254
Views
4
CrossRef citations to date
0
Altmetric
Birth

A randomized controlled trial comparing vaginal misoprostol versus Foley catheter plus oxytocin for labor induction

, &
Pages 1045-1052 | Received 02 Feb 2010, Accepted 02 Jun 2010, Published online: 19 Jul 2010
 

Abstract

Objective. To compare effectiveness and safety of 25 μg vaginal misoprostol versus Foley catheter and oxytocin for cervical ripening and labor induction in pregnant women with unripe cervices. Design. Randomized controlled trial. Setting. A public maternity in Recife, Brazil. Sample. A total of 240 pregnant women. Methods. Women with a term or post-term, live, singleton fetus in cephalic presentation, intact membranes, Bishop score <6, not in labor, medically indicated for labor induction. They were randomly divided in Group 1, where 119 women received 25 μg of intravaginal misoprostol every 6 hours for a maximum of four doses; and Group 2, where 121 women had a 14-F Foley catheter inserted into their cervical canal. Once past the internal os, the balloon was inflated. Intravenous oxytocin was initiated after the balloon was spontaneously extruded from the cervix or after 24 hours. Results. There were no significant differences between the groups regarding baseline characteristics. Misoprostol was more effective in inducing labor than Foley catheter and oxytocin. Mean induction-to-vaginal delivery time with misoprostol was shorter (17.3 vs. 20.2 hours, p = 0.016). There were more vaginal deliveries in the misoprostol group at 12 (p < 0.001) and 18 (p = 0.007) hours, but the difference was no longer statistically significant at 24 and 48 hours. There were no significant differences in uterine contraction abnormalities, puerperal infection or neonatal outcomes. Conclusions. Vaginal misoprostol is more effective than and as safe as Foley catheter and oxytocin for induction of labor in term and post-term pregnancy.

Acknowledgments

We acknowledge financial support from CAPES (an institution of the Brazilian Government for the improvement of human resources in university). It had no participation in protocol development, implementation of the study, data analysis or reporting. We further acknowledge the contribution of Joao Paulo Souza to writing the article.

Declaration of interest: The authors report no conflicts of interests. The authors alone are responsible for the content and writing of the paper.

Reprints and Corporate Permissions

Please note: Selecting permissions does not provide access to the full text of the article, please see our help page How do I view content?

To request a reprint or corporate permissions for this article, please click on the relevant link below:

Academic Permissions

Please note: Selecting permissions does not provide access to the full text of the article, please see our help page How do I view content?

Obtain permissions instantly via Rightslink by clicking on the button below:

If you are unable to obtain permissions via Rightslink, please complete and submit this Permissions form. For more information, please visit our Permissions help page.