Does Induction with Misoprostol Impact the Small for Gestational Age Neonate?

Abstract

Objective To compare outcomes in small for gestational age neonates induced with misoprostol to other cervical ripening agents. We hypothesized that misoprostol use will demonstrate no significant difference in outcomes compared with alternative agents.

Study Design Small for gestational age neonates (<10th percentile for gestational age) from the Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development (NICHD) sponsored Consortium on Safe Labor database were analyzed. Neonates induced with misoprostol ± oxytocin (n = 451) were compared with neonates induced with prostaglandin E2 ± oxytocin and/or mechanical dilation ± oxytocin (n = 663). Primary outcomes included intrapartum fetal distress, cesarean section for fetal distress, cesarean section for any reason, neonatal intensive care unit admission, low 5-minute Apgar, and composite neonatal morbidity. Multiple logistic regression was used to calculate adjusted odds ratios (aORs). Data were analyzed using SAS.

Results Small for gestational age neonates induced with misoprostol ± oxytocin compared with alternative agents had decreased low 5-minute Apgar scores (aOR 0.27 [0.10–0.71]). No significant differences were demonstrated among very small for gestational age neonates (<5th percentile for gestational age).

Conclusion Our results suggest that misoprostol does not increase risk of adverse outcomes in small for gestational age neonates; however, prospective studies are warranted to further assess optimal cervical ripening agents in this population.

Keywords

induction - fetal growth restriction - misoprostol - neonatal outcomes - small for gestational age

Note

This study was conducted at the Medical College of Wisconsin (Milwaukee, WI) and University of Illinois, Chicago (Chicago, IL).

This study was presented in a poster format at the Society of Maternal-Fetal Medicine 35th Annual Meeting (February 2–7, 2015), San Diego, CA, February 5, 2015, #199.

• References

• 1 Baschat AA, Galan HL, Gabbe SG. Intrauterine growth restriction. In: Gabbe SG, Niebyl JR, Galan HL, , et al , eds. Obstetrics: Normal and Problem Pregnancies . Philadelphia, PA: Saunders; 2012: 706-741
• 2 McIntire DD, Bloom SL, Casey BM, Leveno KJ. Birth weight in relation to morbidity and mortality among newborn infants. N Engl J Med 1999; 340 (16) 1234-1238
• 3 American College of Obstetricians and Gyencologists. ACOG Practice bulletin no. 134: fetal growth restriction. Obstet Gynecol 2013; 121 (5) 1122-1133
• 4 Clausson B, Cnattingius S, Axelsson O. Preterm and term births of small for gestational age infants: a population-based study of risk factors among nulliparous women. Br J Obstet Gynaecol 1998; 105 (9) 1011-1017
• 5 Low JA, Boston RW, Pancham SR. Fetal asphyxia during the intrapartum period in intrauterine growth-retarded infants. Am J Obstet Gynecol 1972; 113 (3) 351-357
• 6 Lin CC, Moawad AH, Rosenow PJ, River P. Acid-base characteristics of fetuses with intrauterine growth retardation during labor and delivery. Am J Obstet Gynecol 1980; 137 (5) 553-559
• 7 Resnik R. Intrauterine growth restriction. Obstet Gynecol 2002; 99 (3) 490-496
• 8 Rozenberg P, Chevret S, Sénat MV, Bretelle F, Paule Bonnal A, Ville Y. A randomized trial that compared intravaginal misoprostol and dinoprostone vaginal insert in pregnancies at high risk of fetal distress. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2004; 191 (1) 247-253
• 9 Chavakula PR, Benjamin SJ, Abraham A, Londhe V, Jeyaseelan V, Mathews JE. Misoprostol versus Foley catheter insertion for induction of labor in pregnancies affected by fetal growth restriction. Int J Gynaecol Obstet 2015; 129 (2) 152-155
• 10 Zhang J, Troendle J, Reddy UM , et al; Consortium on Safe Labor. Contemporary cesarean delivery practice in the United States. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2010; 203 (4) 326.e1-326.e10
• 11 Alexander GR, Himes JH, Kaufman RB, Mor J, Kogan M. A United States national reference for fetal growth. Obstet Gynecol 1996; 87 (2) 163-168
• 12 American College of Obstetricians and Gyencologists. ACOG Practice bulletin no. 115: vaginal birth after previous cesarean delivery. Obstet Gynecol 2010; 116 (2, Pt 1) 450-463
• 13 Crane JM, Butler B, Young DC, Hannah ME. Misoprostol compared with prostaglandin E2 for labour induction in women at term with intact membranes and unfavourable cervix: a systematic review. BJOG 2006; 113 (12) 1366-1376
• 14 Kolderup L, McLean L, Grullon K, Safford K, Kilpatrick SJ. Misoprostol is more efficacious for labor induction than prostaglandin E2, but is it associated with more risk?. Am J Obstet Gynecol 1999; 180 (6, Pt 1): 1543-1550
• 15 Buser D, Mora G, Arias F. A randomized comparison between misoprostol and dinoprostone for cervical ripening and labor induction in patients with unfavorable cervices. Obstet Gynecol 1997; 89 (4) 581-585
• 16 Hofmeyr GJ, Gülmezoglu AM, Pileggi C. Vaginal misoprostol for cervical ripening and induction of labour. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2010; (10) CD000941
• 17 Austin SC, Sanchez-Ramos L, Adair CD. Labor induction with intravaginal misoprostol compared with the dinoprostone vaginal insert: a systematic review and metaanalysis. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2010; 202 (6) 624.e1-624.e9
• 18 Sanchez-Ramos L, Kaunitz AM, Wears RL, Delke I, Gaudier FL. Misoprostol for cervical ripening and labor induction: a meta-analysis. Obstet Gynecol 1997; 89 (4) 633-642
• 19 Copel JA, Bahtiyar MO. A practical approach to fetal growth restriction. Obstet Gynecol 2014; 123 (5) 1057-1069
• 20 Ott WJ. Sonographic diagnosis of fetal growth restriction. Clin Obstet Gynecol 2006; 49 (2) 295-307
• 21 Sanchez-Ramos L, Kaunitz AM, Delke I. Labor induction with 25 microg versus 50 microg intravaginal misoprostol: a systematic review. Obstet Gynecol 2002; 99 (1) 145-151
• 22 ACOG Committee on Practice Bulletins – Obstetrics. ACOG Practice Bulletin No. 107: induction of labor. Obstet Gynecol 2009; 114 (2, Pt 1): 386-397