Association of the Timing of Postpartum Intrauterine Device Insertion and Breastfeeding With Risks of Intrauterine Device Expulsion

Characterisation and validation of lactation information from structured electronic health records for use in pharmacoepidemiological studies

BACKGROUND

Breastfeeding information stored within electronic health records (EHR) has recently been used for pharmacoepidemiological research, however the data are primarily collected for clinical care.

OBJECTIVES

To characterise breastfeeding information recorded in structured fields in EHR during infant and postpartum health care visits, and to assess the validity of lactation status based on EHR data versus maternal report at research study visits.

METHODS

We assessed breastfeeding information recorded in structured fields in EHR from one health system for a subset of 211 patients who were also enrolled in a study on breast milk composition between 2014 and 2017 that required participants to exclusively breastfeed their infants until at least 1 month of age. We assessed the frequency of breastfeeding information in EHR during the first 12 months of age and compared lactation status based on EHR with maternal report at 1 and 6-month study visits (reference standard).

RESULTS

The median number of breastfeeding records in the EHR per infant was six (interquartile range 3) with most observations clustering in the first few weeks of life and around well-infant visits. At the 6-month study visit, 93.8% of participants were breastfeeding and 80.1% were exclusively breastfeeding according to maternal report. Sensitivity of EHR data for identifying ever breastfeeding was at or near 100%, and sensitivity for identifying ever exclusive breastfeeding was 98.0% (95% CI: 95.0%, 99.2%). Sensitivities were 97.3% (95% CI: 93.9%, 98.9%) for identifying any breastfeeding and 94.4% (95% CI: 89.7%, 97.0%) for exclusive breastfeeding, and positive predictive values were 99.5% (95% CI: 97.0%, 99.9%) for any breastfeeding and 95.0% (95% CI: 90.4%, 97.4%) for exclusive breastfeeding.

CONCLUSIONS

Breastfeeding information in structured EHR fields have the potential to accurately classify lactation status. The validity of these data should be assessed in populations with a lower breastfeeding prevalence.

Analgesia efficacy of lidocaine transfused by a novel disposable injectable cervical dilator during intrauterine device removal procedure: A randomized clinical trial

OBJECTIVE

The majority of intrauterine devices (IUDs) inserted in China are tailless, requiring intrauterine manipulations for removal and causing pain. This study aimed to investigate the analgesic efficacy of lidocaine injection into a novel disposable injectable cervical dilator for IUD removal procedures.

STUDY DESIGN

A double-blinded, placebo-controlled, randomized clinical trial was conducted with women aged 18-65 years old requesting outpatient IUD removal. The study randomly assigned participants to either lidocaine (injecting 5 ml of 2% lidocaine into the injectable cervical dilator) or placebo (injecting 5 ml of normal saline into the device) group. All participants received a standardized paracervical block. The primary outcome was pain reported during IUD removal on a 100 mm Visual Analog Scale (VAS). Intention-to-treat were conducted to evaluate the analgesic effectiveness of injecting lidocaine into the injectable cervical dilators.

RESULTS

We enrolled seventy-four eligible participants (37 in lidocaine group and 37 in placebo group). The results showed that the median intraoperative VAS score in the lidocaine group was lower than the placebo group (30.0 mm [IQR 20.0-46.0, n = 37] vs 46.0 mm [IQR 30.0-55.0, n = 37], p = 0.01. In subgroup analyses, among participants with IUD removal and without uterine manipulation and additional procedures, there was no statistically significant disparity observed in intraoperative VAS scores between the lidocaine and placebo group (15.0 mm [IQR 10.0-27.5, n = 8] vs 20.0 mm [IQR 20.0-40.0, n = 6]), p = 0.28). Among participants with an IUD removal necessitating intrauterine manipulations and without additional procedures, showing lower intraoperative VAS scores in lidocaine group (25.0 mm [IQR 15.0-40.5, n = 17]) compared to placebo group (46.0 mm [IQR 38.5-50.0, n = 23]), p < 0.01. Among participants with additional procedures in addition to IUD removal, there was no statistically significant disparity observed in intraoperative VAS scores between the lidocaine and placebo group (41.0 mm [IQR 32.5-57.5, n = 12] vs 45.0 mm [IQR 22.5-69.0, n = 8]), p = 0.97).

CONCLUSIONS

Injecting lidocaine into the novel disposable injectable cervical dilator for cervix dilation can significantly reduce pain during an IUD removal, particularly in patients necessitating intrauterine manipulations during IUD removal.

IMPLICATIONS

When we have to perform intrauterine manipulations to remove an IUD, surgical pain and narrow cervical canal undoubtedly affect the implementation of the procedure. Injecting lidocaine into the injectable cervical dilator can achieve local anesthesia while dilating the cervix, and might reduce the choice of general anesthesia for IUD removal.

Postpartum contraception: A matter of guidelines

The postpartum period is the perfect time to access family planning services. WHO guidelines contraindicate combined hormonal contraceptives postpartum in breastfeeding patients between 6 weeks and 6 months after delivery (Medical Eligibility Criteria category 3). On the contrary, the Faculty of Sexual and Reproductive Healthcare and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention guidelines do not contraindicate their use in women who breastfeed from 6 weeks to 6 months postpartum. New combined hormonal contraceptives with natural estrogens have never been studied in this setting. Guidelines agree on the prescription of the progestin-only pill postpartum in non-breastfeeding women (category 1). Differences are found in women who breastfeed. In non-breastfeeding women, an implant is considered safe (category 1) by all guidelines, without any distinction in time. Regarding postpartum breastfeeding women, the guidelines for implants give quite different indications but are still permissive. Intrauterine devices are viable options for postpartum contraception but guidelines give different indications about the timing of insertion. Postplacental intrauterine device placement can reduce the subsequent unintended pregnancy rate, particularly in settings at greatest risk of not having recommended postpartum controls. However, it has yet to be understood whether this approach can really have an advantage in high-income countries. Postpartum contraception is not a 'matter of guidelines': it is the best customization for each woman, as early as possible but at the ideal timing.

Risks of Uterine Perforation and Expulsion Associated With Intrauterine Devices

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.

Medicaid Payment For Postpartum Long-Acting Reversible Contraception Prompts More Equitable Use

To increase access to highly effective contraception and improve reproductive autonomy, a growing number of state Medicaid programs pay for the provision of immediate postpartum long-acting reversible contraception (LARC) in addition to providing a global payment for maternity care. Using Pregnancy Risk Assessment Monitoring System data, we examined postpartum LARC use both overall and by race and ethnicity among respondents with Medicaid-paid births during the period 2012-18 in eight states that implemented immediate postpartum LARC payment and eight states without it. Using a quasi-experimental difference-in-differences design, we found that the policy resulted in an overall 2.1-percentage-point increase in postpartum LARC use. Our triple-differences analysis found no significant change among White mothers and a 3.7-percentage-point increase in use among Black mothers compared with White mothers. Additional research is needed to determine whether this increase was aligned with patients' preferences and whether hospitals' immediate postpartum LARC policies and practices take a patient-centered approach that supports reproductive autonomy and equity.

Early vs Interval Postpartum Intrauterine Device Placement: A Randomized Clinical 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.

Demographic, Reproductive, and Medical Risk Factors for Intrauterine Device Expulsion

OBJECTIVE

To explore to what extent intrauterine device (IUD) expulsion is associated with demographic and clinical risk factors.

METHODS

The APEX-IUD (Association of Perforation and Expulsion of IntraUterine Devices) study was a U.S. cohort study using electronic health records from three integrated health care systems (Kaiser Permanente Northern California, Southern California, and Washington) and a health care information exchange (Regenstrief Institute). These analyses included individuals aged 50 years or younger with IUD insertions from 2001 to 2018. Intrauterine device expulsion cumulative incidence and incidence rates were estimated. Using Cox regression models, hazard ratios with 95% CIs were estimated before and after adjustment for risk factors of interest (age, race and ethnicity, parity, body mass index [BMI], heavy menstrual bleeding, and dysmenorrhea) and potential confounders.

RESULTS

In total, 228,834 individuals with IUD insertion and no delivery in the previous 52 weeks were identified (184,733 [80.7%] with levonorgestrel-releasing intrauterine system). Diagnosis of heavy menstrual bleeding-particularly a diagnosis in both recent and past periods-was the strongest risk factor for IUD expulsion. Categories with the highest risk of IUD expulsion within each risk factor included individuals diagnosed with overweight, obesity, and morbid obesity; those in younger age groups, especially among those aged 24 years or younger; and in those with parity of four or more. Non-Hispanic White individuals had the lowest incidence and risk, and after adjustment, Asian or Pacific Islander individuals had the highest risk. Dysmenorrhea was not independently associated with expulsion risk when adjusting for heavy menstrual bleeding.

CONCLUSION

Most risk factors for expulsion identified in this study appear consistent with known physiologic factors that affect uterine anatomy and physiology (age, BMI, heavy menstrual bleeding, parity). The increased risk of IUD expulsion among individuals of color warrants further investigation. Intrauterine devices are an effective long-term contraceptive; expulsion is uncommon, but patients should be counseled accordingly.

FUNDING SOURCE

Bayer AG.

CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION

EU PAS register, EUPAS33461.

Intrauterine device-related uterine perforation incidence and risk (APEX-IUD): a large multisite cohort study

BACKGROUND

Reports of perforation risk related to intrauterine devices (IUDs) inserted immediately post partum and among non-post-partum individuals are scarce, and previous studies with only 12-month follow-ups underestimate the risk. Breastfeeding at IUD insertion and insertion within 36 weeks post partum have been associated with increased risk of uterine perforation. The aim of these analyses was to compare the incidence and risks of IUD-related uterine perforations by non-post-partum and post-partum intervals at IUD insertion, and among post-partum individuals, to assess the impact of breastfeeding on these outcomes.

METHODS

We did a multisite cohort study in the USA, using electronic health records (EHR). Study sites were three health-care systems and a site that used data from a health-care information exchange. The study population included individuals who were aged 50 years or younger and had an IUD insertion between Jan 1, 2001, and April 30, 2018. Individuals were excluded if they had not been in the health-care system for at least 12 months before IUD insertion. The primary outcome for this analysis was any IUD-related uterine perforation diagnosis for the first IUD insertion in this time period. Both complete and partial IUD-related perforations were identified. Chart abstraction was done to validate EHR-based algorithms or confirm perforations. The crude rate and cumulative incidence of uterine perforation were evaluated by non-post-partum and post-partum intervals at IUD insertion in the full cohort, and by breastfeeding status in a subcohort of post-partum individuals. Cox models estimated crude and adjusted hazard ratios (aHRs).

FINDINGS

Data from 326 658 individuals in the full cohort and 94 817 individuals in the post-partum subcohort were analysed. In the full cohort, we identified 1008 uterine perforations (51·2% complete), with the 5-year cumulative incidence being the lowest in the non-post-partum group (0·29%, 95% CI 0·26-0·34). The aHR for the post-partum interval relative to non-post partum ranged from 2·73 (95% CI 1·33-5·63; 0 to 3 days post partum) to 6·71 (4·80-9·38; 4 days to ≤6 weeks post partum). The post-partum subcohort of individuals with breastfeeding information had 673 uterine perforations (62% complete), with a 5-year cumulative incidence of 1·37% (95% CI 1·24-1·52) and an increased risk with breastfeeding (aHR 1·37, 95% CI 1·12-1·66).

INTERPRETATION

Although the risk for uterine perforation with IUD insertion 4 days to 6 weeks or less post partum is nearly seven times that of insertion non-post partum, perforation remains an incredibly rare event for all clinical time points. Despite a slight increased risk of perforation with breastfeeding at IUD insertion, the benefits of breastfeeding and effective contraception generally outweigh risks and should have little clinical impact. Therefore, IUD insertion timing should be based on individual desire for IUD contraception and patient convenience to assure an IUD insertion can occur. Careful follow-up of individuals at higher risk of uterine perforation is warranted.

FUNDING

Bayer AG.

Association between intrauterine device type and risk of perforation and device expulsion: results from the Association of Perforation and Expulsion of Intrauterine Devices study

BACKGROUND

Intrauterine devices, including levonorgestrel-releasing and copper devices, are highly effective long-acting reversible contraceptives. The potential risks associated with intrauterine devices are low and include uterine perforation and device expulsion.

OBJECTIVE

This study aimed to evaluate the risk of perforation and expulsion associated with levonorgestrel-releasing devices vs copper devices in clinical practice in the United States.

STUDY DESIGN

The Association of Perforation and Expulsion of Intrauterine Devices study was a retrospective cohort study of women aged ≤50 years with an intrauterine device insertion during 2001 to 2018 and information on intrauterine device type and patient and medical characteristics. Of note, 4 research sites with access to electronic health records contributed data for the study: 3 Kaiser Permanente-integrated healthcare systems (Northern California, Southern California, and Washington) and 1 healthcare system using data from a healthcare information exchange in Indiana (Regenstrief Institute). Perforation was classified as any extension of the device into or through the myometrium. Expulsion was classified as complete (not visible in the uterus or abdomen or patient reported) or partial (any portion in the cervix or malpositioned). We estimated the crude incidence rates and crude cumulative incidence by intrauterine device type. The risks of perforation and expulsion associated with levonorgestrel-releasing intrauterine devices vs copper intrauterine devices were estimated using Cox proportional-hazards regression with propensity score overlap weighting to adjust for confounders.

RESULTS

Among 322,898 women included in this analysis, the incidence rates of perforation per 1000 person-years were 1.64 (95% confidence interval, 1.53-1.76) for levonorgestrel-releasing intrauterine devices and 1.27 (95% confidence interval, 1.08-1.48) for copper intrauterine devices; 1-year and 5-year crude cumulative incidence was 0.22% (95% confidence interval, 0.20-0.24) and 0.63% (95% confidence interval, 0.57-0.68) for levonorgestrel-releasing intrauterine devices and 0.16% (95% confidence interval, 0.13-0.20) and 0.55% (95% confidence interval, 0.44-0.68) for copper intrauterine devices, respectively. The incidence rates of expulsion per 1000 person-years were 13.95 (95% confidence interval, 13.63-14.28) for levonorgestrel-releasing intrauterine devices and 14.08 (95% confidence interval, 13.44-14.75) for copper intrauterine devices; 1-year and 5-year crude cumulative incidence was 2.30% (95% confidence interval, 2.24-2.36) and 4.52% (95% confidence interval, 4.40-4.65) for levonorgestrel-releasing intrauterine devices and 2.30% (95% confidence interval, 2.18-2.44) and 4.82 (95% confidence interval, 4.56-5.10) for copper intrauterine devices, respectively. Comparing levonorgestrel-releasing intrauterine devices with copper intrauterine devices, the adjusted hazard ratios were 1.49 (95% confidence intervals, 1.25-1.78) for perforation and 0.69 (95% confidence intervals, 0.65-0.73) for expulsion.

CONCLUSION

After adjusting for potential confounders, levonorgestrel-releasing intrauterine devices were associated with an increased risk of uterine perforation and a decreased risk of expulsion relative to copper intrauterine devices. Given that the absolute numbers of these events are low in both groups, these differences may not be clinically meaningful.