Labor induction with intravaginal misoprostol versus intracervical prostaglandin E2 gel (Prepidil gel): randomized comparison.
OBJECTIVE
Our purpose was to compare the safety and efficacy of intravaginal prostaglandin E1, misoprostol, with that of intracervical prostaglandin E2 (Prepidil gel) for labor induction.


METHODS
One hundred three patients with an indication for induction of labor were randomly assigned to induction with prostaglandin E1, 50 micrograms intravaginally, or with Prepidil gel, 0.5 mg intracervically, every 4 hours until active labor.


RESULTS
Four patients were excluded, leaving 49 patients who received prostaglandin E1 and 50 who received prostaglandin E2. The time from start of induction to vaginal delivery was significantly shorter in the prostaglandin E1 group (11.4 vs 18.9 hours, p < 0.001), and fewer patients in the prostaglandin E1 group required oxytocin augmentation (23% vs 55%, p < 0.005). No significant differences were noted in mode of delivery or in adverse maternal, fetal, or neonatal effects.


CONCLUSIONS
Intravaginal prostaglandin E1 is a more effective, lower-cost agent for induction of labor than is intracervical prostaglandin E2 gel and is comparable in safety.
D000282:Administration, Intravaginal; D000328:Adult; D002584:Cervix Uteri; D015232:Dinoprostone / Q000008:administration & dosage*; D005260:Female; D005782:Gels; D006801:Humans; D007751:Labor, Induced; D008423:Maternal Age; D016595:Misoprostol / Q000008:administration & dosage*; D010120:Oxytocics / Q000008:administration & dosage*; D011247:Pregnancy; D011256:Pregnancy Outcome; D011263:Pregnancy Trimester, Third; D018566:Pregnancy, High-Risk
D005782:Gels; D010120:Oxytocics; D016595:Misoprostol; D015232:Dinoprostone