Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Comparison of Effectiveness of Sublingual and Vaginal Misoprostol for Second-Trimester Abortion

  • Original Article
  • Published:
The Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology of India Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Objective

The aim of this study was to compare the efficacy and safety of sublingual and vaginal misoprostol in second-trimester termination of pregnancy in 24 and 48 h.

Study Design

This is a retrospective study of 240 pregnant women seeking termination in second trimester (13–18.5 weeks), in which the patients are subdivided into two groups—first group received 400 mcg of misoprostol sublingually (n = 120), and second group received 400 mcg of misoprostol vaginally (n = 120) every 4 h for a maximum of five doses. The course of misoprostol was repeated if the patient did not abort within 24 h.

Results

The mean induction-to-abortion interval was shorter in sublingual group (10.28 ± 3.1 h) versus 14.68 ± 4.2 h in vaginal group in 24 h (p = 0.0001), and 36.9 ± 4.4 h in sublingual versus 29.7 ± 14 in vaginal group in 48 h (p = 0.0933). Mean dose requirement for misoprostol by sublingual route was low as compared to vaginal misoprostol (1048 ± 301 mg versus 1250 ± 375 mg; p = 0.0001 in 24 h and 1110 ± 833 mg versus 1325 ± 536 mg; p = 0.0231 in 48 h). No significant difference was found in the success rate (both at 24 and 48 h) and in side effects among the two comparison groups.

Conclusion

Misoprostol as such by any route has been proven as an effective abortifacient in second trimester. Both sublingual and vaginal routes are effective for medical abortion. But shorter induction-to-abortion interval in sublingual route, less dose requirement and higher acceptability makes sublingual route as a better choice.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Wildschut H, Both MI, Medema S, et al. Medical methods for mid-trimester termination of pregnancy. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2011;(1):CD005216.

  2. The care of women requiring induced abortion. RCOG. https://www.rcog.org.uk/en/guidelines-research-services/guidelines/the-care-of-women-requesting-induced-abortion/. Accessed 13 Oct 2018.

  3. Misoprostol only recommended regimens. https://www.figo.org/sites/default/files/uploads/project-publications/Miso/FIGO_Dosage_Chart%20EN_0.pdf. Accessed 11 Oct 2018.

  4. Nagaria T, Sirmor N. Misoprostol vs mifepristone and misoprostol in second trimester termination of pregnancy. J Obstet Gynaecol India. 2011;61(6):659–62.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Milani F, Sharami SH, Arjmandi S. Comparison of sublingual and vaginal misoprostol for second-trimester pregnancy terminations. J Family Reprod Health. 2014;8(1):41–4.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  6. von Hertzen H, Piaggio G, Wojdyla D, et al. Comparison of vaginal and sublingual misoprostol for second trimester abortion: randomized controlled equivalence trial. Hum Reprod. 2009;24(1):106–12.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  7. Tang OS, Schweer H, Seyberth HW, et al. Pharmacokinetics of different routes of administration of misoprostol. Hum Reprod. 2002;17(2):332–6.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  8. Nautiyal D, Mukherjee K, Perhar I, et al. Comparative study of misoprostol in first and second trimester abortions by oral, sublingual, and vaginal routes. J Obstet Gynaecol India. 2015;65(4):246–50.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists. ACOG Practice Bulletin No. 135: second-trimester abortion. Obstet Gynecol. 2013;121(6):1394–406.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Borgatta L, Kapp N. Labor induction abortion in the second trimester. Contraception. 2011;84(1):4–18.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Tanha FD, Golgachi T, Niroomand N, Ghajarzadeh M, Nasr R. Sublingual versus Vaginal misoprostol for second trimester termination: a randomized clinical trial. Arch Gynecolobstet. 2013;287:65–9.

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  12. Bhattacharjee N, Saha SP, Ghoshroy SC, et al. A randomised comparative study on sublingual versus vaginal administration of misoprostol for termination of pregnancy between 13 to 20 weeks. Aust N Z J Obstet Gynaecol. 2008;48(2):165–71.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Mukherjee Multispeciality Hospital, Plot 179, Ayurvedic Lay Out, Bhande Plot Square, Umred Road, Nagpur, Maharashtra State, India

    Alka A. Mukherjee

Authors
  1. Alka A. Mukherjee
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Alka A. Mukherjee.

Ethics declarations

Disclosure of potential conflict of interest

There are no conflicts of interests for any author (financial or otherwise).

Ethical Statement

Ethical committee approval has been obtained before the study.

Informed Consent

Informed consent has been taken.

Human and Animal Rights

This article does not contain any studies with animal subjects.

Additional information

Dr. Alka A. Mukherjee MBBS, DGO, FICMCH is a senior consultant and Director of Mukherjee Multispeciality Hospital.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Mukherjee, A.A. Comparison of Effectiveness of Sublingual and Vaginal Misoprostol for Second-Trimester Abortion. J Obstet Gynecol India 69, 246–251 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1007/s13224-018-1183-8

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s13224-018-1183-8

Keywords

Search

Navigation