Oral misoprostol alone, compared with oral misoprostol followed by oxytocin, in women induced for hypertension of pregnancy: A multicentre randomised trial

Abstract

AbstractObjectiveTo assess whether, in those requiring continuing uterine stimulation after cervical ripening with oral misoprostol and membrane rupture, augmentation with low‐dose oral misoprostol is superior to intravenous oxytocin.DesignOpen‐label, superiority randomised trial.SettingGovernment hospitals in India.PopulationWomen who were induced for hypertensive disease in pregnancy and had undergone cervical ripening with oral misoprostol, but required continuing stimulation after artificial membrane rupture.MethodsParticipants received misoprostol (25 micrograms, orally, 2‐hourly) or titrated oxytocin through an infusion pump. All women had one‐to‐one care; fetal monitoring was conducted using a mixture of intermittent and continuous electronic fetal monitoring.Main outcome measuresCaesarean birth.ResultsA total of 520 women were randomised and the baseline characteristics were comparable between the groups. The caesarean section rate was not reduced with the use of misoprostol (misoprostol, 84/260, 32.3%, vs oxytocin, 71/260, 27.3%; aOR 1.23; 95% CI 0.81–1.85; P = 0.33). The interval from randomisation to birth was somewhat longer with misoprostol (225 min, 207–244 min, vs 194 min, 179–210 min; aOR 1.137; 95% CI 1.023–1.264; P = 0.017). There were no cases of hyperstimulation in either arm. The rates of fetal heart rate abnormalities and maternal side effects were similar. Fewer babies in the misoprostol arm were admitted to the special care unit (10 vs 21 in the oxytocin group; aOR 0.463; 95% CI 0.203–1.058; P = 0.068) and there were no neonatal deaths in the misoprostol group, compared with three neonatal deaths in the oxytocin arm. Women's acceptability ratings were high in both study groups.ConclusionsFollowing cervical preparation with oral misoprostol and membrane rupture, the use of continuing oral misoprostol for augmentation did not significantly reduce caesarean rates, compared with the use of oxytocin. There were no hyperstimulation or significant adverse events in either arm of the trial.