Objective: To study the efficacy, safety, cost effectiveness, intrapartumcomplications, mode of delivery and neonatal outcome with intravaginal misoprostol and intracervicaldinoprostone for induction of labor. Methods: 200 antenatal women who were decided for induction of labor were randomly divided into two groups, one group (PGE1) received misoprostol 25mcg intravaginally and another group (PGE2) received dinoprostone 0.5mg intracervically. The efficacy and safety of these methods were analysed and compared in the following parameters: induction delivery interval, mode of delivery, neonataloutcome, fetomaternal complications and cost of the drug. Results: Among 200 antenatal women of different age groups and different indications for induction of labor, 100 women of one group receiving PGE1, of which 82% had vaginal delivery compared to 69% of PGE2 group which is statistically significant (p = 0.032). Csection rate was 31% in PGE2 group compared to 18% in PGE1 group, which is statistically significant. 64% of PGE1 group had vaginal delivery within 12hrs compared to 37% of PGE2 group which is statistically significant (p = 0.0007). PGE1 group had less need for acceleration of labor with oxytocin i.e 42% compared to 81% in PGE2 group. Failed induction with PGE2 is more statistically significant (p = 0.037). Maternal and fetal complications are not significant statistically. Conclusion: PGE1 is more efficacious for cervical ripening and labor induction than PGE2 as PGE1 has lesser requirement of oxytocin for laboraugmentation, shorter induction delivery interval, more number of vaginal deliveries, lesscsection rate, stable at room temperature and cost effective, however uterine contraction abnormalities, fetal heart rate irregularities and MSL should be carefully assessed by close monitoring of labor by intapartum CTG and partogram.

Keywords: PGE1; PGE2.