Souza A S R, Amorim M M R, Feitosa F E L
Department of Obstetrics, Instituto Materno Infantil Prof. Fernando Figueira, Recife, Pernambuco, Brazil.
BJOG. 2008 Oct;115(11):1340-9. doi: 10.1111/j.1471-0528.2008.01872.x.
The induction of full-term labour in women with a live fetus remains a major challenge in modern obstetrics.
To determine, using the best level of evidence available, the efficacy and safety of sublingual administration of misoprostol compared with vaginal misoprostol in the third trimester of pregnancy for the induction of labour, according to initial doses, in women with a live, full-term fetus and an unripe cervix.
Pubmed/Medline, Lilacs and Scielo databases were consulted, as well as clinical trials registered in the Cochrane Register from January 1996 to February 2008, using the keywords 'misoprostol', 'labour, obstetric', 'delivery, obstetric', 'induced labour' and 'parturition' with the search limits of 'clinical trials' and 'randomised clinical trials'.
This review contains randomised clinical trials in which the sublingual and vaginal routes of administration of misoprostol were compared. Participants were pregnant women with an indication for induction of labour and a live fetus more than 37 weeks of gestational age.
The primary analysis compared sublingual and vaginal routes of administration of misoprostol. Secondary analyses compared different routes and initial doses of misoprostol. Statistical analysis included odds ratios and their respective 95% CI. To evaluate the heterogeneity of the studies, the I-squared test was used, studies being considered heterogeneous when I 2 was greater than 50%.
Five good quality clinical trials involving a total of 740 women were eligible, and all were included. No statistically significant difference was found between the sublingual and the vaginal misoprostol groups with respect to the rate of vaginal delivery not achieved within 24 hours (OR 1.27, 95% CI 0.87-1.84), uterine hyperstimulation syndrome (OR 1.20, 95% CI 0.61-2.33) or caesarean section (OR 1.33, 95% CI 0.96-1.85). An increased risk of uterine tachysystole was found in the sublingual misoprostol group (OR 1.70, 95% CI 1.02-2.83). When the studies were grouped according to the initial dose of misoprostol, no significant difference was found between sublingual or vaginal groups.
AUTHOR'S CONCLUSIONS: The sublingual route of administration is as effective as the vaginal route in inducing labour in full-term pregnancies with live fetuses. However, the safety, adverse effects, optimal dose and perinatal outcome related to this route of administration remain to be established, and it cannot be recommended for routine use in obstetric practice.
对于有存活胎儿的足月孕妇引产仍是现代产科学中的一项重大挑战。
根据现有最佳证据水平,比较在妊娠晚期对有存活足月胎儿且宫颈未成熟的孕妇引产时,舌下含服米索前列醇与阴道使用米索前列醇的有效性和安全性,并按初始剂量进行比较。
查阅了PubMed/Medline、Lilacs和Scielo数据库,以及1996年1月至2008年2月在Cochrane注册中心登记的临床试验,使用关键词“米索前列醇”、“产科分娩”、“产科接生”、“引产”和“分娩”,检索限定为“临床试验”和“随机临床试验”。
本综述纳入了比较米索前列醇舌下含服和阴道给药途径的随机临床试验。参与者为有引产指征且孕周超过37周的存活胎儿的孕妇。
主要分析比较米索前列醇的舌下含服和阴道给药途径。次要分析比较米索前列醇的不同给药途径和初始剂量。统计分析包括比值比及其各自的95%置信区间。为评估研究的异质性,使用I²检验,当I²大于50%时,研究被认为具有异质性。
五项高质量临床试验共纳入740名妇女,全部被纳入分析。在24小时内未实现阴道分娩的发生率(比值比1.27,95%置信区间0.87 - 1.84)、子宫过度刺激综合征(比值比1.20,95%置信区间0.61 - 2.33)或剖宫产率(比值比1.33,95%置信区间0.96 - 1.85)方面,舌下含服米索前列醇组与阴道使用米索前列醇组之间未发现统计学显著差异。舌下含服米索前列醇组发现子宫收缩过速风险增加(比值比1.70,95%置信区间1.02 - 2.83)。当根据米索前列醇的初始剂量对研究进行分组时,舌下含服组或阴道使用组之间未发现显著差异。
在有存活胎儿的足月妊娠引产中,舌下给药途径与阴道给药途径同样有效。然而,与该给药途径相关的安全性、不良反应、最佳剂量和围产期结局仍有待确定,目前不推荐在产科实践中常规使用。