor induction in nulliparous women at term
    A M Faucett
    K Daniels
    H C Lee
    Y Y EL-Sayed
    Y J Blumenfeld
    Journal of Perinatology, 2014, 34 : 95 - 99
  • [37] Titrated oral compared with vaginal misoprostol for labor induction: A randomized controlled trial
    Nassar, Anwar H.
    Abdallah, Reem
    Usta, Ihab M.
    OBSTETRICS AND GYNECOLOGY, 2008, 111 (06): : 1444 - 1445
  • [38] Oral misoprostol vs vaginal dinoprostone for labor induction in nulliparous women at term
    Faucett, Allison
    Daniels, Kay
    El-Sayed, Yasser
    Lee, Henry
    Blumenfeld, Yair
    AMERICAN JOURNAL OF OBSTETRICS AND GYNECOLOGY, 2013, 208 (01) : S53 - S53
  • [39] Term induction of labor and risk of cesarean delivery by parity
    Levine, Lisa D.
    Hirshberg, Adi
    Srinivas, Sindhu K.
    JOURNAL OF MATERNAL-FETAL & NEONATAL MEDICINE, 2014, 27 (12): : 1232 - 1236
  • [40] The indication for induction of labor impacts the risk of cesarean delivery
    Parkes, Ilana
    Kabiri, Doron
    Hants, Yael
    Ezra, Yossef
    JOURNAL OF MATERNAL-FETAL & NEONATAL MEDICINE, 2016, 29 (02): : 224 - 228