A comparative study of induction of labour with intravaginal misoprostol and intracervical dinoprostone gel and its fetomaternal outcome in a tertiary care hospital

Abstract

The objective of the present study was to compare the two most commonly used agents for induction of labor-vaginal misoprostol and intracervical dinoprostone gel in terms of the incidence of cardiotocography (CTG) abnormalities and its correlation with fetal distress and fetomaternal outcome.This is prospective case-control study conducted in department of obstetrics and gynecology, C. U. Shah Medical College and Hospital, Surendranagar over a period of 15 months. 112 women requiring induction were randomly assigned to two groups of 56 each, Group M received vaginal misoprostol and Group D received intracervical dinoprostone E2 gel. 56 women with spontaneous labor served as control group. Groups were compared in terms of the incidence of suspicious or pathological CTG tracings, fetal distress, induction to vaginal delivery time, vaginal delivery rates, dose requirements, rate of emergency cesarean.Misoprostol was associated with shorter induction to delivery time (9.54 hours) than dinoprostone gel (13.54 hours), higher vaginal delivery rates (80.35% versus 62.5%), higher delivery rates (73.9%) with single dose itself unlike Group D, where 47.22% required more than one dose. Incidence of suspicious CTG was higher in group M (15.68%) versus 10.25% in Group D. Incidence of pathological CTG was also highest in Group M (7.8%) followed by Group D (2.56%) and Group C (7.8%). Dinoprostone gel lead to failed induction in 25% women, and hence higher caesarean rates.While misoprostol is a better agent for induction when compared with dinoprostone E2 gel in terms of induction-delivery time, higher vaginal delivery rates, less dose requirement, it is associated with greater incidence of non-reassuring/pathological CTG. There was justified improvement in perinatal outcome due to preparedness beforehand with use of CTG.