-
The Western Journal of Emergency... Oct 2022An abortion is a procedure defined by termination of pregnancy, most commonly performed in the first or second trimester. There are several means of classification, but... (Review)
Review
An abortion is a procedure defined by termination of pregnancy, most commonly performed in the first or second trimester. There are several means of classification, but the most important includes whether the abortion was maternally "safe" (performed in a safe, clean environment with experienced providers and no legal restrictions) or "unsafe" (performed with hazardous materials and techniques, by person without the needed skills, or in an environment where minimal medical standards are not met). Complication rates depend on the procedure type, gestational age, patient comorbidities, clinician experience, and most importantly, whether the abortion is safe or unsafe. Safe abortions have significantly lower complication rates compared to unsafe abortions. Complications include bleeding, retained products of conception, retained cervical dilator, uterine perforation, amniotic fluid embolism, misoprostol toxicity, and endometritis. Mortality rates for safe abortions are less than 0.2%, compared to unsafe abortion rates that range between 4.7-13.2%. History and physical examination are integral components in recognizing complications of safe and unsafe abortions, with management dependent upon the diagnosis. This narrative review provides a focused overview of post-abortion complications for emergency clinicians.
Topics: Female; Pregnancy; Humans; Abortion, Induced; Gestational Age; Hazardous Substances; Physical Examination
PubMed: 36409940
DOI: 10.5811/westjem.2022.8.57929 -
Women's Health (London, England) Nov 2015Intrauterine devices (IUDs) are effective, reversible forms of contraception with high patient satisfaction and continuation. IUDs can be safely used by most women and... (Review)
Review
Intrauterine devices (IUDs) are effective, reversible forms of contraception with high patient satisfaction and continuation. IUDs can be safely used by most women and should be considered the first-line method of contraception for all women. This descriptive review will discuss the clinical issues associated with IUDs - including management of side effects, noncontraceptive uses and insertion and removal. When the burdens of cost are removed, women are more likely to select and IUDs. Health policy changes that increase insurance coverage for contraception will improve access to IUDs. IUDs remain an underutilized form of contraception in USA and efforts to improve availability and access to long-acting reversible contraception methods is needed to optimize their use.
Topics: Contraception; Female; Humans; Intrauterine Devices
PubMed: 26626857
DOI: 10.2217/whe.15.77 -
JAMA Mar 2023The early postpartum period, 2 to 4 weeks after birth, may be a convenient time for intrauterine device (IUD) placement; the placement could then coincide with early... (Randomized Controlled Trial)
Randomized Controlled Trial
IMPORTANCE
The early postpartum period, 2 to 4 weeks after birth, may be a convenient time for intrauterine device (IUD) placement; the placement could then coincide with early postpartum or well-baby visits.
OBJECTIVE
To determine expulsion rates for IUDs placed early postpartum compared with those placed at the standard interval 6-week visit.
DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS
In this randomized noninferiority trial, people who had a vaginal or cesarean birth were randomly assigned to undergo early (14-28 days) or interval (42-56 days) postpartum IUD placement. Clinicians blinded to participant study group used transvaginal ultrasonography to confirm IUD presence and position at the 6-month postpartum follow-up. The study assessed 642 postpartum people from 4 US medical centers, enrolled a consecutive sample of 404 participants from March 2018 to July 2021, and followed up each participant for 6 months postpartum.
INTERVENTIONS
Early postpartum IUD placement, at 2 to 4 weeks postpartum, vs standard interval placement 6 to 8 weeks postpartum.
MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES
The primary outcome was complete IUD expulsion by 6 months postpartum; the prespecified noninferiority margin was 6%. Secondary outcomes were partial IUD expulsion, IUD removal, pelvic infection, patient satisfaction, uterine perforation, pregnancy, and IUD use at 6 months postpartum. IUD malposition was an exploratory outcome.
RESULTS
Among 404 enrolled participants, 203 participants were randomly assigned to undergo early IUD placement and 201 to undergo interval IUD placement (mean [SD] age, 29.9 [5.4] years; 46 [11.4%] were Black, 228 [56.4%] were White, and 175 [43.3%] were Hispanic). By 6 months postpartum, 53 participants (13%) never had an IUD placed and 57 (14%) were lost to follow-up. Among the 294 participants (73%) who received an IUD and completed 6-month follow-up, complete expulsion rates were 3 of 149 (2.0% [95% CI, 0.4%-5.8%]) in the early placement group and 0 of 145 (0% [95% CI, 0.0%-2.5%]) in the interval placement group (between-group difference, 2.0 [95% CI, -0.5 to 5.7] percentage points). Partial expulsion occurred in 14 (9.4% [95% CI, 5.2%-15.3%]) participants in the early placement group and 11 (7.6% [95% CI, 3.9%-13.2%]) participants in the interval placement group (between-group difference, 1.8 [95% CI, -4.8 to 8.6] percentage points). IUD use at 6 months was similar between the groups: 141 (69.5% [95% CI, 62.6%-75.7%]) participants in the early group vs 139 (67.2% [95% CI, 60.2%-73.6%]) in the interval group.
CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE
Early IUD placement at 2 to 4 weeks postpartum compared with 6 to 8 weeks postpartum was noninferior for complete expulsion, but not partial expulsion. Understanding the risk of expulsion at these time points may help patients and clinicians make informed choices about the timing of IUD placement.
TRIAL REGISTRATION
ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT03462758.
Topics: Adult; Female; Humans; Cesarean Section; Intrauterine Device Expulsion; Intrauterine Devices; Parturition; Postpartum Period; Time Factors; Contraception; Young Adult
PubMed: 36943214
DOI: 10.1001/jama.2023.1936 -
Obstetrics and Gynecology Sep 2023The APEX-IUD (Association of Perforation and Expulsion of Intrauterine Devices) study evaluated the association of postpartum timing of intrauterine device (IUD)...
OBJECTIVE
The APEX-IUD (Association of Perforation and Expulsion of Intrauterine Devices) study evaluated the association of postpartum timing of intrauterine device (IUD) insertion, breastfeeding, heavy menstrual bleeding, and IUD type (levonorgestrel-releasing vs copper) with risks of uterine perforation and IUD expulsion in usual clinical practice. We summarize the clinically important findings to inform counseling and shared decision making.
METHODS
APEX-IUD was a real-world (using U.S. health care data) retrospective cohort study of individuals aged 50 years and younger with IUD insertions between 2001 and 2018 and with electronic health record data. Cumulative incidences of uterine perforation and IUD expulsion were calculated. Adjusted hazard ratios (aHRs) and 95% CIs were estimated from proportional hazards models with control of confounding.
RESULTS
Among the study population of 326,658, absolute risk of uterine perforation was low overall (cumulative incidence, 0.21% [95% CI 0.19-0.23%] at 1 year and 0.61% [95% CI 0.56-0.66% at 5 years]) but was elevated for IUDs inserted during time intervals within 1 year postpartum, particularly among those between 4 days and 6 weeks postpartum (aHR 6.71, 95% CI 4.80-9.38), relative to nonpostpartum insertions. Among postpartum insertions, IUD expulsion risk was greatest for insertions in the immediate postpartum period (0-3 days after delivery) compared with nonpostpartum (aHR 5.34, 95% CI 4.47-6.39). Postpartum individuals who were breastfeeding had a slightly elevated risk of perforation and lowered risk of expulsion than those not breastfeeding. Among nonpostpartum individuals, those with a heavy menstrual bleeding diagnosis were at greater risk of expulsion than those without (aHR 2.84, 95% CI 2.66-3.03); heavy menstrual bleeding also was associated with a slightly elevated perforation risk. There was a slightly elevated perforation risk and slightly lower expulsion risk associated with levonorgestrel-releasing IUDs compared with copper IUDs.
CONCLUSION
Absolute risk of adverse outcomes with IUD insertion is low. Clinicians should be aware of the differences in risks of uterine perforation and expulsion associated with IUD insertion during specific postpartum time periods and with a heavy menstrual bleeding diagnosis. This information should be incorporated into counseling and decision making for patients considering IUD insertion.
FUNDING SOURCE
Bayer AG.
CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION
EU PAS register, EUPAS33461.
Topics: Female; Humans; Intrauterine Device Expulsion; Intrauterine Devices; Intrauterine Devices, Copper; Levonorgestrel; Menorrhagia; Retrospective Studies; Uterine Perforation; Middle Aged
PubMed: 37535968
DOI: 10.1097/AOG.0000000000005299 -
Open Access Journal of Contraception 2024Intrauterine devices (IUDs) are a widely used contraceptive. Possible complications from IUDs include failed insertion, pain, vasovagal reaction, infection, abnormal... (Review)
Review
Intrauterine devices (IUDs) are a widely used contraceptive. Possible complications from IUDs include failed insertion, pain, vasovagal reaction, infection, abnormal bleeding, and expulsion. Uterine perforation and migration of the IUD are rare complications occurring in approximately 1-2 per 1000 insertions. We executed a systematic review by reviewing all case reports and case series on IUD migration, published between December 2002 and December 2022. Our review indicates that about half of these patients present with pain and that a third are completely asymptomatic. The most common sites of migration are the intestine, bladder, and omentum. We found that the preferred method for removing the migrated IUD is laparoscopy. Generally, there are no lasting injuries after the removal of the migrated IUD, but occasionally, severe complications have been reported. Healthcare providers should be vigilant about this rare complication, especially in cases of painful insertion or the presence of other risk factors for perforation. When uterine perforation is diagnosed, it is advisable to remove the IUD to prevent severe complications.
PubMed: 38495451
DOI: 10.2147/OAJC.S458156 -
Ugeskrift For Laeger Feb 2023Intra-abdominal displacement of an intrauterine device (IUD) is a rare but serious complication. This is a case report of a 44-year-old woman who was referred to a...
Intra-abdominal displacement of an intrauterine device (IUD) is a rare but serious complication. This is a case report of a 44-year-old woman who was referred to a surgical department with intermittent abdominal pain. Gynaecological examination and ultrasound failed to identify the patient's IUD. An abdominal CT scan confirmed the diagnosis of the intra-abdominally migrated IUD and the device was extracted by laparoscopy. Surgical removal of the migrating IUD is recommended to prevent long-term complications such as intra-abdominal adhesions, organ perforation, and fistula formation.
Topics: Female; Humans; Adult; Uterine Perforation; Laparoscopy; Device Removal; Intrauterine Devices; Abdominal Pain
PubMed: 36896615
DOI: No ID Found -
Human Reproduction (Oxford, England) Apr 2021Does septum resection improve reproductive outcomes in women with a septate uterus? (Randomized Controlled Trial)
Randomized Controlled Trial
STUDY QUESTION
Does septum resection improve reproductive outcomes in women with a septate uterus?
SUMMARY ANSWER
Hysteroscopic septum resection does not improve reproductive outcomes in women with a septate uterus.
WHAT IS KNOWN ALREADY
A septate uterus is a congenital uterine anomaly. Women with a septate uterus are at increased risk of subfertility, pregnancy loss and preterm birth. Hysteroscopic resection of a septum may improve the chance of a live birth in affected women, but this has never been evaluated in randomized clinical trials. We assessed whether septum resection improves reproductive outcomes in women with a septate uterus, wanting to become pregnant.
STUDY DESIGN, SIZE, DURATION
We performed an international, multicentre, open-label, randomized controlled trial in 10 centres in The Netherlands, UK, USA and Iran between October 2010 and September 2018.
PARTICIPANTS/MATERIALS, SETTING, METHODS
Women with a septate uterus and a history of subfertility, pregnancy loss or preterm birth were randomly allocated to septum resection or expectant management. The primary outcome was conception leading to live birth within 12 months after randomization, defined as the birth of a living foetus beyond 24 weeks of gestational age. We analysed the data on an intention-to-treat basis and calculated relative risks with 95% CI.
MAIN RESULTS AND THE ROLE OF CHANCE
We randomly assigned 80 women with a septate uterus to septum resection (n = 40) or expectant management (n = 40). We excluded one woman who underwent septum resection from the intention-to-treat analysis, because she withdrew informed consent for the study shortly after randomization. Live birth occurred in 12 of 39 women allocated to septum resection (31%) and in 14 of 40 women allocated to expectant management (35%) (relative risk (RR) 0.88 (95% CI 0.47 to 1.65)). There was one uterine perforation which occurred during surgery (1/39 = 2.6%).
LIMITATIONS, REASONS FOR CAUTION
Although this was a major international trial, the sample size was still limited and recruitment took a long period. Since surgical techniques did not fundamentally change over time, we consider the latter of limited clinical significance.
WIDER IMPLICATIONS OF THE FINDINGS
The trial generated high-level evidence in addition to evidence from a recently published large cohort study. Both studies unequivocally do not reveal any improvements in reproductive outcomes, thereby questioning any rationale behind surgery.
STUDY FUNDING/COMPETING INTEREST(S)
There was no study funding. M.H.E. reports a patent on a surgical endoscopic cutting device and process for the removal of tissue from a body cavity licensed to Medtronic, outside the scope of the submitted work. H.A.v.V. reports personal fees from Medtronic, outside the submitted work. B.W.J.M. reports grants from NHMRC, personal fees from ObsEva, personal fees from Merck Merck KGaA, personal fees from Guerbet, personal fees from iGenomix, outside the submitted work. M.G. reports several research and educational grants from Guerbet, Merck and Ferring (location VUMC) outside the scope of the submitted work. The remaining authors have nothing to declare.
TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER
Dutch trial registry: NTR 1676.
TRIAL REGISTRATION DATE
18 February 2009.
DATE OF FIRST PATIENT’S ENROLMENT
20 October 2010.
Topics: Cohort Studies; Female; Humans; Infant, Newborn; Iran; Netherlands; Pregnancy; Premature Birth; Uterus; Watchful Waiting
PubMed: 33793794
DOI: 10.1093/humrep/deab037