US EPA

4092888 

Journal Article 

Comparison of Prostaglandin E1 (Misoprostol) with Prostaglandin E2 (Dinoprostone) for Labor Induction 

Sahu, L; Biswajit, C 

2004 

Yes 

Journal of Obstetrics and Gynaecology of India
ISSN: 0022-3190 

DART/TER/5000750 

Apr 

2 

English 

OBJECTIVE and #150; To evaluate the efficacy and safety of intravaginal misoprostol and intracervical dinoprostone for labor induction. Material and Methods and #150; Fifty women needing induction of labor with singleton term pregnancy and cervix with Bishop score and lt;= 5, were randomly assigned to receive intravaginal misoprostol or intracervical dinoprostone. The outcome variables were change in Bishop score, time from first application to active phase of labor and delivery, fetal and maternal morbidity and the incidence of cesarean deliveries. Results and #150; The interval from application of the initial dose to the beginning of the active phase of labor was 5.6 hours in misoprostol group and 6 hours in dinoprostone group and the interval from initial dose to delivery was 11.5 hours in misoprostol group and 13 hours in dinoprostone group. Delivery before 12 hours from the initial dose occurred in 16 cases in misoprostol group and in 8 cases in dinoprostone group (P and lt;0.02). There were no significant differences in Bishop score change, cesarean delivery rate and the incidence of tachysystole, hypersystole and hyperstimulation. Apgar score and lt; 7 was seen only in dinoprostone group. CS rate was more in the dinoprostone group than in the misoprostol group. CONCLUSION and #150; Intravaginal misoprostol is safer, effective and less costly than intracervical dinoprostone gel for labor induction in low risk cases with unfavorable cervix.