Misoprostol Use for Induction of Labor at Term: Dose Patterns, Time-to-Delivery, and Complications: An Observational Study
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.51168/ctffff89Keywords:
induction of labor, misoprostol, term pregnancy, vaginal delivery, cesarean section, maternal complicationsAbstract
Background
Misoprostol is widely used for induction of labor at term because it is inexpensive, stable at room temperature, and effective for cervical ripening.
Objectives
To assess dose patterns, induction-to-delivery interval, delivery outcomes, and maternal and neonatal complications among women induced with misoprostol at term.
Methods
This hospital-based observational study included 100 term pregnant women induced with misoprostol at a tertiary care teaching hospital from April 2025 to November 2025. Baseline characteristics, indication for induction, number of doses, total dose, time to delivery, mode of delivery, and complications were recorded and analyzed descriptively.
Results
Most women were 21-30 years old, and 56% were primigravida. Postdated pregnancy was the commonest indication. Two doses were most frequently required, and the mean total dose was 63.5 ± 22.4 µg. The mean induction-to-delivery interval was 11.6 ± 4.8 hours and was longer in primigravida than multigravida women. Normal vaginal delivery occurred in 72%, instrumental vaginal delivery in 8%, and cesarean delivery in 20%, yielding an overall vaginal delivery rate of 80%. Uterine tachysystole occurred in 7%, hyperstimulation in 3%, postpartum hemorrhage in 4%, and NICU admission in 8%.
Conclusion
Misoprostol induction at term showed good effectiveness with an acceptable safety profile in routine tertiary care practice. Most women achieved vaginal delivery within a clinically reasonable interval, and serious maternal or neonatal complications were uncommon.
Recommendations
Misoprostol may be considered a safe and effective agent for induction of labor at term when used with appropriate dosing and monitoring. Further multicentric studies with larger sample sizes are recommended to establish optimal protocols and strengthen evidence-based clinical guidelines.
References
1. Tang J, Kapp N, Dragoman M, de Souza JP. WHO recommendations for misoprostol use for obstetric and gynecologic indications. Int J Gynaecol Obstet. 2013;121(2):186-9. doi:10.1016/j.ijgo.2012.12.009.
2. Hofmeyr GJ, Gülmezoglu AM, Alfirevic Z. Misoprostol for induction of labour: a systematic review. Br J Obstet Gynaecol. 1999;106(8):798-803. doi:10.1111/j.1471-0528.1999.tb08400.x.
3. Hofmeyr GJ, Gülmezoglu AM, Pileggi C. Vaginal misoprostol for cervical ripening and induction of labour. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2010;(10):CD000941. doi:10.1002/14651858.CD000941.pub2.
4. Alfirevic Z, Aflaifel N, Weeks A. Oral misoprostol for induction of labour. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2014;(6):CD001338. doi:10.1002/14651858.CD001338.pub3.
5. Kerr RS, Kumar N, Williams MJ, Cuthbert A, Aflaifel N, Haas DM, et al. Low-dose oral misoprostol for induction of labour. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2021;6(6):CD014484. doi:10.1002/14651858.CD014484.
6. Kramer RL, Gilson GJ, Morrison DS, Martin D, Gonzales JL, Qualls CR. A randomized trial of misoprostol and oxytocin for induction of labor: safety and efficacy. Obstet Gynecol. 1997;89(3):387-91. doi:10.1016/S0029-7844(97)00363-3.
7. Wing DA, Ortiz-Omphroy G, Paul RH. A comparison of intermittent vaginal administration of misoprostol with continuous dinoprostone for cervical ripening and labor induction. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 1997;177(3):612-8. doi:10.1016/S0002-9378(97)70154-6.
8. Farah LA, Sanchez-Ramos L, Rosa C, Del Valle GO, Gaudier FL, Delke I, et al. Randomized trial of two doses of the prostaglandin E1 analog misoprostol for labor induction. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 1997;177(2):364-9; discussion 369-71. doi:10.1016/S0002-9378(97)70199-6.
9. Meydanli MM, Calişkan E, Burak F, Narin MA, Atmaca R. Labor induction post-term with 25 micrograms vs. 50 micrograms of intravaginal misoprostol. Int J Gynaecol Obstet. 2003;81(3):249-55. doi:10.1016/S0020-7292(03)00042-0.
10. van Gemund N, Scherjon S, LeCessie S, Schagen van Leeuwen JH, van Roosmalen J, Kanhai HHH. A randomised trial comparing low dose vaginal misoprostol and dinoprostone for labour induction. BJOG. 2004;111(1):42-9. doi:10.1046/j.1471-0528.2003.00010.x.
11. Paungmora N, Herabutya Y, O-Prasertsawat P, Punyavachira P. Comparison of oral and vaginal misoprostol for induction of labor at term: a randomized controlled trial. J Obstet Gynaecol Res. 2004;30(5):358-62. doi:10.1111/j.1447-0756.2004.00215.x.
12. Ozkan S, Calişkan E, Doğer E, Yücesoy I, Ozeren S, Vural B. Comparative efficacy and safety of vaginal misoprostol versus dinoprostone vaginal insert in labor induction at term: a randomized trial. Arch Gynecol Obstet. 2009;280(1):19-24. doi:10.1007/s00404-008-0843-9.
13. Rahman H, Pradhan A, Kharka L, Renjhen P, Kar S, Dutta S. Comparative evaluation of 50 microgram oral misoprostol and 25 microgram intravaginal misoprostol for induction of labour at term: a randomized trial. J Obstet Gynaecol Can. 2013;35(5):408-16. doi:10.1016/S1701-2163(15)30931-2.
14. Pergialiotis V, Panagiotopoulos M, Constantinou T, Vogiatzi Vokotopoulou L, Koumenis A, Stavros S, et al. Efficacy and safety of oral and sublingual versus vaginal misoprostol for induction of labour: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Arch Gynecol Obstet. 2023;308(3):727-775. doi:10.1007/s00404-022-06867-9.
Downloads
Published
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2026 Dr Usharani Nagarapu, Dr Alekya A, Dr Akula Swaroopa Rani, Dr Prashanth Kumar Patnaik (Author)
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
