S'abonner

Efficacy of pharmacologic hemorrhage prophylactics in second-trimester abortions: a systematic review - 17/10/24

Doi : 10.1016/j.ajog.2024.09.018 
Kiley F. Hunkler, MD a, b, Carissa J. Pekny, MD a, David H. Boedeker, DO a, Ann M. Holman, MLS c, Sara M. Drayer, MD a,
a Department of Gynecologic Surgery and Obstetrics, Walter Reed National Military Medical Center, Bethesda, MD 
b Department of Reproductive Endocrinology and Infertility, National Institutes of Health, Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development, Bethesda, MD 
c Darnall Medical Library, Walter Reed National Military Medical Center, Bethesda, MD 

Corresponding author: Sara M. Drayer, MD.
Sous presse. Épreuves corrigées par l'auteur. Disponible en ligne depuis le Thursday 17 October 2024

Abstract

Objective

This study aimed to evaluate prophylactic uterotonics, antifibrinolytic medications, and vasoconstrictive agents in the prevention of hemorrhage during second-trimester abortions.

Data Sources

PubMed, Embase (Elsevier platform), Evidence-Based Medicine Reviews (Ovid platform), and Web of Science were searched from database creation to October 30, 2023.

Study Eligibility Criteria

Randomized controlled trials, cohort studies, case-control studies, and case series evaluating pregnant individuals (between 13 0/7 and 27 6/7 weeks of gestation) who underwent dilation and evacuation and received prophylactic uterotonics (methylergonovine, carboprost, oxytocin, or misoprostol), antifibrinolytic medications (tranexamic acid), or vasoconstrictive agents (vasopressin, lidocaine with epinephrine) were included in the study. The outcomes of interest included postprocedural bleeding, rate of medications to treat bleeding, blood transfusion, reoperation, and transfer to a higher level of care for hemorrhage.

Methods

Of note, 2 authors independently screened the abstracts using the Systematic Review Data Repository. A third reviewer resolved discrepancies. The full text of accepted abstracts was retrieved and assessed for eligibility by 2 independent authors. Eligible studies were independently assessed for quality and bias by 3 authors. A consensus review resolved discrepancies.

Results

Among 5834 abstracts screened, 11 studies met the inclusion criteria: 5 randomized controlled trials, 3 retrospective cohort studies, and 3 case series, totaling 3857 individuals. The paucity of studies combined with the heterogeneity of included trials precluded the performance of the meta-analysis. Of note, 4 studies evaluating misoprostol were of overall low-quality evidence and primarily assessed misoprostol’s use for cervical dilation. Thus, its efficacy in bleeding prophylaxis remains unclear. Moreover, 2 high-quality trials evaluating oxytocin concluded that oxytocin use resulted in decreased blood loss, without a difference in interventions to control bleeding. Furthermore, 2 studies provided moderate-quality evidence that paracervical vasopressin use decreased blood loss, particularly at advanced gestational ages, but subsequent intervention outcomes were not assessed. High-quality evidence evaluating methylergonovine found that this medication increased blood loss at the time of the procedure.

Conclusion

Current evidence on hemorrhage prophylaxis at the time of dilation and evacuation supports the use of intravenous oxytocin or paracervical vasopressin to decrease procedural blood loss, without an associated decrease in transfusion rate or use of other interventions. Future research on outcomes by gestational age can identify subgroups with the potential to derive the most benefit.

Le texte complet de cet article est disponible en PDF.

Key words : antifibrinolytics, hemorrhage prophylaxis, second-trimester abortion, systematic review, uterotonics, vasoconstrictive agents


Plan


 The authors report no conflict of interest.
 This study received no funding.
 This study was registered in the International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews on May 17, 2023 (registration number: CRD 42023426861).
 The views expressed in this manuscript are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the official policy of the Department of Defense or the US government.


© 2024  Publié par Elsevier Masson SAS.
Ajouter à ma bibliothèque Retirer de ma bibliothèque Imprimer
Export

    Export citations

  • Fichier

  • Contenu

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.