S'abonner

Placement of an intrauterine device within 48 hours after early medical abortion—a randomized controlled trial - 22/12/22

Doi : 10.1016/j.ajog.2022.07.063 
Sara Hogmark, MD a, b, , Karin Lichtenstein Liljeblad, MD a, c, Niklas Envall, RNM, PhD a, d, e, Kristina Gemzell-Danielsson, MD, PhD e, f, Helena Kopp Kallner, MD, PhD a, c
a Department of Clinical Sciences, Danderyd Hospital, Karolinska Institutet, Stockholm, Sweden 
b Center for Clinical Research Dalarna, Uppsala University, Falun, Sweden 
c Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Danderyd Hospital, Stockholm, Sweden 
d School of Health and Welfare, Dalarna University, Falun, Sweden 
e Department of Women’s and Children’s Health, Karolinska Institutet, Stockholm, Sweden 
f World Health Organization Collaborating Centre for Research and Research Training in Human Reproduction, Department of Gynecology and Reproductive medicine, Karolinska University Hospital, Stockholm, Sweden 

Corresponding author: Sara Hogmark, MD.

Abstract

Background

Intrauterine devices are safe, well-tolerated, and known to reduce the risk of unwanted pregnancies. At medical abortion, intrauterine devices are placed at a follow-up visit. Patients who miss this visit risk being left without contraception.

Objective

This study aimed to investigate if placement of an intrauterine device within 48 hours of completed medical abortion at up to 63 days’ gestation leads to higher user rates at 6 months after the abortion compared with placement at 2 to 4 weeks after abortion. Furthermore, we aimed to compare continued use of intrauterine devices, safety, and patient satisfaction between groups.

Study Design

We performed an open-label, randomized, controlled, multicenter, superiority trial (phase 3). A total of 240 patients requesting medical abortion at up to 63 days’ gestation and opting for an intrauterine device were allocated to placement within 48 hours of complete medical abortion (intervention group) or at 2 to 4 weeks after abortion (control group). We defined the abortion as complete after bleeding with clots and cessation of heavy bleeding following the use of misoprostol. Patients answered questionnaires at 3, 6, and 12 months. The primary outcome was use of intrauterine device at 6 months postabortion. Secondary outcomes included expulsion rate, pain at placement, adverse events and complications from the abortion, acceptability, and pregnancies and their outcomes. Differences in nonparametric continuous variables were analyzed with the Mann–Whitney U test and differences in dichotomous variables with the chi square or Fisher exact tests. A P value of <.05 was considered statistically significant.

Results

In the intervention group, 91 of 111 (82%) participants used an intrauterine device at 6 months after the abortion vs 87 of 112 (77.7%) in the control group, with a difference in proportion of 4.3% (95% confidence interval, −0.062 to 0.148; P=.51). Attendance rate and rate of successful intrauterine device placement were similar between the groups. Patients in the intervention group had lower pain scores at placement of the intrauterine device (mean pain score [visual analogue scale], 32.3; standard deviation, 29) compared with the control group (mean pain score [visual analogue scale], 43.4; standard deviation, 27.9; P=.002). Patients preferred their allocated time of placement significantly more often in the intervention group (83/111, 74.8%) than in the control group (70/114, 61.4%; P=.03). Use of ultrasound at intrauterine device placement (because of doubts concerning complete abortion) was more common in the intervention group (43/108, 39.8%) than in the control group (15/101, 14.9%; P<.001), and in one patient in the control group a retained gestational sac was found. Three patients in the intervention group and 2 in the control group had a vacuum aspiration. No difference was found in intrauterine device expulsion rates between the groups. Expulsion during the first 6 months after abortion was experienced by 9 of 97 (9.3%) patients in the intervention group and 4 of 89 (4.5%; P=.25) in the control group. There were no perforations or infections requiring antibiotic treatment.

Conclusion

Placement of an intrauterine device within 48 hours after medical abortion at ≤63 days’ gestation does not lead to higher user rates at 6 months after the abortion compared with intrauterine device placement at 2 to 4 weeks after abortion. When compared with placement at a follow-up visit after 2 to 4 weeks, intrauterine device placement within 48 hours after early medical abortion seems safe, is preferred by patients, and is associated with lower pain scores.

Le texte complet de cet article est disponible en PDF.

Key words : contraception, copper intrauterine devices, family planning services, hormone-releasing intrauterine device, induced abortion, long-acting reversible contraception, medicated intrauterine devices, postabortion intrauterine device insertion


Plan


 S.H. reports personal fees from Gedeon Richter and Bayer, outside the submitted work; N.E. reports personal fees from Bayer Sweden AB for educational activities outside the submitted work; K.G.D. reports honoraria for educational activities and consultations for MSD/Organon, Bayer AG, Gedeon Richter, Exeltis, Azanta, HRA-Pharma, Mithra, Natural Cycles, CampusPharma, Cirqle Biomedical, Medicine360, MedinCell, Myovant Sciences, and Exelgyn, and her clinic has participated in clinical trials conducted by Exeltis, Mithra, Bayer, MSD, RemovAid, and Myovant Sciences. H.K.K. reports personal fees for educational activities for Actavis, Bayer, CampusPharma, Gedeon Richter, Exeltis, Nordic Pharma, Natural Cycles, Mithra, Consilient Health, Ferring Pharmaceuticals, MSD/Organon, Preglife, provision of expert opinions for Bayer, Evolan Pharma, Gedeon Richter, Exeltis, Merck & Co., Teva Pharmaceuticals, TV4 and Natural Cycles, Pharmiva, Dynamic Code, Ellen, Estercare, and Leia, and acting as an investigator in trials sponsored by Bayer, MSD, Mithra, Ethicon, Azanta, Gedeon Richter, Pharmiva, and Gedea outside the submitted work. The remaining authors report no conflict of interest.
 This research was funded by the Swedish Society of Medicine (SLS-692651) and Stockholm Region/Karolinska Institutet (ALF, LS-2016-1376, RS 2019-1054. K 0138-2015, LS 2018-1257). Grants paid for hormonal intrauterine devices used in the study and salaries for participating researchers and staff.
 The Center for Clinical Research Dalarna, Uppsala University (CKFUU-789891, CKFUU-895571, CKFUU-934198, CKFUU-936612, CKFUU-940743, CKFUU-963459) provided financial support for S.H. when conducting the study and preparing the article during her doctoral studies and for salaries for participating staff. The funding sources were not involved in study design, the collection, analysis, or interpretation of data, the writing of the report, or the decision to submit the article for publication.
 The clinical trial identification number and the URL of the registration site
i) Date of registration July 27, 2018
ii) Date of initial participant enrollment January 16, 2019
iii) Clinical trial identification number NCT03603145
iv) URL of the registration site ClinicalTrials.gov
v) Data will be made available upon request from the corresponding author
 Cite this article as: Hogmark S, Lichtenstein Liljeblad K, Envall N, et al. Placement of an intrauterine device within 48 hours after early medical abortion—a randomized controlled trial. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2023;228:53.e1-9.


© 2022  The Authors. Publié par Elsevier Masson SAS. Tous droits réservés.
Ajouter à ma bibliothèque Retirer de ma bibliothèque Imprimer
Export

    Export citations

  • Fichier

  • Contenu

Vol 228 - N° 1

P. 53.e1-53.e9 - janvier 2023 Retour au numéro
Article précédent Article précédent
  • Now is the time to stand up for reproductive justice and abortion access
  • Eve Espey, Sadia Haider, Joanne Stone, Cynthia Gyamfi-Bannerman, Jody Steinauer
| Article suivant Article suivant
  • Lactogenesis and breastfeeding after immediate vs delayed birth-hospitalization insertion of etonogestrel contraceptive implant: a noninferiority trial
  • Andrea Henkel, Klaira Lerma, Griselda Reyes, Hanna Gutow, Jonathan G. Shaw, Kate A. Shaw

Bienvenue sur EM-consulte, la référence des professionnels de santé.
L’accès au texte intégral de cet article nécessite un abonnement.

Déjà abonné à cette revue ?

Mon compte


Plateformes Elsevier Masson

Déclaration CNIL

EM-CONSULTE.COM est déclaré à la CNIL, déclaration n° 1286925.

En application de la loi nº78-17 du 6 janvier 1978 relative à l'informatique, aux fichiers et aux libertés, vous disposez des droits d'opposition (art.26 de la loi), d'accès (art.34 à 38 de la loi), et de rectification (art.36 de la loi) des données vous concernant. Ainsi, vous pouvez exiger que soient rectifiées, complétées, clarifiées, mises à jour ou effacées les informations vous concernant qui sont inexactes, incomplètes, équivoques, périmées ou dont la collecte ou l'utilisation ou la conservation est interdite.
Les informations personnelles concernant les visiteurs de notre site, y compris leur identité, sont confidentielles.
Le responsable du site s'engage sur l'honneur à respecter les conditions légales de confidentialité applicables en France et à ne pas divulguer ces informations à des tiers.


Tout le contenu de ce site: Copyright © 2024 Elsevier, ses concédants de licence et ses contributeurs. Tout les droits sont réservés, y compris ceux relatifs à l'exploration de textes et de données, a la formation en IA et aux technologies similaires. Pour tout contenu en libre accès, les conditions de licence Creative Commons s'appliquent.