The use of a synthetic analogue of prostaglandin Е1 misoprostol for induction of labor

Cover Page


Induction of labor is often used in modern obstetrics. Labor induction methods are quite diverse. Proposed by a large number of labor induction methods, such as medication and non-medication. The growth rate of induced births dictates the need to find an effective and safe method of labor induction. One of the most studied inductors reduce the myometrium are prostaglandins. The review of literature presents data on the mechanism of action of prostaglandin E1 on the myometrium cell, given the characteristics of various methods of labor induction with a synthetic analogue of prostaglandin E1 Misoprostol.

Gleb V Blagodarniy

FSBSI “The Research Institute of Obstetrics, Gynecology and Reproductology named after D.O. Ott”

Author for correspondence.

Russian Federation graduate student, dep. labor and delivery

  1. Баскетт Т.Ф., Калдер Э.А. Оперативное акушерство Манро Керра. – М.: Логосфера, 2015. [Baskett TF, Kalder JeA. Operativnoe akusherstvo Manro Kerra. Moscow: Logosfera; 2015. (In Russ.)]
  2. WHO recommendations for Induction of labour. Available at:
  3. Северин Е.С., ред. Биохимия: учеб. для вузов. – М., 2003. [Severin ES, red. Biohimija: ucheb. dlja vuzov. Moscow; 2003. (In Russ.)]
  4. Сидельникова В.М. Эндокринология беременности в норме и при патологии. – М.: Медпресс, 2009. [Sidel’nikova VM. Jendokrinologija beremennosti v norme i pri patologii. Moscow: Medpress; 2009. (In Russ.)]
  5. Arulkumaran S, Kandola MK, Hoffman BJ, et al. The roles of prostaglandin EP1 and 3 receptors in the control of human myometrial contractility. Clin Endocrinol Metab. 2012;97(2):489-98. doi: 10.1210/jc.2011-1991.
  6. Zieman M, Fong SK, Benowitz NL, et al. Absorption kinetics of misoprostol with oral or vaginal administration. Obstet Gynecol. 1997;90(1):88-92.
  7. Tang OS, Gemzell-Danielsson K, Ho PC. Misoprostol: pharmacokinetic profiles, effects on the uterus and side-effects. Int J Gynecology Obstet. 2007;99:S160-7.
  8. Hofmeyr GJ, Gülmezoglu AM, Alfirevic Z. Misoprostol for induction of labour: a systematic review. Br J Obstet Gynaecol. 1999;106(8):798-803.
  9. Wing DA, Ham D, Paul RH. A comparison of orally administered misoprostol with vaginally administered misoprostol for cervical ripening and labor induction. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 1999;180(5):1155-60.
  10. Kundodyiwa TW, Alfirevic Z, Weeks AD. Low-dose oral misoprostol for induction of labor: a systematic review. Obstet Gynecol. 2009;113(2 Pt 1):374-83. doi: 10.1097/AOG.0b013e3181945859.
  11. Deshmukh VL, Yelikar KA, Waso V. Comparative study of efficacy and safety of oral versus vaginal misoprostol for induction or labour. J Obstet Gynaecol India. 2013;63(5):321-4. doi: 10.1007/s13224-012-0337-3.
  12. Komala K, Reddy M, Quadri IJ. Comparative study of oral and vaginal misoprostol for induction of labour, maternal and foetal outcome. J Clin Diagn Res. 2013;7(12): 2866-9. doi: 10.7860/JCDR/2013/5825.3779.
  13. Alfirevic Z, Keeney E, Dowswell T, et al. Labour induction with prostaglandins: a systematic review and network meta analysis. BMJ. 2015;350: h217. doi: 10.1136/bmj.h217.
  14. Cheng SY, Hsue CS, Hwang GH, et al. Comparison of labor induction with titrated oral misoprostol solution between nulliparous and multiparous women. J Obstet Gynaecol Res. 2010;36(1):72-8. doi: 10.1111/j.1447-0756.2009.01118.x.
  15. Cheng SY, Ming H, Lee JC. Titrated oral compared with vaginal misoprostol for labor induction: a randomized controlled trial. Obstet Gynecol. 2008;111(1):119-25. doi: 10.1097/01.AOG.0000297313.68644.71.
  16. Souza AS, Feitosa FE, Costa AA, et al. Titrated oral misoprostol solution versus vaginal isoprostol for labor induction. Int J Gynaecol Obstet. 2013;123(3):207-12. doi: 10.1016/j.ijgo.2013.06.028.
  17. 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):1366-76.
  18. Ozkan S, Calişkan E, Doğer E, et al. Comparative efficacy and safety of vaginal misoprostol versus dinoprostone vaginal insert in labor induction at term: a randomized trial. Arch Gynecol Obstet. 2009;280(1):19-24. doi: 10.1007/s00404-008-0843-9.
  19. Petersen JF, Bergholt T, Løkkegaard EC. Safe induction of labour with low-dose misoprostol, but less effective than the conventional dinoprostone regimen. Dan Med J. 2013;60(9): A4706.
  20. Abramovici D, Goldwasser S, Mabie BC, et al. A randomized comparison of oral misoprostol versus Foley catheter and oxytocin for induction of labor at term. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 1999;181(5 Pt 1):1108-12.
  21. Culver J, Strauss RA, Brody S, et al. A randomized trial comparing vaginal misoprostol versus Foley catheter with concurrent oxytocin for labor induction in nulliparous women. Am J Perinatol. 2004;21(3):139-46.
  22. Moraes Filho OB, Albuquerque RM, Cecatti JG. A randomized controlled trial comparing vaginal misoprostol versus Foley catheter plus oxytocin for labor induction. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand. 2010;89(8):1045-52. doi: 10.3109/00016349.2010.499447.
  23. El-Khayat W, Alelaiw H, El-kateb A, Elsemary A. Comparing vaginal misoprostol versus Foley catheter plus vaginal isosorbide mononitrate for labor induction. J Matern Fetal Neonatal Med. 2016;29(3):487-92. doi: 10.3109/14767058.2015.1007036.
  24. Chavakula PR, Benjamin SJ, Abraham A, et al. Misoprostol versus Foley catheter insertion for induction of labor in pregnancies affected by fetal growth restriction. Int J Gynaecol Obstet. 2015;129(2):152-5. doi: 10.1016/j.ijgo.2014.11.018.
  25. Wing DA, Lovett K, Paul RH. Disruption of prior uterine incision following misoprostol for labor induction in women with previous cesarean delivery. Obstet Gynecol. 1998;91(5 Pt 2):828-30.
  26. Sanchez-Ramos L, Kaunitz AM. Misoprostol for cervical ripening and labor induction: a systematic review of the literature. Clin Obstet Gynecol. 2000;43(3):475-88.
  27. Stenson D, Wallstrom T, Sjostrand M, et al. Induction of labor in women with a uterine scar. J Matern Fetal Neonatal Med. 2016;29(20):3286-91. doi: 10.3109/14767058.2015.1123242.


Abstract - 279

PDF (Russian) - 202


Copyright (c) 2017 Blagodarniy G.V.

Creative Commons License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.