Comparison Of The Effect of Oral Misoprostol Tablet With Intravenous Oxytocin for Pregnancy Termination In Gynecology Wards Of Academic Hospitals in Mashhad (2003-2004)

Document Type : Original Article


1 Assistant Professor of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Emam Reza Haspital, Mashad,Iran

2 Assistant Professor of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Emam Reza Haspital, Mashad, Iran


Introduction: Since most of cases of pregnancy termination are induced by oxytocin of
which needs special care, much time, costs, and it has side effects such as water toxicity
especially in prolonged inductions trying to find suitable replacement for oxytocin is
necessary. The aim of this research is compared on oxytocin with misoprostol in the second
trimester of pregnancy gynecology ward of academic hospitals in Mashhad. (Imam Reza –
Ghaem – Hazrat Zeinab)
Materials and Methods: In this prospective case – control study, we divided 125 pregnant
women in the second trimester to two groups.
 Pregnancy termination in the case group was induced by administration 3 100 µg oral tablets
of misoprostol and one vaginal misoprostol tablet.
If there wasn’t any uterine contraction we used one oral tablet every 3 hours and a vaginal
tablet every 4 –6 hours for 48 hours.
 In the control group pregnancy termination was induced by oxytocin. 50I/U of oxytocin was
diluted with 500CC Ringer and infused in 3 hours then there was a resting period for l hour
and then we increase 50I/U oxytocin in 500CC Ringer untile maximum 300I/U in 500 CC
Ringer. Our plan was 3 hours of induction and an hour resting until beginning of contraction
or no responding after 48 hours induction.
Another method of delivery induction was replaced, if no contraction was observed after 48
hours in both groups.
Results: Labor contraction and pregnancy termination happened sooner in the misoprostol
group than oxytocin group. (p = 0.001)
Placental retention and costs were less in the case group (p<0.05). Fever, bleeding,
gastrointestinal tract complications and uterine rupture had no difference in both groups.
Conclusion: Misoprastol alone induced delivery sooner when was compared to oxytocin, in
the second trimester and it also had less cost and less side effects. Besides it dose not need
intensive nurse care. So we recommend misoprostol for pregnancy termination in the second


1. Gunnigham FG. Gant NF, Leveno KJ, Gilstrap LC, Hauth JC, Wenstrom KD.Williams
obstetrics. 21nd Ed. New York: Mc Grow Hill; 2001:469-81.
2. Gunningham FG. Gant NF. Leveno Kj . Gilstrap LC. Hauth JC. Wenstrom KD .William
bstetrics.21nd Ed, New York: Mc Grow – Hill; 2001: 251:90.
3. Diskinson JE .Evans SF.A comparison of oral misoprostol with vaginal misoprostol
administration in second trimester pregnancy for fetal abnormality .Obstet Gynecol.
2003 Jun;101(6):1294-1309.
4. Pajak J. Tomialowicz M, Florjanski J,Heimrath J,
5. Myszczyszyn G,Zalewski J, et al. Comparison of vaginal misoprostol and oxytocin for
labor induction in post term pregnancy.Gynecol Pol. 2001 Dec;72(12):1300-4.
6. Nigam A, Singh VK, Dubay P, Pandey K, Bhagoliwal A, Prakash. Misoprostol and
oxytocin for induction of labor at term. Int J Gynecol Obstet. 2004;86(3):398-400.
7. Culver J, Struss RA, Brody S, Dorman K, Timlin S, and McMahon MJ.A randomized
trial comparing vaginal misoprostol versus Foley catheter with concurrent oxytocine for
labor induction in nulliparoous women. Am J Perinatol. 2004 Apr; 21(3):139-46.
8. Obora VO, Tabowei TO.A randomized controlled trial of misopostol versus oxytocin in
the active management of the third stage of labor.J Obstet Gynecol. 2003 Jan; 23(1):13-6.
9. Wing DA, Fassett MJ, Guberman C, Tran S, Parrish A, Guinn D. A comparison of orally
administered misoprostol to intravenous oxytocin for labor induction in women with
favorable cervical examinations. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2004 Jun; 190(6):1689-94.
10. Mozurkewich E , Horrocks J, Daley S, Von Oeyen P, Halvorson M, Johnson M, et
al.The MisoPROM study: a multicenter randomized comparison of oral misoprostol and
oxytocin for premature rupture of membranes at term .Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2003