Comparison of fetal safety of vaginal Misoprostol tablet and Dinoprostone gel for induction of labor: An open‐label randomized control trial

Abstract

AbstractAimIn modern obstetrics, need of labor induction is increasing along with increased caesarean deliveries. Major contributions for these operative deliveries are due to induction failure. This demands a potent labor‐inducing agent. Dinoprostone gel is an established method but having some drawbacks. Misoprostol could be an effective alternative to Dinoprostone, but its fetal safety is not yet well established. This study aimed to evaluate the fetal safety of vaginal Misoprostol tablet by measuring fetal heart rate changes during induction of labor.MethodsThis was a single‐center randomized controlled trial incorporating 140 term women, equally randomized to get either tablet Misoprostol or Dinoprostone gel. Fetal heart rate patterns were compared in both the groups by continuous cardiotocographic tracing. All the data were analyzed on an intention‐to‐treat basis.ResultsThere were no statistically significant changes in fetal heart rate pattern in both Misoprostol and Dinoprostone groups. Vaginal deliveries were statistically higher in Misoprostol group. Neonatal parameters like 1 min Appearance, Pulse, Grimace, Activity, and Respiration score and neonatal intensive care unit admission were comparable, and there was no significant difference in terms of major adverse events and side effects.ConclusionsMisoprostol is a safe alternative to Dinoprostone gel for induction of labor and found to be more effective labor‐inducing agent. In the background of higher caesarean rate, vaginal Misoprostol can be a potential labor‐inducing agent especially in a resource poor setting.