Induction of labor with intravaginal administration of misoprostol

The nurse's role in misoprostol induction: a proposed protocol

The use of misoprostol (PGE 1) for induction of labor has been studied in the United States since 1993. The current medical literature contains studies of this non-FDA-approved indication for misoprostol. The data reveal that misoprostol is as effective or more effective in inducing labor as are oxytocin and prostaglandin E2 (PGE 2), with less cost. Nurses need to understand the physiology of prostaglandins and management of misoprostol in labor. Nurses often must assess the safety of mother and fetus during a misoprostol induction without a protocol based on research findings. This article presents a sample protocol.

Randomized comparison between intravaginal misoprostol and dinoprostone for cervical ripening and induction of labor

OBJECTIVE

We sought to evaluate the efficacy and safety of intravaginal misoprostol and dinoprostone for labor induction.

STUDY DESIGN

One hundred eighty-nine women with singleton term pregnancies and unfavorable cervices were randomly assigned to receive intravaginal misoprostol or dinoprostone. The outcome variables were change in Bishop score, time from application to active phase of labor and delivery, fetal and maternal morbidity, and the incidence of cesarean deliveries.

RESULTS

The interval from application of the initial dose to the beginning of the active phase of labor was 9.8 +/- 5.8 and 14.2 +/- 10.2 hours (P <.01), and the interval from initial dose to delivery was 15.3 +/- 9.8 and 19.1 +/- 13.2 hours (P =.027) for the misoprostol and dinoprostone groups, respectively. There were no significant differences in Bishop score change, cesarean delivery rate, and the incidence of tachysystole, hypersystole, and hyperstimulation. No maternal and neonatal adverse effects were noted.

CONCLUSION

Intravaginal misoprostol is more effective than intravaginal dinoprostone for labor induction in low-risk patients at term with unfavorable cervices.