E-ISSN 2277-338X | ISSN 2320-4664
|Original Research|| |
A comparative study of labour induction with intravaginal misoprostol verus intravenous oxytocin in premature rupture of membranes beyound 36 weeks gestation
Bhaumik Shah, Noopur Nagar, Shashwat Nagar.
Background: The recommended strategies for a woman with PROM at term have changed considerably during the last several decades. PROM occurs in about 10% of patients beyond 36 weeks of gestation. IV oxytocin infusion has stood the test of time as labor inducing agent but associated with high perinatal and maternal morbidity. Misoprostol is gaining increasing interest as an alternative induction agent.
Aims & Objective: (1) To study the efficacy and safety of labor induction with Intravaginal misoprostol and i.v. oxytocin in women with premature rupture of membranes beyond 36 weeks of gestation. (2) To evaluate & compare the efficacy between vaginally administered misoprostol with i.v. oxytocin.
Material and Methods: A prospective randomized study was carried out where 200 women admitted to department of obstetrics & gynaecology, pravara rural hospital, PMT, Loni with PROM beyond 36 weeks of gestation were included where 100 each were included in two groups-Vaginal misoprostol group & oxytocin infusion group.
Results: Nearly 58% of the cases of PROM were in the age group 21-25 yrs. No significant association was found between prevalence of PROM with parity. It was seen that lesser the pre induction bishop’s score, more was the time required for a patient to go into active labor. The induction-delivery interval was significantly higher in oxytocin group compared to misoprostol group.
Conclusion: Misoprostol is a better inducing agent than oxytocin in low bishop’s score & unfavourable cervix. Misoprostol is an effective & safe agent for induction of labor in women with PROM.
Premature Rupture of Membranes; Oxytocin; Misoprostol; Bishop’s Score; Induction Delivery Interval; Parity
|1. Windrim R, Bennett K, Mundle W, Young DC. Oral administration of misoprostol for labour induction: a randomised controlled trial. Obstet Gynecol. 1997;89(3):392-7.|
|2. Wing DA, Paul RH. Induction of labour with misroprostol for premature rupture of membranes beyond thirty six week gestation. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 1998;179(1):94-9.|
|3. Bennett KA, Butt K, Crane JM, Hutchens D, Young DC. A masked randomized comparison of oral and vaginal administration of misoprostol for labour induction. Obstet Gynecol. 1998;92(4 Pt 1):481-6.|
|4. Russel KP, Anderson GV. The aggressive management of ruptured membranes. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 1962; 83: 930-37|
|5. Rovinsky JJ, Shapiro WJ. Management of PROM at term. Obstet Gynaecol. 1968; 32: 855.|
|6. Kappy KA, Cetrulo CL. Premature rupture of the membranes at term. A comparison of induced and spontaneous labour. J Reprod Med. 1982;27(1):29-33.|
|7. Marshall VA. Management of premature rupture of membranes at or near term. J Nurse Midwifery. 1993; 38(3): 140-5.|
|8. Morgan Ortiz F, BĂˇez Barraza J, Quevedo Castro E, Cuetos MartĂnez CB, Osuna RamĂrez I. Misoprostol and oxytocin for induction of cervical ripening and labor in patients with term pregnancy and premature membrane rupture. Ginecol Obstet Mex. 2002;70:469-76.|
|9. Sobande AA, Albar HM. Induced labour with prostaglandin E2 in different parity groups after premature rupture of membranes. East Mediterr Health J. 2003;9(3):309-15.|