Someone posted the other day (I think on the third trimester) about the cost difference between Cytotec and Cervidil and it was literally over $100 difference (Cytotec being the less expensive option)
Just knowing that makes me wonder if the frequent use of Cytotec is really because it is the more effective option or if it is just the less expensive option. ::shrugs::
Maybe it's both. Here are three recent studies comparing Cytotec to Cervidil and they all find that Cytotec is more effective without increasing complications. Better efficacy + way less expensive sounds like smart medicine to me. If we natural birth advocates are serious about giving women information to make their own choices, about evidence-based medicine, and about lowering cesarean rates, then why does Cytotec get demonized so much?
Women who received misoprostol had a higher incidence of vaginal delivery within 12 and 24 hours of prostaglandin application, compared with dinoprostone. Both modalities had similar incidences of cesarean delivery, uterine hyperstimulation, and fetal tachysystole. There was an increased need for oxytocin augmentation in the dinoprostone group. No significant difference in neonatal outcomes was noted between the 2 groups.
Vaginally administered misoprostol was more effective than the dinoprostone vaginal insert for cervical ripening and labor induction. The safety profiles of both drugs were similar.
The five trials comparing oral misoprostol and dinoprostone showed significantly fewer women requiring cesarean delivery in the misoprostol group (20% compared with 26%; RR 0.82, 95% CI 0.71–0.96). There were no statistically significant differences in risks of uterine hyperstimulation or need for oxytocin augmentation. Two trials compared oral with vaginal low-dose misoprostol. Women using oral misoprostol were significantly less likely to experience uterine hyperstimulation with fetal heart rate changes (2% compared with 13%; RR 0.19, 95% CI 0.08–0.46), but there were no significant differences in other outcomes.
CONCLUSION: Low-dose oral misoprostol solution (20 micrograms) administered every 2 hours seems at least as effective as both vaginal dinoprostone and vaginal misoprostol, with lower rates of cesarean delivery and uterine hyperstimulation, respectively.
Induction to vaginal delivery interval was significantly lower (p < 0.05) for 50 microg (13.8 +/- 6.62 hours) as compared to 25 microg misoprostol (16.4 +/- 7.34 hours) or dinoprostone group (16.3 +/- 7.49 hours). Maximum improvement (p < 0.05) in Bishop's score and minimum oxytocin requirement (p < 0.05) was seen with misoprostol 50 microg. No significant difference was observed for women delivering vaginally within 24 hours (93.8 vs. 89.7 vs. 85.4%), patients delivering after one dose (24.3 vs. 21.4 vs. 20%), cesarean deliveries, fetal outcome, complications like hyperstimulation and fetal heart abnormalities for the 50 vs. 25 microg misoprostol vs. dinoprostone group.
Intravaginal misoprostol 50 microg administered 6 hourly appears to be most effective as it has least induction to delivery time, has maximum improvement in Bishop's score, least oxytocin requirement without any increase in complication rate.