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

  • Alka A. MukherjeeEmail author
Original Article



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.


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.


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.


Second-trimester termination Misoprost Sublingual Vaginal 


Compliance with Ethical Standards

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.


  1. 1.
    Wildschut H, Both MI, Medema S, et al. Medical methods for mid-trimester termination of pregnancy. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2011;(1):CD005216.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
  3. 3.
  4. 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.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. 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.PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  6. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Tang OS, Schweer H, Seyberth HW, et al. Pharmacokinetics of different routes of administration of misoprostol. Hum Reprod. 2002;17(2):332–6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 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.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists. ACOG Practice Bulletin No. 135: second-trimester abortion. Obstet Gynecol. 2013;121(6):1394–406.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Borgatta L, Kapp N. Labor induction abortion in the second trimester. Contraception. 2011;84(1):4–18.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. 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.Google Scholar
  12. 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.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Federation of Obstetric & Gynecological Societies of India 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Mukherjee Multispeciality HospitalNagpurIndia

Personalised recommendations