Cervical preparation for first trimester surgical abortion

Cost Analysis of Surgical and Medical Uterine Evacuation Methods for First-Trimester Abortion Used in Public Hospitals in Mexico

Background:

Data on abortion procedures costs are scarce in low- and middle-income countries. In Mexico, the only known study was conducted more than a decade ago, with data from years before the abortion legislation. This study estimated the costs, from the health system’s perspective, of surgical and medical abortion methods commonly used by women who undergo first-trimester abortion in Mexico.

Methods:

Data were collected on staff time, salaries, medications, consumables, equipment, imaging, and lab studies, at 5 public general hospitals. A bottom-up micro-costing approach was used.

Results:

Surgical abortion costs were US$201 for manual vacuum aspiration and US$298 for sharp curettage. The cost of medical abortion with misoprostol was US$85. The use of cervical ripening increases the costs by up to 18%. Staff comprised up to 72% of total costs in surgical abortions. Hospitalization was the area where most of the spending occurred, due to the staff and post-surgical surveillance required.

Conclusions:

Our estimates reflect the costs of “real-life” implementation and highlight the impact on costs of the overuse of resources not routinely recommended by clinical guidelines, such as cervical ripening for surgical abortion. This information will help decision-makers to generate policies that contribute to more efficient use of resources.

Mifepristone and misoprostol compared to osmotic dilators for cervical preparation prior to surgical abortion at 15-18 weeks' gestation: a randomised controlled non-inferiority trial

OBJECTIVE

Cervical preparation is recommended prior to second-trimester surgical abortion. Osmotic dilators are an effective means to prepare the cervix, but require an additional procedure and may cause discomfort. We compared cervical preparation with mifepristone and misoprostol to preparation with osmotic dilators.

STUDY DESIGN

A randomised, controlled, non-inferiority trial was performed to compare cervical preparation with mifepristone and misoprostol to preparation with osmotic dilators in women undergoing surgical abortion between 15 and 18 weeks gestation. The medication group (n=29) received mifepristone 200 mg orally 24 hours prior to uterine evacuation and misoprostol 400 μg buccally 2 hours before the procedure. The dilator group (n=20) underwent osmotic dilator insertion 24 hours prior to the procedure. The primary outcome was total procedure time, from insertion to removal of the speculum. Secondary outcomes included operative time (from intrauterine instrumentation to speculum removal), initial cervical dilation, nausea, pain, ease of procedure, and whether participants would choose the same modality in the future.

RESULTS

For mean total procedure time, medication preparation (14.0 min, 95% CI 12.0-16.1) was not inferior to dilators (14.3 min, 95% CI 11.7 to 16.8, p<0.001). Mean operative time and ease of procedure were also similar between groups. More women in the medication group than the dilator group would prefer to use the same method in the future (86% vs 30%, p=0.003).

CONCLUSION

Prior to surgical abortion at 15-18 weeks, use of mifepristone and misoprostol did not result in longer procedure times than overnight osmotic dilators.

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

NCT01462.

Different routes of misoprostol for cervical priming in first trimester surgical abortions: a randomized blind trial

PURPOSE

To compare effectiveness and patient satisfaction of different routes of misoprostol for short-term (same day) cervical priming in first trimester surgical abortions.

METHODS

In a blind randomized trial, patients undergoing surgical abortion at a gestational age of 6 + 0-14 + 6 were administered oral, vaginal, or sub-lingual 400 mcg misoprostol, 1.5 to 4 h prior to procedure. Surgeons blinded to patient allocation evaluated cervical priming. The primary outcome was initial cervical dilatation. Secondary outcomes were cervical consistency, ease of dilation, patient discomfort, and side effects.

RESULTS

From July 2015 through May 2016, 120 patients were randomized as follows: 40 to oral, 40 to vaginal, and 40 to sublingual misoprostol administration. No differences were noted in patient age, gestational age, curettage indication (termination/delayed miscarriage), past vaginal delivery, and administration to procedure interval. Initial cervical dilatation was similar between the groups, as were cervical consistency and ease of dilation. Patients noted the greatest discomfort and side effects with sublingual administration. The followings were found to be independently associated with cervical dilatation in a linear regression analysis: sublingual administration, gestational age, missed abortion, and previous vaginal delivery. Side effects and administration to procedure interval were found non-significant.

CONCLUSION

The same day cervical priming for first trimester surgical abortion is similarly achieved with all routes of misoprostol administration. In cases of termination of pregnancy with no prior vaginal delivery, sublingual administration may be considered, but entails a higher rate of side effects and patient discomfort.

Cervical ripening before first trimester surgical evacuation for non-viable pregnancy

BACKGROUND

Medications or mechanical dilators are often used to soften and dilate the cervix prior to surgical evacuation of the uterus for non-viable pregnancy, or miscarriage. The majority of miscarriages occur in the first trimester. The aim of cervical ripening is to reduce the possibility of injury to the uterus and cervix and improve the surgical ease of the procedure. Cervical ripening agents can have adverse effects and it is uncertain as to whether these risks outweigh the benefits of their use.

OBJECTIVES

To systematically review the benefits and harms of using cervical ripening agents prior to surgical evacuation of non-viable pregnancy prior to 14 weeks' gestation.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Pregnancy and Childbirth Group's Trials Register (30 April 2015) and reference lists of retrieved papers.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised controlled trials (published in full-text form, or as abstracts only), which assessed the use of pharmacological or mechanical agents to ripen the cervix in women undergoing dilation and curettage or vacuum aspiration for non-viable pregnancy at less than 14 weeks' gestation were eligible for inclusion. Cluster-randomised controlled trials and trials using a cross-over design were not eligible for inclusion.Unpublished randomised controlled trials and quasi-randomised trials would have been eligible for inclusion but none were identified.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently assessed the studies for inclusion, assessed risk of bias and carried out data extraction. Data were checked for accuracy.

MAIN RESULTS

We included nine trials with 469 women. A diverse set of medications and regimens were studied in these trials, making the comparisons available for meta-analysis limited. The comparisons draw data from six trials with 383 participants. All trials were relatively small and had several aspects of unclear risk of bias with few of this review's outcomes reported. Due to this, no data from three trials were able to be used despite them meeting inclusion criteria.We carried out four comparisons: isosorbide mononitrate or dinitrate compared with misoprostol; misoprostol compared with placebo; chemical dilation (use of medications) compared with mechanical dilation; and any cervical preparation compared with placebo.None of the included studies reported data on the review's primary outcome: cervical or uterine injury (perforation, laceration, creation of a false passage).No clear difference was shown between isosorbide compounds and misoprostol for the outcome need for manual cervical dilation (average risk ratio (RR) 0.76, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.10 to 5.64; three trials, 150 women; Tau² = 2.11; I² = 69%), however the data were heterogenous. In terms of adverse effects, misoprostol was associated with more vomiting (RR 0.11, 95% CI 0.01 to 0.85; two trials, 120 women), however there were no clear differences between isosorbide compounds and misoprostol in relation to other reported adverse effects (headache, nausea or hypotension). The dosing regimens differed in terms of dose, number of administrations and route of administration in the different trials. Mechanical (Dilapan-S hygroscopic) dilators performed similarly to chemical dilators in a single trial (65 women) that measured difficulty in cervical dilation, excessive bleeding and adverse effects.Misoprostol was shown to be more effective than placebo for cervical ripening (reduced need for manual cervical dilation) (RR 0.14, 95% CI 0.08 to 0.26; one trial, 120 women), and surgical time was reduced when misoprostol was used (mean difference (MD) -3.15, 95% CI -3.59 to -2.70; one trial, 120 women). However, compared to placebo, misoprostol, was associated with more abdominal pain (RR 29.00, 95% CI 1.77 to 475.35; one trial, 120 women), although no clear differences in the risk of other adverse effects (nausea, vomiting, headache or fever) were observed between groups.There was no clear differences between chemical dilation and mechanical dilators for the outcomes: difficulty in cervical dilation, excessive bleeding or adverse effects.Compared with placebo, any cervical preparation reduced the need for manual cervical dilatation (average RR 0.25, 95% CI 0.07 to 0.89; two trials, 168 women; Tau² = 0.67; I² = 81%), and reduced surgical time (MD -2.55, 95% CI -3.67 to -1.43, two trials, 168 women; Tau² = 0.63; I² = 96%).None of the included trials reported on the review's other secondary outcomes, including: injury to bladder or bowel, miscarriage/preterm birth in a subsequent pregnancy, analgesia use after administration of ripening agent but before surgery, or analgesia use after surgery.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

This review found no evidence to evaluate cervical ripening prior to first trimester surgical evacuation for miscarriage for reducing the rate of cervical or uterine injury, however, this may be because these outcomes are very rare. Cervical preparation was shown to reduce the need for manual cervical dilatation compared with placebo.Misoprostol and isosorbide mononitrate and dinitrate were similarly effective in ripening the cervix, however there was more vomiting with misoprostol. Mechanical (Dilapan-S hygroscopic) dilators performed similarly to chemical dilators.The nine studies included in this review were small and the methodological quality of the trials was mixed, and for the most part, not well-described; thus any conclusions drawn from the data included in this review must be treated with caution. Consequently, large, high-quality trials are required to determine whether the benefits of this treatment outweigh the risks. Further research should be powered to assess the rate of cervical and uterine injury between interventions. Future research should also guide clinicians in deciding whether the benefits of reduced manual cervical dilatation outweigh the risks of adverse effects associated with these agents (nausea, vomiting, headache, fever, diarrhoea and pain). Women's satisfaction and outcomes of future pregnancies should also be assessed.

Implementation of misoprostol for postabortion care in Kenya and Uganda: a qualitative evaluation

Objective

Evaluate implementation of misoprostol for postabortion care (MPAC) in two African countries.

Design

Qualitative, program evaluation.

Setting

Twenty-five public and private health facilities in Rift Valley Province, Kenya, and Kampala Province, Uganda.

Sample

Forty-five MPAC providers, health facility managers, Ministry of Health officials, and non-governmental (NGO) staff involved in program implementation.

Methods and main outcome measures

In both countries, the Ministry of Health, local health centers and hospitals, and NGO staff developed evidence-based service delivery protocols to introduce MPAC in selected facilities; implementation extended from January 2009 to October 2010. Semi-structured, in-depth interviews evaluated the implementation process, identified supportive and inhibitive policies for implementation, elicited lessons learned during the process, and assessed provider satisfaction and providers’ impressions of client satisfaction with MPAC. Project reports were also reviewed.

Results

In both countries, MPAC was easy to use, and freed up provider time and health facility resources traditionally necessary for provision of PAC with uterine aspiration. On-going support of providers following training ensured high quality of care. Providers perceived that many women preferred MPAC, as they avoided instrumentation of the uterus, hospital admission, cost, and stigma associated with abortion. Appropriate registration of misoprostol for use in the pilot, and maintaining supplies of misoprostol, were significant challenges to service provision. Support from the Ministry of Health was necessary for successful implementation; lack of country-based standards and guidelines for MPAC created challenges.

Conclusions

MPAC is simple, cost-effective and can be readily implemented in settings with high rates of abortion-related mortality.

The immninent dawn of SPRMs in obstetrics and gynecology

Selective progesterone receptor modulators (SPRMs) have been developed since the late 70s when mifepristone was first described. They act through nuclear progesterone receptors and can have agonist or mixed agonist antagonist actions depending on the cell and tissue. Mifepristone has unique major antagonist properties allowing its use for pregnancy termination. Ulipristal acetate has been marketed in 2009 for emergency contraception and has been recently approved for preoperative myoma treatment. Further perspectives for SPRMs use include long term estrogen free contraception, endometriosis treatment. However long term applications will be possible only after confirmation of endometrial safety.

Complications of first-trimester abortion by vacuum aspiration after cervical preparation with and without misoprostol: a multicentre randomised trial

BACKGROUND

Little information is available about the incidence of complications from vacuum aspiration for first-trimester abortion after cervical preparation with prostaglandin analogues. We compared incidence of complications from vacuum aspiration in women who had had cervical preparation with misoprostol and those who had not.

METHODS

We did a randomised parallel-group trial at 14 centres in nine countries between Oct 22, 2002, and Sept 24, 2005. Healthy women seeking first-trimester abortion were randomly assigned via a computer-generated randomisation sequence stratified by centre, to receive vaginal administration of either two 200 μg tablets of misoprostol or two placebo tablets 3 h before abortion by vacuum aspiration. Participants and health-care personnel other than staff administering the treatment were masked to group assignment. Follow-up was up to 2 weeks. The primary outcome was one or more complications of vacuum aspiration (cervical tear, uterine perforation, incomplete abortion, uterine re-evacuation, pelvic inflammatory disease, or any other serious adverse event). We included women undergoing treatment and vacuum aspiration in the analysis of immediate complications; whereas, in the analysis of delayed complications, we included only those followed-up. In the analysis of any immediate or delayed complication, we excluded women lost to follow-up. This trial is registered, number ISRCTN85366519.

FINDINGS

We randomly assigned 2485 women to the misoprostol group and 2487 to the placebo group. Two women in the misoprostol group did not have vacuum aspiration. 56 women in each group were lost to follow-up. 50 (2%) of 2427 women in the misoprostol group and 74 (3%) of 2431 in the placebo group had one or more complication of vacuum aspiration (relative risk [RR] 0·68, 95% CI 0·47-0·96). No women in the misoprostol group had cervical tears and three had uterine perforations compared with two women in the placebo group who had cervical tears and one who had perforation. 19 (<1%) women given misoprostol and 55 (2%) on placebo had incomplete abortions (0·35, 0·21-0·58), of whom 14 (<1%) versus 48 (2%) needed uterine re-evacuation (0·29, 0·16-0·53). We noted no difference between groups in incidence of pelvic inflammatory disease (30 [1%] vs 25 [1%]; RR 1·20, 0·71-2·04) or other serious adverse events. The main side-effects of misoprostol during the 3 h treatment were abdominal pain (1355 [55%] of 2484 women vs 545 [22%] of 2487 women in the placebo group) and vaginal bleeding (909 [37%] vs 167 [7%]).

INTERPRETATION

Cervical preparation with 400 μg of vaginal misoprostol can reduce incidence of complications from vacuum aspiration for first trimester abortion.

FUNDING

UN Development Programme/UN Population Fund/WHO/World Bank Special Programme of Research, Development and Research Training in Human Reproduction, Department of Reproductive Health and Research, WHO, and the Packard Foundation.

To compare the methods of pregnancy termination for fetal abnormality in the first and second trimesters

Fetal abnormality is a major cause of termination of pregnancy and preservation of the fetus is important for confirmation of the diagnosis. Various regimes have been reported for termination of pregnancy for fetal abnormality in the first and the second trimesters. In this paper, we compare those regimes that allow preservation of the fetus, in terms of the efficacy in expulsion of the fetus, the factors and the side effects.

Laminaria tent versus Misoprostol for cervical ripening before surgical process in missed abortion

OBJECTIVE

To compare the efficacy of Laminaria tents with Misoprostol for cervical ripening before surgical process in missed abortion.

METHOD

In a prospective study, 70 women with missed abortion were assigned to have either insertion of a 3 mm intracervical Laminaria tent (n = 35) or vaginal Misoprostol 400 μg (n = 35) on the day prior to suction dilation and curettage (D/C). The women were interviewed just prior to the D/C with regard to pain, vaginal bleeding, and cervical dilator preference.

RESULT

Cervical dilation was greater in the Laminaria group but not significantly different from that in the Misoprostol group. However, additional cervical dilation before D/C was required in more patients in the Misoprostol group (45.7 vs 14.3%, P = 0.001). Women who received Laminaria reported significantly more pain at the time of insertion (62.8% in Laminaria group vs 22.8% in Misoprostol group) compared with women who received Misoprostol. Conversely, Misoprostol was associated with more nausea, vomiting, diarrhea and vaginal bleeding.

CONCLUSIONS

Laminaria tents are more effective cervical dilators than vaginal Misoprostol when inserted the day prior to suction D and C. Vaginal Misoprostol insertion is more comfortable, although it is associated with an increased risk of vaginal bleeding.