Oral misoprostol for induction of labour at term: randomised controlled trial

被引:35
作者
Dodd, JM [1 ]
Crowther, CA [1 ]
Robinson, JS [1 ]
机构
[1] Univ Adelaide, Dept Obstet & Gynaecol, Womens & Childrens Hosp, Adelaide, SA 5006, Australia
来源
BMJ-BRITISH MEDICAL JOURNAL | 2006年 / 332卷 / 7540期
关键词
D O I
10.1136/bmj.38729.513819.63
中图分类号
R5 [内科学];
学科分类号
1002 ; 100201 ;
摘要
Objective To compare oral misoprostol solution with vaginal prostaglandin gel (dinoprostone) for induction of tabour at term to determine whether misoprostol is superior. Design Randomised double blind placebo controlled trial. Setting Maternity departments in three hospitals in Australia. Population Pregnant women with a singleton cephalic presentation at >= 36+6 weeks' gestation, with an indication for prostaglandin induction of tabour. Interventions 20 mu g oral misoprostol solution at two hourly intervals and placebo vaginal gel or vaginal dinoprostone gel at six hourly intervals and placebo oral solution. Main outcome measures Vaginal birth within 24 hours; uterine hyperstimulation with associated changes in fetal heart rate; caesarean section (all); and caesarean section for fetal distress. Results 741 women were randomised, 365 to the misoprostol group and 376 to the vaginal dinoprostone group. There were no significant differences between the two treatment groups in the primary outcomes: vaginal birth not achieved in 24 hours (misoprostol 168/365 (46.0%) v dinoprostone 155/376 (41.2%); relative risk 1.12,95% confidence interval 0.95 to 1.32; P=0.134), caesarean section (83/365 (22.7%) v 100/376 (26.6%); 0.82, 0.64 to 1.06; P=0.127), caesarean section for fetal distress (32/365 (8.8%) v 35/376 (9.30/6); 0.91, 0.57 to 1.44; P=0.679), or uterine hyperstimulation with changes in fetal heart rate (3/365 (0.8%) v 6/376 (1.6%6); 0.55, 0.14 to 2.21; P=0.401). Although there were differences in the process of tabour induction, there were no significant differences in adverse maternal or neonatal outcomes. Conclusions This trial shows no evidence that oral misoprostol is superior to vaginal dinoprostone for, induction of tabour. However, it does not lead to poorer health outcomes for women or their infants, and oral treatment is preferred by women. Trial registration National Health and, Medical Research Council, Perinatal Trials, PT0361.
引用
收藏
页码:509 / 511
页数:5
相关论文
共 22 条
[1]  
ALFIREVIC Z, 2005, COCHRANE DB SYST REV
[2]  
CHALMERS I, 1989, EFFECTIVE CARE PREGN, P59
[3]   CHEMISTRY AND SYNTHETIC DEVELOPMENT OF MISOPROSTOL [J].
COLLINS, PW ;
PAPPO, R ;
DAJANI, EZ .
DIGESTIVE DISEASES AND SCIENCES, 1985, 30 (11) :S114-S117
[4]   MISOPROSTOL - DISCOVERY, DEVELOPMENT, AND CLINICAL-APPLICATIONS [J].
COLLINS, PW .
MEDICINAL RESEARCH REVIEWS, 1990, 10 (02) :149-172
[5]  
CURTIS P, 1987, J REPROD MED, V32, P91
[6]   Oral misoprostol or vaginal dinoprostone for labor induction:: A randomized controlled trial [J].
Dällenbach, P ;
Boulvain, M ;
Viardot, C ;
Irion, O .
AMERICAN JOURNAL OF OBSTETRICS AND GYNECOLOGY, 2003, 188 (01) :162-167
[7]  
GARRIS RE, 1989, CLIN PHARMACY, V8, P627
[8]  
Gherman RB, 2001, J REPROD MED, V46, P641
[9]   Hands and knees posture in late pregnancy or labour for fetal malposition (lateral or posterior) [J].
Hofmeyr, GJ ;
Kulier, R .
COCHRANE DATABASE OF SYSTEMATIC REVIEWS, 2005, (02)
[10]   Titrated oral misoprostol solution for induction of labour: a multi-centre, randomised trial [J].
Hofmeyr, GJ ;
Alfirevic, Z ;
Matonhodze, B ;
Brocklehurst, P ;
Campbell, E ;
Nikodem, VC .
BRITISH JOURNAL OF OBSTETRICS AND GYNAECOLOGY, 2001, 108 (09) :952-959