Obstet Gynecol Sci.  2020 Jul;63(4):514-520. 10.5468/ogs.19170.

Intravaginal isonicotinic acid hydrazide (INH) versus misoprostol for cervical ripening prior to hysteroscopy

• Haghighi L
• Najmi Z
• Rokhgireh S
• Moradi Y

• KMID: 2505042
• DOI: http://doi.org/10.5468/ogs.19170

Abstract

Objective
The aim of the present study was to compare the efficacy of vaginal isoniazid (isonicotinic acid hydrazide [INH]) and vaginal misoprostol in cervical ripening before hysteroscopic surgery.
Methods
This randomized controlled trial included patients scheduled for hysteroscopic surgery during April 2016 and June 2017. The inclusion criteria were as follows: postmenopausal women or those at premenopausal age who had not had a vaginal delivery and candidate for diagnostic or operative hysteroscopy with closed cervix before intervention. The INH group (intervention group) received 900 mg of vaginal isoniazid (three 300-mg pills) 6–8 hours before hysteroscopic surgery. The misoprostol group (control group) received 400 micrograms of vaginal misoprostol 6–8 hours before hysteroscopic surgery. Finally, the efficacy of the 2 agents was comparatively analyzed.
Results
Baseline characteristics were comparable between the groups. In 67 cases in the INH group (95%) and 45 in the misoprostol group (50%), hysteroscopic entry was successful without additional mechanical dilation, and this difference was statistically significant (P=0.001). The odds ratio (OR) obtained in this study was 0.57 for both INH and misoprostol groups (OR, 0.57; 95% confidence interval, 0.43–0.75). Further, 19 cases in the INH group vs. 45 cases in the misoprostol group did not respond to the intervention, indicating statistically significance (P=0.001).
Conclusion
Vaginal INH is more effective than misoprostol in cervical ripening before hysteroscopic surgery and can be a good alternative to misoprostol. Trial Registration Iranian Registry Clinical Trial (IRCT) Identifier: IRCT2015112821506N4

Keyword

Isonicotinic acid hydrazide; Misoprostol; Cervical ripening

Figure

• 

  Fig. 1. CONSORT diagram of the trial.

• 

  Fig. 2. The compare of frequency of hysteroscopy entry without mechanical dilation in 2 group. INH, isonicotinic acid hydrazide.

Reference

References

1. Dogru A, Sargin F, Celik M, Sagiroglu AE, Goksel MM, Sayhan H. The rate of device-associated nosocomial infections in a medical surgical intensive care unit of a training and research hospital in Turkey: one-year outcomes. Jpn J Infect Dis. 2010; 63:95–8.

2. Eggimann P, Sax H, Pittet D. Catheter-related infections. Microbes Infect. 2004; 6:1033–42.

3. Randolph JF Jr, Ying YK, Maier DB, Schmidt CL, Riddick DH. Comparison of real-time ultrasonography, hysterosalpingography, and laparoscopy/hysteroscopy in the evaluation of uterine abnormalities and tubal patency. Fertil Steril. 1986; 46:828–32.

4. Wolman I, Jaffa AJ, Hartoov J, Bar-Am A, David MP. Sensitivity and specificity of sonohysterography for the evaluation of the uterine cavity in perimenopausal patients. J Ultrasound Med. 1996; 15:285–8.

5. Munro MG, Jensen J, Purdon TF. Narrow caliber office hysteroscope. J Am Assoc Gynecol Laparosc. 1994; 1:S24.

6. Campo R, Van Belle Y, Rombauts L, Brosens I, Gordts S. Office mini-hysteroscopy. Hum Reprod Update. 1999; 5:73–81.

7. Dingfelder JR, Brenner WE, Hendricks CH, Staurovsky LG. Reduction of cervical resistance by prostaglandin suppositories prior to dilatation for induced abortion. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 1975; 122:25–30.

8. Christensen NJ, Bygdeman M, Gréen K. Comparison of different prostaglandin analogues and laminaria for preoperative dilatation of the cervix in late first trimester abortion. Contraception. 1983; 27:51–61.

9. Jain JK, Mishell DR Jr. A comparison of misoprostol with and without laminaria tents for induction of second-trimester abortion. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 1996; 175:173–7.

10. Ngai SW, Yeung KC, Lao T, Ho PC. Oral misoprostol versus vaginal gemeprost for cervical dilatation prior to vacuum aspiration in women in the sixth to twelfth week of gestation. Contraception. 1995; 51:347–50.

11. Batukan C, Ozgun MT, Ozcelik B, Aygen E, Sahin Y, Turkyilmaz C. Cervical ripening before operative hysteroscopy in premenopausal women: a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled comparison of vaginal and oral misoprostol. Fertil Steril. 2008; 89:966–73.

12. Siddique S, Howlader MJ, Saha J, Begum KS. A comparison of orally administered misoprostol with vaginally administered misoprostol for cervical ripening and labour induction. KYAMC Journal. 2017; 7:668–72.

13. Haghighi L, Mohabatian B. Isonicotinic acid hydrazide (INH): a new agent for cervical ripening at term. J Obstet Gynaecol. 2015; 35:251–4.

14. Yilmaz HR, Uz E, Gökalp O, Ozçelik N, Ciçek E, Özer MK. Protective role of caffeic acid phenethyl ester and erdosteine on activities of purine-catabolizing enzymes and level of nitric oxide in red blood cells of isoniazid-administered rats. Toxicol Ind Health. 2008; 24:519–24.

15. Haghighi L, Homam H, Raoofi Z, Najmi Z. Intravaginal isosorbide dinitrate or misoprostol for cervical ripening prior to induction of labour: a randomised controlled trial. J Obstet Gynaecol. 2013; 33:272–6.

16. Machin D, Campbell MJ, Tan SB, Tan SH. Sample size tables for clinical studies. Hoboken (NJ): John Wiley & Sons;2011.

17. Sokal RR, Jamesrohlf F. Introduction to biostatistics. 2nd ed. New York (NY): W. H. Freeman and Company;2009.

18. Zar JH. Biostatistical analysis. Delhi: Pearson Education, India;1999.

19. Abotorabi S, Mohammadi M, Bagherivand S, Oveisi S. A pilot randomized controlled trial to evaluate isosorbide mononitrate (IMN) efficiency for cervical ripening prior to labor induction in Iranian pregnant women. Iran J Pharm Res. 2019; 18:988–94.

20. 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; 29:487–92.

21. Waddell G, Desindes S, Takser L, Beauchemin MC, Bessette P. Cervical ripening using vaginal misoprostol before hysteroscopy: a double-blind randomized trial. J Minim Invasive Gynecol. 2008; 15:739–44.

22. Bisharah M, Al-Fozan H, Tulandi T. A randomized trial of sublingual misoprostol for cervical priming before hysteroscopy. J Am Assoc Gynecol Laparosc. 2003; 10:390–1.

23. Mulayim B, Celik NY, Onalan G, Bagis T, Zeyneloglu HB. Sublingual misoprostol for cervical ripening before diagnostic hysteroscopy in premenopausal women: a randomized, double blind, placebo-controlled trial. Fertil Steril. 2010; 93:2400–4.

24. Preutthipan S, Herabutya Y. Vaginal misoprostol for cervical priming before operative hysteroscopy: a randomized controlled trial. Obstet Gynecol. 2000; 96:890–4.

25. Sordia-Hernández LH, Rosales-Tristan E, Vazquez-Mendez J, Merino M, Iglesias JL, Garza-Leal JG, et al. Effectiveness of misoprostol for office hysteroscopy without anesthesia in infertile patients. Fertil Steril. 2011; 95:759–61.

26. Inal HA, Ozturk Inal ZH, Tonguc E, Var T. Comparison of vaginal misoprostol and dinoprostone for cervical ripening before diagnostic hysteroscopy in nulliparous women. Fertil Steril. 2015; 103:1326–31.