Buccal versus Vaginal Misoprostol for Term Induction of Labor: A Retrospective Cohort Study

Simple item page
dc.contributor.authorDorr, Meredith L.
dc.contributor.authorPierson, Rebecca C.
dc.contributor.authorDaggy, Joanne
dc.contributor.authorQuinney, Sara K.
dc.contributor.authorHaas, David M.
dc.contributor.departmentObstetrics and Gynecology, School of Medicineen_US
dc.date.accessioned2021-11-10T21:30:11Z
dc.date.available2021-11-10T21:30:11Z
dc.date.issued2019-06
dc.description.abstractOBJECTIVE: To compare the efficacy of similar buccal and vaginal misoprostol doses for induction of labor. STUDY DESIGN: Retrospective chart review of 207 consecutive women undergoing term induction of labor with misoprostol. Misoprostol route and dosing were collected. Time to delivery and other labor outcomes (e.g., vaginal delivery less than 24 hours) were compared between women receiving buccal and vaginal misoprostol. RESULTS: There was no significant difference in time to delivery for women receiving buccal (median 18.2 hour, 95% confidence interval [CI] = [14.9, 21.5]) versus vaginal (median 18.3 hour, 95% CI = [15.0, 20.4]) misoprostol (p = 0.428); even after adjusting for covariates (p = 0.381). Women who presented with premature rupture of membranes were more likely to receive buccal misoprostol (92.7% received buccal vs. 7.3% received vaginal, p < 0.001). A similar number of women delivered vaginally in the buccal group (88.2%) and vaginal misoprostol group (86.8%, p = 0.835). The proportion of women who experienced uterine tachysystole or chorioamnionitis did not significantly differ by route of administration. CONCLUSION: We found no significant differences in time to delivery or other labor outcomes between buccal or vaginal dosing of misoprostol in women undergoing labor induction at term.en_US
dc.eprint.versionFinal published versionen_US
dc.identifier.citationDorr, M. L., Pierson, R. C., Daggy, J., Quinney, S. K., & Haas, D. M. (2019). Buccal versus Vaginal Misoprostol for Term Induction of Labor: A Retrospective Cohort Study. American Journal of Perinatology, 36(7), 765–772. https://doi.org/10.1055/s-0038-1675219en_US
dc.identifier.issn1098-8785en_US
dc.identifier.urihttps://hdl.handle.net/1805/26972
dc.language.isoenen_US
dc.publisherThiemeen_US
dc.relation.isversionof10.1055/s-0038-1675219en_US
dc.relation.journalAmerican Journal of Perinatologyen_US
dc.rightsPublisher Policyen_US
dc.sourcePMCen_US
dc.subjectBuccal Misoprostolen_US
dc.subjectVaginal Misoprostolen_US
dc.subjectTerm induction of laboren_US
dc.titleBuccal versus Vaginal Misoprostol for Term Induction of Labor: A Retrospective Cohort Studyen_US
dc.typeArticleen_US
ul.alternative.fulltexthttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7692025/en_US
Files
Original bundle
Now showing 1 - 1 of 1
No Thumbnail Available
Name:
nihms-1647720.pdf
Size:
295.58 KB
Format:
Adobe Portable Document Format
Description:
Article
Download
License bundle
Now showing 1 - 1 of 1
No Thumbnail Available
Name:
license.txt
Size:
1.99 KB
Format:
Item-specific license agreed upon to submission
Description:
Download
Collections
Open Access Policy Articles
Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology Works