A randomized trial of misoprostol and extra-amniotic saline infusion for cervical ripening and labor induction

OBJECTIVE: To compare the cesarean rates in women undergoing induction of labor with unfavorable cervices who receive either misoprostol or extra-amniotic saline infusion. METHODS: We assigned 250 women undergoing indicated induction of labor randomly to misoprostol (50 microg every 4 hours for three doses with or without oxytocin) or extra-amniotic saline infusion and oxytocin. Each eligible subject had a singleton gestation, vertex presentation, intact membranes, cervical dilation no more than 2 cm, and effacement no more than 50%. RESULTS: Two hundred forty-eight women were studied after two exclusions; 120 were assigned to misoprostol, and 128 to extra-amniotic saline infusion. This sample size ensured an 80% chance of detecting an intergroup difference in cesarean rates of at least two-fold. The groups were similar in age, race, parity, indication for induction, and gestational age. The extra-amniotic saline infusion group had a significantly lower median initial dilation; however, at 12 hours, this group was significantly more dilated. The groups also were similar in epidural use, chorioamnionitis rates, endometritis rates, birth weights, and neonatal outcomes. Overall, 23% of women underwent cesarean deliveries, 18% and 27% for the misoprostol and extra-amniotic saline infusion groups, respectively (P = .12). There were no significant differences in the median time to either vaginal or cesarean delivery between the two groups. Eighty-one percent of women were delivered in less than 24 hours from initiation of induction; 78% in the misoprostol group, and 84% in the extra-amniotic saline infusion group (P = .19). CONCLUSION: Both methods of labor induction appear to be equally effective in this group of women at high risk for cesarean delivery and prolonged induction of labor.

This article has been cited by other articles:

				N. W. Karjane, E. L. Brock, and S. W. Walsh Induction of Labor Using a Foley Balloon, With and Without Extra-Amniotic Saline Infusion Obstet. Gynecol., February 1, 2006; 107(2): 234 - 239. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				K. A. Levey, A. P. MacKenzie, C. Stephenson, R. Bercik, E. Kuczynski, and E. F. Funai Increased Rates of Chorioamnionitis With Extra-Amniotic Saline Infusion Method of Labor Induction Obstet. Gynecol., April 1, 2004; 103(4): 724 - 728. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				K. Blanchard, S. Clark, B. Winikoff, G. Gaines, G. Kabani, and C. Shannon Misoprostol for Women's Health: A Review Obstet. Gynecol., February 1, 2002; 99(2): 316 - 332. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				D. J. SHERMAN, E. FRENKEL, M. PANSKY, E. CASPI, I. BUKOVSKY, and R. LANGER Balloon Cervical Ripening With Extra-Amniotic Infusion of Saline or Prostaglandin E2: A Double-Blind, Randomized Controlled Study Obstet. Gynecol., March 1, 2001; 97(3): 375 - 380. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				D. A. GUINN, A. R. GOEPFERT, M. CHRISTINE, J. OWEN, and J. C. HAUTH Extra-Amniotic Saline, Laminaria, or Prostaglandin E2 Gel for Labor Induction With Unfavorable Cervix: A Randomized Controlled Trial Obstet. Gynecol., July 1, 2000; 96(1): 106 - 112. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				J. B. GOLDMAN and T. R. WIGTON A Randomized Comparison of Extra-amniotic Saline Infusion and Intracervical Dinoprostone Gel for Cervical Ripening Obstet. Gynecol., February 1, 1999; 93(2): 271 - 274. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]