Vaginal misoprostol for cervical ripening at term: comparison of outpatient vs. inpatient administration.

OBJECTIVE: To compare outpatient with inpatient misoprostol for preinduction cervical ripening at term. STUDY DESIGN: This concurrent cohort study was conducted between August 1999 and July 2002 at a rural community hospital. Pregnancies > or =38 weeks with an unfavorable cervix were eligible if there was a reactive nonstress test with no regular contractions or active medical/obstetric complications. Outpatients were given a single dose of misoprostol (50 microg intravaginally). A cohort group consisted of similar patients undergoing misoprostol therapy in the hospital. RESULTS: No differences were found between the outpatient (n=177) and inpatient (n=96) misoprostol groups for maternal age, parity, gestational age, and initial cervical dilation and station. No home deliveries occurred with outpatient therapy. Advanced cervical dilation at hospital admission the next morning was more common with outpatient misoprostol (10.2% vs. 2.1%; RR 5.0, 95% CI 1.2, 21.5). Differences in mean times from admission to vaginal delivery were significantly shorter with outpatient than inpatient misoprostol (nulliparas, 3.1 hours, 95% CI 1.5, 4.7; multiparas, 5.3 hours; 95% CI 3.8, 6.8). The very low proportions of fetal intolerance to labor, low Apgar scores and newborn complications were not different between the 2 groups. CONCLUSION: Outpatient vaginal misoprostol in a selected population led to more advanced cervical dilation at hospital admission the next morning and explained the shorter time until vaginal delivery.

Randomized trial between two active labor management protocols in the presence of an unfavorable cervix.

OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to compare the efficacy of two protocols for active management of labor at term in the presence of an unfavorable cervix. STUDY DESIGN: Pregnancies that underwent labor induction at > or =37 weeks of gestation with an unfavorable cervix (Bishop score, < or =6) were randomly assigned to receive vaginally either a single dose of sustained-release dinoprostone (Cervidil) with concurrent low-dose oxytocin or multidosing of misoprostol (25 microg every 4 hours) followed by high-dose oxytocin. The primary outcome was the time interval from induction to vaginal delivery. Other parameters included excess uterine activity and cesarean delivery rates. RESULTS: A total of 151 patients (dinoprostone, 74 patients; misoprostol, 77 patients) were enrolled. The mean time from the initiation of induction to vaginal delivery was the same in the dinoprostone and misoprostol groups (15.7 hours; 95% CI, 13.7-17.7 hours vs 16.0 hours; 95% CI, 14.1-17.8 hours; P=.34), regardless of parity. The dinoprostone and misoprostol groups did not differ statistically in the percent of patients who were delivered vaginally by 12 hours (36.2% vs 29.7%), 18 hours (63.8% vs 56.3%), and 24 hours (81.0% vs 81.3%). Excess uterine activity was not more common in either group, and hyperstimulation syndrome was absent in all cases. Primary cesarean delivery rates were similar (dinoprostone, 21.6%; misoprostol, 16.9%; relative risk, 1.3; 95% CI, 0.7-2.5), with a failed induction that occurred in one case in each group. CONCLUSION: Sustained-release dinoprostone with concurrent low-dose oxytocin and intermittent misoprostol with delayed high-dose oxytocin are effective alternatives for active management of labor with an unfavorable cervix.