Notice: Users may be experiencing issues with displaying some pages on stanfordhealthcare.org. We are working closely with our technical teams to resolve the issue as quickly as possible. Thank you for your patience.
 

Learn about the flu shot, COVID-19 vaccine, and our masking policy »

Stanford Health Care

Oral misoprostol versus vaginal dinoprostone for labor induction in nulliparous women at term. Journal of perinatology Faucett, A. M., Daniels, K., Lee, H. C., El-Sayed, Y. Y., Blumenfeld, Y. J. 2014; 34 (2): 95-99

Abstract

Objective:To compare the efficacy of oral misoprostol to vaginal dinoprostone for labor induction in nulliparous women.Study design:Admissions for labor induction from January 2008 to December 2010 were reviewed. Patients receiving oral misoprostol were compared with those receiving vaginal dinoprostone. The primary outcome was time from induction agent administration to vaginal delivery. Secondary outcomes included vaginal delivery within 24?h, mode of delivery and maternal and fetal outcomes.Result:A total of 680 women were included: 483 (71%) received vaginal dinoprostone and 197 (29%) received oral misoprostol. Women who received oral misoprostol had a shorter interval to vaginal delivery (27.2 vs 21.9?h, P<0.0001) and were more likely to deliver vaginally in <24?h (47% vs 64%, P=0.001). There was no increase in the rate of cesarean delivery or adverse maternal or neonatal outcomes.Conclusion:Labor induction with oral misoprostol resulted in shorter time to vaginal delivery without increased adverse outcomes in nulliparous women.

View details for DOI 10.1038/jp.2013.133

View details for PubMedID 24157494