Outpatient Cervical Ripening With Misoprostol in Low-Risk Pregnancies
- PMID: 34956796
- PMCID: PMC8694755
- DOI: 10.7759/cureus.19817
Outpatient Cervical Ripening With Misoprostol in Low-Risk Pregnancies
Abstract
Objective To determine if outpatient cervical ripening with daily misoprostol can reduce admission to delivery time in women with low-risk pregnancies at 39 or more weeks of gestation. Study design This is a retrospective cohort study of a convenience sample of low-risk pregnancies that underwent elective outpatient cervical ripening compared to matched controls for parity (nulliparous vs. parous) and gestational age. Time from admission to delivery, induction agents, presence of tachysystole, mode of delivery, length of hospitalization, neonatal intensive care unit (NICU) admission, and low Apgar scores were compared. Results Fifty-six patients who underwent outpatient cervical ripening with daily dosing of misoprostol were compared to 56 patients matched for parity and gestational weeks who underwent inpatient cervical ripening/induction of labor with misoprostol. We found the time from admission to delivery in the outpatient cervical ripening cohort was significantly lesser than the inpatient cohort (17.5 ± 11.5 hours outpatient vs. 26.6 ± 15.6 hours inpatient, P=0.001). More patients (N=18, 32%) were able to deliver within 12 hours of admission in the outpatient induction group compared to the inpatient group (N=8, 11%, P=0.010). There were no differences in frequency of cesarean delivery, uterine tachysystole with or without fetal heart rate changes, NICU admission, low Apgar scores, or low umbilical artery pH values between the two groups. Conclusion Outpatient cervical ripening with misoprostol may be a feasible alternative to inpatient cervical ripening in low-risk pregnancies, may help improve patient experience, and reduce the operational burden that elective induction confers upon labor and delivery units.
Keywords: cytotec; induction of labor; misoprostol; outpatient cervical ripening; outpatient induction.
Copyright © 2021, Roloff et al.
Conflict of interest statement
The authors have declared that no competing interests exist.
Figures
Similar articles
-
Labor Induction Outcomes with Outpatient Misoprostol for Cervical Ripening among Low-Risk Women.Am J Perinatol. 2024 May;41(S 01):e818-e826. doi: 10.1055/a-1948-2779. Epub 2022 Sep 21. Am J Perinatol. 2024. PMID: 36130669
-
Induction of labor with misoprostol for premature rupture of membranes beyond thirty-six weeks' gestation.Am J Obstet Gynecol. 1998 Jul;179(1):94-9. doi: 10.1016/s0002-9378(98)70256-x. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 1998. PMID: 9704771 Clinical Trial.
-
A comparison of cervical ripening modalities among overweight and obese nulliparous gravidas.J Matern Fetal Neonatal Med. 2020 Nov;33(22):3804-3808. doi: 10.1080/14767058.2019.1586877. Epub 2019 Mar 11. J Matern Fetal Neonatal Med. 2020. PMID: 30810422
-
Cervical Ripening in the Outpatient Setting [Internet].Rockville (MD): Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (US); 2021 Mar. Report No.: 21-EHC011Report No.: 2020-SR-03. Rockville (MD): Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (US); 2021 Mar. Report No.: 21-EHC011Report No.: 2020-SR-03. PMID: 33818996 Free Books & Documents. Review.
-
Maternal and neonatal outcomes with mechanical cervical dilation plus misoprostol compared to misoprostol alone for cervical ripening; a systematic review of literature and metaanalysis.Am J Obstet Gynecol MFM. 2019 May;1(2):101-111. doi: 10.1016/j.ajogmf.2019.06.003. Epub 2019 Jun 11. Am J Obstet Gynecol MFM. 2019. PMID: 33345815 Review.
Cited by
-
Patient Pain and Satisfaction With 10, 30, and 70 mL Transcervical Foley Balloons for Cervical Ripening During Induction of Labor.Cureus. 2023 Jul 7;15(7):e41535. doi: 10.7759/cureus.41535. eCollection 2023 Jul. Cureus. 2023. PMID: 37551228 Free PMC article.
-
Outpatient vs inpatient induction of labor with oral misoprostol: A retrospective study.Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand. 2023 May;102(5):605-611. doi: 10.1111/aogs.14550. Epub 2023 Mar 25. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand. 2023. PMID: 36965000 Free PMC article.
References
-
- Elective induction of labor compared with expectant management of nulliparous women at 39 weeks of gestation: a randomized controlled trial. Miller NR, Cypher RL, Foglia LM, Pates JA, Nielsen PE. Obstet Gynecol. 2015;126:1258–1264. - PubMed
-
- Elective induction of labor at 39 weeks compared with expectant management: a meta-analysis of cohort studies. Grobman WA, Caughey AB. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2019;221:304–310. - PubMed
-
- SMFM statement on elective induction of labor in low-risk nulliparous women at term: the ARRIVE trial. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2019;221:0–4. - PubMed
LinkOut - more resources
Full Text Sources