-
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Jun 2021Miscarriage, defined as the spontaneous loss of a pregnancy before 24 weeks' gestation, is common with approximately 25% of women experiencing a miscarriage in their... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
Miscarriage, defined as the spontaneous loss of a pregnancy before 24 weeks' gestation, is common with approximately 25% of women experiencing a miscarriage in their lifetime. An estimated 15% of pregnancies end in miscarriage. Miscarriage can lead to serious morbidity, including haemorrhage, infection, and even death, particularly in settings without adequate healthcare provision. Early miscarriages occur during the first 14 weeks of pregnancy, and can be managed expectantly, medically or surgically. However, there is uncertainty about the relative effectiveness and risks of each option.
OBJECTIVES
To estimate the relative effectiveness and safety profiles for the different management methods for early miscarriage, and to provide rankings of the available methods according to their effectiveness, safety, and side-effect profile using a network meta-analysis.
SEARCH METHODS
We searched the Cochrane Pregnancy and Childbirth's Trials Register (9 February 2021), ClinicalTrials.gov and the WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP) (12 February 2021), and reference lists of retrieved studies.
SELECTION CRITERIA
We included all randomised controlled trials assessing the effectiveness or safety of methods for miscarriage management. Early miscarriage was defined as less than or equal to 14 weeks of gestation, and included missed and incomplete miscarriage. Management of late miscarriages after 14 weeks of gestation (often referred to as intrauterine fetal deaths) was not eligible for inclusion in the review. Cluster- and quasi-randomised trials were eligible for inclusion. Randomised trials published only as abstracts were eligible if sufficient information could be retrieved. We excluded non-randomised trials.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
At least three review authors independently assessed the trials for inclusion and risk of bias, extracted data and checked them for accuracy. We estimated the relative effects and rankings for the primary outcomes of complete miscarriage and composite outcome of death or serious complications. The certainty of evidence was assessed using GRADE. Relative effects for the primary outcomes are reported subgrouped by the type of miscarriage (incomplete and missed miscarriage). We also performed pairwise meta-analyses and network meta-analysis to determine the relative effects and rankings of all available methods.
MAIN RESULTS
Our network meta-analysis included 78 randomised trials involving 17,795 women from 37 countries. Most trials (71/78) were conducted in hospital settings and included women with missed or incomplete miscarriage. Across 158 trial arms, the following methods were used: 51 trial arms (33%) used misoprostol; 50 (32%) used suction aspiration; 26 (16%) used expectant management or placebo; 17 (11%) used dilatation and curettage; 11 (6%) used mifepristone plus misoprostol; and three (2%) used suction aspiration plus cervical preparation. Of these 78 studies, 71 (90%) contributed data in a usable form for meta-analysis. Complete miscarriage Based on the relative effects from the network meta-analysis of 59 trials (12,591 women), we found that five methods may be more effective than expectant management or placebo for achieving a complete miscarriage: · suction aspiration after cervical preparation (risk ratio (RR) 2.12, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.41 to 3.20, low-certainty evidence), · dilatation and curettage (RR 1.49, 95% CI 1.26 to 1.75, low-certainty evidence), · suction aspiration (RR 1.44, 95% CI 1.29 to 1.62, low-certainty evidence), · mifepristone plus misoprostol (RR 1.42, 95% CI 1.22 to 1.66, moderate-certainty evidence), · misoprostol (RR 1.30, 95% CI 1.16 to 1.46, low-certainty evidence). The highest ranked surgical method was suction aspiration after cervical preparation. The highest ranked non-surgical treatment was mifepristone plus misoprostol. All surgical methods were ranked higher than medical methods, which in turn ranked above expectant management or placebo. Composite outcome of death and serious complications Based on the relative effects from the network meta-analysis of 35 trials (8161 women), we found that four methods with available data were compatible with a wide range of treatment effects compared with expectant management or placebo: · dilatation and curettage (RR 0.43, 95% CI 0.17 to 1.06, low-certainty evidence), · suction aspiration (RR 0.55, 95% CI 0.23 to 1.32, low-certainty evidence), · misoprostol (RR 0.50, 95% CI 0.22 to 1.15, low-certainty evidence), · mifepristone plus misoprostol (RR 0.76, 95% CI 0.31 to 1.84, low-certainty evidence). Importantly, no deaths were reported in these studies, thus this composite outcome was entirely composed of serious complications, including blood transfusions, uterine perforations, hysterectomies, and intensive care unit admissions. Expectant management and placebo ranked the lowest when compared with alternative treatment interventions. Subgroup analyses by type of miscarriage (missed or incomplete) agreed with the overall analysis in that surgical methods were the most effective treatment, followed by medical methods and then expectant management or placebo, but there are possible subgroup differences in the effectiveness of the available methods. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Based on relative effects from the network meta-analysis, all surgical and medical methods for managing a miscarriage may be more effective than expectant management or placebo. Surgical methods were ranked highest for managing a miscarriage, followed by medical methods, which in turn ranked above expectant management or placebo. Expectant management or placebo had the highest chance of serious complications, including the need for unplanned or emergency surgery. A subgroup analysis showed that surgical and medical methods may be more beneficial in women with missed miscarriage compared to women with incomplete miscarriage. Since type of miscarriage (missed and incomplete) appears to be a source of inconsistency and heterogeneity within these data, we acknowledge that the main network meta-analysis may be unreliable. However, we plan to explore this further in future updates and consider the primary analysis as separate networks for missed and incomplete miscarriage.
Topics: Abortion, Incomplete; Abortion, Missed; Abortion, Spontaneous; Drug Therapy, Combination; Female; Humans; Mifepristone; Misoprostol; Network Meta-Analysis; Oxytocics; Placebos; Pregnancy; Pregnancy Trimester, First; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Suction; Vacuum Curettage; Watchful Waiting
PubMed: 34061352
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD012602.pub2 -
Journal de Gynecologie, Obstetrique Et... Dec 2016A state of the art of surgical method of abortion focusing on safety and practical aspects. (Review)
Review
OBJECTIVE
A state of the art of surgical method of abortion focusing on safety and practical aspects.
MATERIAL AND METHODS
A systematic review of French-speaking or English-speaking evidence-based literature about surgical methods of abortion was performed using Pubmed, Cochrane and international recommendations.
RESULTS
Surgical abortion is efficient and safe regardless of gestational age, even before 7 weeks gestation (EL2). A systematic prophylactic antibiotics should be preferred to a targeted antibiotic prophylaxis (grade A). In women under 25 years, doxycycline is preferred (grade C) due to the high prevalence of Chlamydia trachomatis. Systematic cervical preparation is recommended for reducing the incidence of complications from vacuum aspiration (grade A). Misoprostol is a first-line agent (grade A). When misoprostol is used before a vacuum aspiration, a dose of 400 mcg is recommended. The choice of vaginal route or sublingual administration should be left to the woman: (i) the vaginal route 3 hours before the procedure has a good efficiency/safety ratio (grade A); (ii) the sublingual administration 1 to 3 hours before the procedure has a higher efficiency (EL1). The patient should be warned of more common gastrointestinal side effects. The addition of mifepristone 200mg 24 to 48hours before the procedure is interesting for pregnancies between 12 and 14 weeks gestations (EL2). The systematic use of nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs is recommended for limiting the operative and postoperative pain (grade B). Routine vaginal application of an antiseptic prior to the procedure cannot be recommended (grade B). The type of anesthesia (general or local) should be left up to the woman after explanation of the benefit-risk ratio (grade B). Paracervical local anesthesia (PLA) is recommended before performing a vacuum aspiration under local anesthesia (grade A). The electric or manual vacuum methods are very effective, safe and acceptable to women (grade A). Before 9 weeks gestation, the manual vacuum aspiration could have a subjective interest (grade B). The electric vacuum aspiration is recommended after 9 weeks gestation (best practice agreement). For a pregnancy of unknown location, the success of the procedure can reasonably be determined if hCG drops more than 50 % on day 5 and 80 % on day 7 (NP3). After a surgical abortion, paracetamol or addition of paracetamol and codeine is not recommended (grade B).
Topics: Abortion, Induced; Female; Gynecologic Surgical Procedures; Humans; Pregnancy
PubMed: 27810130
DOI: 10.1016/j.jgyn.2016.09.026 -
International Journal of Hyperthermia :... 2024Caesarean scar pregnancy (CSP) presents a significant clinical challenge owing to the associated risks of uterine scar rupture, severe haemorrhage and adverse maternal... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
Efficacy and safety of high-intensity focused ultrasound combined with suction curettage for the treatment of caesarean scar pregnancy: a systematic review and single-arm meta-analysis.
PURPOSE
Caesarean scar pregnancy (CSP) presents a significant clinical challenge owing to the associated risks of uterine scar rupture, severe haemorrhage and adverse maternal outcomes. This study aimed to assess the safety and efficacy of combining high-intensity focused ultrasound (HIFU) with suction curettage for treating CSP.
METHODS
We conducted a comprehensive search in four databases, namely PubMed, Web of Science, Embase and Cochrane Library, to identify published studies evaluating the use of HIFU combined with suction curettage to treat CSP. Intraoperative blood loss, treatment success rate, and reproductive results were the primary outcomes assessed.
RESULTS
A total of 18 studies involving 1251 patients with CSP, all of whom received preoperative HIFU therapy were included. The average hospital stay was 6.22 days, the intraoperative blood loss was 26.29 ml and the incidence of adverse events was 15.60%, including abdominal or lower limb pain, fever, vaginal bleeding, haematuria and vomiting. Furthermore, post-treatment follow-up showed that serum β-human chorionic gonadotropin levels were rapidly normalized (average of 25.48 days) and menstruation returned (average of 33.03 days). The treatment had a remarkable success rate of 97.60% and a subsequent pregnancy rate of 68.70%.
CONCLUSION
While the combination of HIFU and suction-curettage may induce common adverse effects such as lower abdominal or limb pain, these reactions typically do not necessitate therapeutic intervention. Additionally, the size of the gestational sac is a determinant of the procedure's success. In conclusion, HIFU combined with suction curettage demonstrates promising clinical efficacy, safety and favourable reproductive outcomes in managing CSP.
Topics: Humans; Female; Pregnancy; Blood Loss, Surgical; Vacuum Curettage; Cicatrix; Pain; Cesarean Section
PubMed: 38329796
DOI: 10.1080/02656736.2024.2310019 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Sep 2010Incomplete miscarriage is a major problem that should be effectively managed with safe and appropriate procedures. Surgical evacuation of the uterus for management of... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Incomplete miscarriage is a major problem that should be effectively managed with safe and appropriate procedures. Surgical evacuation of the uterus for management of incomplete miscarriage usually involves vacuum aspiration or sharp curettage.
OBJECTIVES
To compare the safety and effectiveness of surgical uterine evacuation methods for management of incomplete miscarriage.
SEARCH STRATEGY
We searched the Cochrane Pregnancy and Childbirth Group's Trials Register (July 2010).
SELECTION CRITERIA
Randomized trials where different surgical methods were used to manage incomplete miscarriage were eligible for inclusion.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
We extracted population characteristics, settings, and exclusion criteria, in addition to outcomes such as complications of the procedure, duration, need for re-evacuation, blood transfusion, and analgesia/anesthesia.
MAIN RESULTS
Two trials (involving 550 women) were included. Vacuum aspiration was associated with statistically significantly decreased blood loss (mean difference (MD) -17.10 ml, 95% confidence interval (CI) -24.05 to -10.15 ml), less pain during the procedure (risk ratio (RR) 0.74, 95% CI 0.61 to 0.90), and shorter duration of the procedure (MD -1.20 minutes, 95% CI -1.53 to -0.87 minutes), than sharp metal curettage, in the single study that evaluated these outcomes in 357 women. Serious complications such as uterine perforation and other morbidity were rare and the sample sizes of the trials were not large enough to evaluate small or moderate differences.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
Although the review indicates that vacuum aspiration is safe, quick to perform, and less painful than sharp curettage, and should be recommended for use in the management of incomplete miscarriage, the results are based on data from only one study. Analgesia and sedation should be provided as necessary for the procedure.
Topics: Abortion, Incomplete; Dilatation and Curettage; Female; Humans; Pregnancy; Treatment Outcome; Vacuum Curettage
PubMed: 20824830
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD001993.pub2 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... 2001Incomplete abortion is a major problem that should be effectively managed with safe and appropriate procedures. Surgical evacuation of the uterus for management of... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
Incomplete abortion is a major problem that should be effectively managed with safe and appropriate procedures. Surgical evacuation of the uterus for management of incomplete abortion usually involves vacuum aspiration or sharp curettage.
OBJECTIVES
To compare the safety and effectiveness of surgical uterine evacuation methods for management of incomplete abortion.
SEARCH STRATEGY
We searched the Cochrane Pregnancy and Childbirth Group trials register, Medline from 1966, Popline from 1970, and the Cochrane Controlled Trials Register. Trials were also identified from reference lists of reviews. Date of last search: October 2000.
SELECTION CRITERIA
Randomized trials where different surgical methods were used to manage incomplete abortion were eligible for inclusion.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
We extracted population characteristics, settings, and exclusion criteria, in addition to outcomes such as complications of the procedure, duration, need for re-evacuation, blood transfusion, and analgesia/anesthesia.
MAIN RESULTS
Two trials were included. Vacuum aspiration was associated with statistically significantly decreased blood loss (-17 mls weighted mean difference, 95% confidence interval (CI) -24 to -10 mls), less pain (relative risk (RR): 0.74, 95% CI 0.61, 0.90), and shorter duration of procedure (-1.2 minutes weighted mean difference, 95% CI -1.5 to -0.87 minutes), than sharp curettage, in the single study that evaluated these outcomes. Serious complications such as uterine perforation and other morbidity were rare and the sample sizes of the trials were not large enough to evaluate small or moderate differences.
REVIEWER'S CONCLUSIONS
Vacuum aspiration is safe, quick to perform, and less painful than sharp curettage, and should be recommended for use in the management of incomplete abortion. Analgesia and sedation should be provided as necessary for the procedure.
Topics: Abortion, Incomplete; Dilatation and Curettage; Female; Humans; Pregnancy; Treatment Outcome; Vacuum Curettage
PubMed: 11279744
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD001993 -
Ceska Gynekologie 2022Uterine perforation is a potential, not rare complication of all intrauterine procedures and may be associated with injury of surrounding organs and structures. The...
OBJECTIVE
Uterine perforation is a potential, not rare complication of all intrauterine procedures and may be associated with injury of surrounding organs and structures. The incidence, risk factors, possible prevention, dia-gnosis, management and impact on future reproduction is reviewed here.
METHODS
Systematic review of available sources on the topic was carried out using the PubMed database and textbooks of Czech authors.
CONCLUSION
Some risk factors that make access to the uterine cavity difficult may be prevented, however, others remain unpreventable. For patients in whom the perforation occurred during sondage, dilatation or insertion of blunt and cold instrument, without significant bleeding and who are hemodynamically stable, observation is recommended rather than immediate abdominal exploration. The exception are young women planning pregnancy in whom endoscopic suture is indicated. Abdominal exploration is required in patients who have been injured by electrosurgical or sharp device, laser, vacuum curette, who are hemodynamically unstable or show signs of severe bleeding or visceral injury.
Topics: Female; Humans; Pregnancy; Uterine Perforation; Uterus
PubMed: 36055792
DOI: 10.48095/cccg2022295 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Apr 2012An incomplete miscarriage occurs when all the products of conception are not expelled through the cervix. Curettage or vacuum aspiration have been used to remove... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
An incomplete miscarriage occurs when all the products of conception are not expelled through the cervix. Curettage or vacuum aspiration have been used to remove retained tissues. The anaesthetic techniques used to facilitate this procedure have not been systematically evaluated in order to determine which provide better outcomes to the patients.
OBJECTIVES
To assess the effects of general anaesthesia, sedation or analgesia, regional or paracervical block anaesthetic techniques, or differing regimens of these, for surgical evacuation of incomplete miscarriage.
SEARCH METHODS
We searched the Cochrane Pregnancy and Childbirth Group's Trials Register (23 January 2012), CENTRAL (The Cochrane Library 2012, Issue 1), PubMed (1966 to 23 January 2012), EMBASE (1974 to 23 January 2012), CINAHL (1982 to 23 January 2012), LILACS (1982 to 23 January 2012) and reference lists of retrieved studies.
SELECTION CRITERIA
All published and unpublished randomised controlled trials (RCTs) or cluster-RCTs comparing the use of any anaesthetic technique (defined by authors as general anaesthesia, sedation/analgesia, regional or paracervical local block (PCB) procedures) to perform surgical evacuation of an incomplete miscarriage. We excluded quasi-randomised trials and studies that were only available as abstracts.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Two review authors independently assessed studies for inclusion and assessed risk of bias. Data were independently extracted and checked for accuracy.
MAIN RESULTS
We included seven trials involving 800 women. The comparisons revealed a very high clinical heterogeneity. As a result of the heterogeneity in the randomisation unit, we did not combine trials but reported the individual trial results in the 'Data and analysis' section and in the text. Half of trials have unclear or high risk of bias in several domains.We did not find any trial reporting data about maternal mortality. In terms of postoperative pain, PCB does not improve the control of postoperative pain when it is compared against sedation/analgesia or versus no anaesthesia/no analgesia. In the comparison of PCB with lidocaine versus PCB with saline solution, significant differences favouring the group with lidocaine were found in one trial (moderate or severe postoperative pain) (risk ratio (RR) 0.32; 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.18 to 0.59).When opioids were used, postoperative nausea and vomiting was more frequent in two trials comparing those versus PCB. In terms of requirement of blood transfusion, two trials showed conflicting results.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
Particular considerations that influence the choice of anaesthesia for this procedure such as availability, effectiveness, safety, side effects, practitioner's choice, costs and woman's preferences of each technique should continue to be used until more evidence supporting the use of one technique or another.
Topics: Abortion, Incomplete; Anesthesia, General; Anesthesia, Obstetrical; Dilatation and Curettage; Female; Humans; Hypnotics and Sedatives; Pain, Postoperative; Patient Satisfaction; Postoperative Nausea and Vomiting; Pregnancy
PubMed: 22513963
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD008681.pub2 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... 2001Different surgical methods for termination of pregnancy have evolved over the years: Dilatation and curettage, power operated vacuum aspiration, manual vacuum aspiration... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
Different surgical methods for termination of pregnancy have evolved over the years: Dilatation and curettage, power operated vacuum aspiration, manual vacuum aspiration (MVA) or hysterotomy. Local or general anaesthesia is used for all methods. Preabortion medical or mechanical cervical preparation may reduce the incidence of cervical or uterine injuries.
OBJECTIVES
To compare the safety and efficacy of different surgical methods for first trimester abortion.
SEARCH STRATEGY
The Cochrane Controlled Trials Register has been searched. A search of the reference lists of identified trials was performed. An additional MEDLINE search was done using the Internet search service Pub Med.
SELECTION CRITERIA
Randomised controlled trials comparing different surgical methods for first trimester abortion were eligible.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Trials under consideration were evaluated for methodological quality and appropriateness for inclusion. Three trials were included, resulting in 2 comparisons: vacuum aspiration versus dilatation and curettage and flexible versus rigid vacuum aspiration cannula. Results are reported as odds ratio for dichotomous data and weighted mean differences for continuous data.
MAIN RESULTS
There were no reports of maternal deaths and cases of uterine perforation in the trials identified. Vacuum aspiration versus dilatation and curettage: There were no statistically significant differences for excessive blood loss, blood transfusion, febrile morbidity, incomplete or repeat uterine evacuation procedure, re-hospitalisation, post operative abdominal pain or therapeutic antibiotic use. Duration of operation was statistically significantly shorter with vacuum aspiration compared to D&C in both gestational age subgroups : < 9 weeks: weighted mean difference (WMD) -1.84 minutes, 95% confidence interval (CI) [-2.542,-1.138]; =/> 9 weeks: WMD -0.600 minutes, 95% CI [-1.166,-0.034]). Flexible versus rigid vacuum aspiration cannula: There were no statistically significant differences with regard to cervical injuries, febrile morbidity, blood transfusion, therapeutic antibiotic use, or incomplete or repeat uterine evacuation procedure.
REVIEWER'S CONCLUSIONS
The included studies do not indicate a preference of providers for one or the other method. The trials included are small and lack power to to present meaningful differences for rare outcomes between the groups. outcomes such as women's satisfaction, the need for pain relief or surgeons preference for the instrument have been inadequately addressed. No data outcomes, such as fertility after surgical abortion, are available.
Topics: Abortion, Induced; Dilatation and Curettage; Female; Humans; Pregnancy; Pregnancy Trimester, First; Vacuum Curettage
PubMed: 11687167
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD002900 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Jul 2020Non-tubal ectopic pregnancy is the implantation of an embryo at a site lying outside the uterine cavity or fallopian tubes. Sites include a caesarean scar, the cornua... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
Non-tubal ectopic pregnancy is the implantation of an embryo at a site lying outside the uterine cavity or fallopian tubes. Sites include a caesarean scar, the cornua uteri, the ovary, the cervix, and the abdomen. There has been an increasing trend in the occurrence of these rare conditions, especially caesarean scar pregnancy (CSP).
OBJECTIVES
To evaluate the clinical effectiveness and safety of surgery, medical treatment, and expectant management of non-tubal ectopic pregnancy in terms of fertility outcomes and complications.
SEARCH METHODS
We searched the Cochrane Gynaecology and Fertility (CGF) Group Specialised Register of Controlled Trials, CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, ClinicalTrials.gov, the World Health Organization (WHO) search portal and nine other databases to 12 December 2019. We handsearched reference lists of articles retrieved and contacted experts in the field to obtain additional data.
SELECTION CRITERIA
We included randomized controlled trials (RCTs) published in all languages that examined the effects and safety of surgery, medical treatment, and expectant management of non-tubal ectopic pregnancy.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
We used Cochrane standard methodological procedures. Primary outcomes were treatment success and complications.
MAIN RESULTS
We included five RCTs with 303 women, all reporting Caesarean scar pregnancy. Two compared uterine arterial embolization (UAE) or uterine arterial chemoembolization (UACE) plus methotrexate (MTX) versus systemic MTX and subsequent dilation and suction curettage; one compared UACE plus MTX versus ultrasonography-guided local MTX injection; and two compared suction curettage under hysteroscopy versus suction curettage under ultrasonography after UAE/UACE. The quality of evidence ranged from moderate to very low. The main limitations were imprecision (small sample sizes and very wide confidence intervals (CI) for most analyses), multiple comparisons with a small number of trials, and insufficient data available to assess heterogeneity. UAE/UACE versus systemic MTX prior to suction curettage Two studies reported this comparison. One compared UAE with systemic MTX and one compared UACE plus MTX versus systemic MTX, in both cases followed by a suction curettage. We are uncertain whether UAE/UACE improved success rates after initial treatment (UAE: risk ratio (RR) 1.00, 95% CI 0.90 to 1.12; 1 RCT, 72 women; low-quality evidence; UACE: RR 0.87, 95% CI 0.54 to 1.38; 1 RCT, 28 women; low-quality evidence). We are uncertain whether UAE/UACE reduced rates of complications (UAE: RR 0.47, 95% CI 0.13 to 1.75; 1 RCT, 72 women; low-quality evidence; UACE: RR 0.62, 95% CI 0.26 to 1.48; 1 RCT, 28 women; low-quality evidence). We are uncertain whether UAE/UACE reduced adverse effects (UAE: RR 1.58, 95% CI 0.41 to 6.11; 1 RCT, 72 women; low-quality evidence; UACE: RR 1.16, 95% CI 0.32 to 4.24; 1 RCT, 28 women; low-quality evidence), and it was not obvious that the types of events had similar values to participants (e.g. fever versus vomiting). Blood loss was lower in UAE/UACE groups than systemic MTX groups (UAE: mean difference (MD) -378.70 mL, 95% CI -401.43 to -355.97; 1 RCT, 72 women; moderate-quality evidence; UACE: MD -879.00 mL, 95% CI -1135.23 to -622.77; 1 RCT, 28 women; moderate-quality evidence). Data were not available on time to normalize β-human chorionic gonadotropin (β-hCG). UACE plus MTX versus ultrasonography-guided local MTX injection We are uncertain whether UACE improved success rates after initial treatment (RR 0.95, 95% CI 0.56 to 1.60; 1 RCT, 45 women; very low-quality evidence). Adverse effects: the study reported the same number of failed treatments in each arm (RR 0.88, 95% CI 0.40 to 1.92; 1 RCT, 45 women). We are uncertain whether UACE shortened the time to normalize β-hCG (MD 1.50 days, 95% CI -3.16 to 6.16; 1 RCT, 45 women; very low-quality evidence). Data were not available for complications. Suction curettage under hysteroscopy versus under ultrasonography after UAE/UACE. Two studies reported this comparison. One compared suction curettage under hysteroscopy versus under ultrasonography after UAE, and one compared these interventions after UACE. We are uncertain whether suction curettage under hysteroscopy improved success rates after initial treatment (UAE: RR 0.91, 95% CI 0.81 to 1.03; 1 RCT, 66 women; very low-quality evidence; UACE: RR 1.02, 95% CI 0.96 to 1.09; 1 RCT, 92 women; low-quality evidence). We are uncertain whether suction curettage under hysteroscopy reduced rates of complications (UAE: RR 4.00, 95% CI 0.47 to 33.91; 1 RCT, 66 women; very low-quality evidence; UACE: RR 0.18, 95% CI 0.01 to 3.72; 1 RCT, 92 women; low-quality evidence). We are uncertain whether suction curettage under hysteroscopy reduced adverse effects (UAE: RR 3.09, 95% CI 0.12 to 78.70; 1 RCT, 66 women; very low-quality evidence; UACE: not estimable; 1 RCT, 92 women; very low-quality evidence). We are uncertain whether suction curettage under hysteroscopy shortened the time to normalize β-hCG (UAE: MD 4.03 days, 95% CI -1.79 to 9.85; 1 RCT, 66 women; very low-quality evidence; UACE: MD 0.84 days, 95% CI -1.90 to 3.58; 1 RCT, 92 women; low-quality evidence). Non-tubal ectopic pregnancy other than CSP No studies reported on non-tubal ectopic pregnancies in locations other than on a caesarean scar.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
For Caesarean scar pregnancies (CSP) it is uncertain whether there is a difference in success rates, complications, or adverse events between UAE/UACE and administration of systemic MTX before suction curettage (low-quality evidence). Blood loss was lower if suction curettage is conducted after UAE/UACE than after administration of systemic MTX (moderate-quality evidence). It is uncertain whether there is a difference in treatment success rates, complications, adverse effects or time to normalize β-hCG between suction curettage under hysteroscopy and under ultrasonography (very low-quality evidence). There are no studies of non-tubal ectopic pregnancy other than CSP and RCTs for these types of pregnancy are unlikely.
Topics: Abortifacient Agents, Nonsteroidal; Bias; Cesarean Section; Chemoembolization, Therapeutic; Cicatrix; Confidence Intervals; Dilatation and Curettage; Female; Humans; Hysteroscopy; Methotrexate; Pregnancy; Pregnancy, Ectopic; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Sample Size; Ultrasonography, Interventional; Uterine Artery; Uterine Artery Embolization; Vacuum Curettage
PubMed: 32609376
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD011174.pub2 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Mar 2012Miscarriage is a common complication of early pregnancy that can have both medical and psychological consequences such as depression and anxiety. The need for routine... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Miscarriage is a common complication of early pregnancy that can have both medical and psychological consequences such as depression and anxiety. The need for routine surgical evacuation with miscarriage has been questioned because of potential complications such as cervical trauma, uterine perforation, hemorrhage, or infection.
OBJECTIVES
To compare the safety and effectiveness of expectant management versus surgical treatment for early pregnancy failure.
SEARCH METHODS
We searched the Cochrane Pregnancy and Childbirth Group's Trials Register (9 February 2012), the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (The Cochrane Library 2011, Issue 4 of 4), PubMed (2005 to 11 January 2012), POPLINE (inception to 11 January 2012), LILACS (2005 to 11 January 2012) and reference lists of retrieved studies.
SELECTION CRITERIA
Randomized trials comparing expectant care and surgical treatment (vacuum aspiration or dilation and curettage) for miscarriage were eligible for inclusion.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Two review authors assessed trial quality and extracted data. We contacted study authors for additional information. For dichotomous data, we calculated the Mantel-Haenszel risk ratio (RR) with 95% confidence interval (CI). For continuous data, we computed the mean difference (MD) and 95% CI. We entered additional data such as medians into 'Other data' tables.
MAIN RESULTS
We included seven trials with 1521 participants in this review. The expectant-care group was more likely to have an incomplete miscarriage by two weeks (RR 3.98; 95% CI 2.94 to 5.38) or by six to eight weeks (RR 2.56; 95% CI 1.15 to 5.69). The need for unplanned surgical treatment was greater for the expectant-care group (RR 7.35; 95% CI 5.04 to 10.72). The mean percentage needing surgical management in the expectant-care group was 28%, while 4% of the surgical-treatment group needed additional surgery. The expectant-care group had more days of bleeding (MD 1.59; 95% CI 0.74 to 2.45). Further, more of the expectant-care group needed transfusion (RR 6.45; 95% CI 1.21 to 34.42). The mean percentage needing blood transfusion was 1.4% for expectant care compared with none for surgical management. Results were mixed for pain. Diagnosis of infection was similar for the two groups (RR 0.63; 95% CI 0.36 to 1.12), as were results for various psychological outcomes. Pregnancy data were limited. Costs were lower for the expectant-care group (MD -499.10; 95% CI -613.04 to -385.16; in UK pounds sterling).
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
Expectant management led to a higher risk of incomplete miscarriage, need for unplanned (or additional) surgical emptying of the uterus, bleeding and need for transfusion. Risk of infection and psychological outcomes were similar for both groups. Costs were lower for expectant management. Given the lack of clear superiority of either approach, the woman's preference should be important in decision making. Pharmacological ('medical') management has added choices for women and their clinicians and has been examined in other reviews.
Topics: Abortion, Incomplete; Abortion, Spontaneous; Anti-Bacterial Agents; Bed Rest; Dilatation and Curettage; Female; Humans; Pregnancy; Pregnancy Trimester, First; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Ultrasonography; Vacuum Curettage; Watchful Waiting
PubMed: 22419288
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD003518.pub3