Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item: https://hdl.handle.net/2440/37708
Type: Thesis
Title: Misoprostol for the induction of labour at term.
Author: Dodd, Jodie Michele
Issue Date: 2005
School/Discipline: Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology
Abstract: Background: The aims of this randomised, double blind, placebo controlled trial were to compare vaginal PGE2 gel with oral misoprostol in the induction of labour at term. Methods: Women randomised to the oral misoprostol group received 20mcg oral misoprostol solution at two hourly intervals and placebo vaginal gel, and those in the vaginal prostaglandin group received vaginal PGE2 gel at six hourly intervals and oral placebo solution. The primary outcome measures were vaginal birth not achieved in 24 hours, uterine hyperstimulation with associated fetal heart rate changes, and caesarean section. Women were asked about their preferences for care, and a cost comparison was performed for the two methods of induction of labour. A nested randomised trial compared health outcomes for the woman and her infant related to morning or evening admission for commencing induction of labour. Results: A total of 741 women were randomised, 365 to the misoprostol group and 376 to the vaginal PGE2 group. There were no differences between women in the oral misoprostol group and women in the vaginal PGE2 group, for the outcomes vaginal birth not achieved in 24 hours (Misoprostol 168/365 (46.0%) versus PGE2 155/376 (41.2%); RR 1.12 95% CI 0.95-1.32; p=0.134), caesarean section (Misoprostol 83/365 (22.7%) versus PGE2 100/376 (26.6%); RR 0.82 95% CI 0.64- 1.06; p=0.127), or uterine hyperstimulation with fetal heart rate changes (Misoprostol 3/365 (0.8%) versus PGE2 6/376 1.6%); RR 0.55 95% CI 0.14-2.21; p=0.401). Women in the misoprostol group were more likely to indicate that they 'liked everything' associated with their labour and birth experience compared with women in the vaginal PGE2 group (Misoprostol 126/362 (34.8%) versus PGE2 103/373 (27.6%); RR 1.26; 95% CI 1.02-1.57; p=0.036). There were no differences in the primary outcomes when considering morning or evening admission to commence induction. The use of misoprostol was associated with a saving of $110.83 per woman induced. Conclusions: The use of oral misoprostol in induction of labour does not lead to poorer health outcomes for women or their infants, women express greater satisfaction with their labour and birth experience, and with misoprostol induction there is a cost saving to the institution.
Advisor: Robinson, Jeffrey Samuel
Crowther, Caroline Anne
Dissertation Note: Thesis (Ph.D.)--Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, 2005.
Keywords: labor, labour, induced, induction, obstetrics, misoprostol, prostaglandins
Provenance: This electronic version is made publicly available by the University of Adelaide in accordance with its open access policy for student theses. Copyright in this thesis remains with the author. This thesis may incorporate third party material which has been used by the author pursuant to Fair Dealing exception. If you are the author of this thesis and do not wish it to be made publicly available or If you are the owner of any included third party copyright material you wish to be removed from this electronic version, please complete the take down form located at: http://www.adelaide.edu.au/legals
Appears in Collections:Research Theses

Files in This Item:
File Description SizeFormat 
01front.pdf118.25 kBAdobe PDFView/Open
02whole.pdf1.14 MBAdobe PDFView/Open


Items in DSpace are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved, unless otherwise indicated.