Buccal versus Vaginal Misoprostol for Term Induction of Labor: A Retrospective Cohort Study

Meredith L. Dorr, Rebecca C. Pierson, Joanne Daggy, Sara K. Quinney, David M. Haas

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

1 Scopus citations

Abstract

Objective To compare the efficacy of similar buccal and vaginal misoprostol doses for induction of labor. Study Design Retrospective chart review of 207 consecutive women undergoing term induction of labor with misoprostol. Misoprostol route and dosing were collected. Time to delivery and other labor outcomes (e.g., vaginal delivery less than 24 hours) were compared between women receiving buccal and vaginal misoprostol. Results There was no significant difference in time to delivery for women receiving buccal (median 18.2 hour, 95% confidence interval [CI] = [14.9, 21.5]) versus vaginal (median 18.3 hour, 95% CI = [15.0, 20.4]) misoprostol (p = 0.428); even after adjusting for covariates (p = 0.381). Women who presented with premature rupture of membranes were more likely to receive buccal misoprostol (92.7% received buccal vs. 7.3% received vaginal, p < 0.001). A similar number of women delivered vaginally in the buccal group (88.2%) and vaginal misoprostol group (86.8%, p = 0.835). The proportion of women who experienced uterine tachysystole or chorioamnionitis did not significantly differ by route of administration. Conclusion We found no significant differences in time to delivery or other labor outcomes between buccal or vaginal dosing of misoprostol in women undergoing labor induction at term.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)765-772
Number of pages8
JournalAmerican Journal of Perinatology
Volume36
Issue number7
DOIs
StatePublished - Jan 1 2019

Keywords

  • buccal
  • labor induction
  • misoprostol
  • term pregnancy
  • vaginal

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Pediatrics, Perinatology, and Child Health
  • Obstetrics and Gynecology

Fingerprint Dive into the research topics of 'Buccal versus Vaginal Misoprostol for Term Induction of Labor: A Retrospective Cohort Study'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

  • Cite this