1
|
Chakhame BM, Darj E, Mwapasa M, Kafulafula UK, Maluwa A, Odland JØ, Odland ML. Women's perceptions of and experiences with the use of misoprostol for treatment of incomplete abortion in central Malawi: a mixed methods study. Reprod Health 2023; 20:26. [PMID: 36732793 PMCID: PMC9893686 DOI: 10.1186/s12978-022-01549-w] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 05/23/2022] [Accepted: 12/12/2022] [Indexed: 02/04/2023] Open
Abstract
BACKGROUND Abortion-related complications are among the common causes of maternal mortality in Malawi. Misoprostol is recommended for the treatment of first-trimester incomplete abortions but is seldom used for post-abortion care in Malawi. METHODS A descriptive cross-sectional study that used mixed methods was conducted in three hospitals in central Malawi. A survey was done on 400 women and in-depth interviews with 24 women receiving misoprostol for incomplete abortion. Convenience and purposive sampling methods were used and data were analysed using STATA 16.0 for quantitative part and thematic analysis for qualitative part. RESULTS From the qualitative data, three themes emerged around the following areas: experienced effects, support offered, and women's perceptions. Most women liked misoprostol and reported that the treatment was helpful and effective in expelling retained products of conception. Quantitative data revealed that the majority of participants, 376 (94%) were satisfied with the support received, and 361 (90.3%) believed that misoprostol was better than surgical treatment. The majority of the women 364 (91%) reported they would recommend misoprostol to friends. CONCLUSIONS The use of misoprostol for incomplete abortion in Malawi is acceptable and regarded as helpful and satisfactory among women.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Bertha Magreta Chakhame
- grid.5947.f0000 0001 1516 2393Norwegian University of Science and Technology, Trondheim, Norway ,Kamuzu University of Health Sciences, Blantyre, Malawi
| | - Elisabeth Darj
- grid.5947.f0000 0001 1516 2393Norwegian University of Science and Technology, Trondheim, Norway
| | - Mphatso Mwapasa
- grid.5947.f0000 0001 1516 2393Norwegian University of Science and Technology, Trondheim, Norway ,Kamuzu University of Health Sciences, Blantyre, Malawi
| | | | - Alfred Maluwa
- grid.493103.c0000 0004 4901 9642Malawi University of Science and Technology, Thyolo, Malawi
| | - Jon Øyvind Odland
- grid.5947.f0000 0001 1516 2393Norwegian University of Science and Technology, Trondheim, Norway ,grid.49697.350000 0001 2107 2298School of Health Systems and Public Health, Faculty of Health Sciences, University of Pretoria, Pretoria, 0002 South Africa ,grid.465487.cFaculty of Biosciences and Aquaculture, Nord University, Bodø, Norway
| | - Maria Lisa Odland
- grid.5947.f0000 0001 1516 2393Norwegian University of Science and Technology, Trondheim, Norway ,grid.52522.320000 0004 0627 3560Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, St. Olav’s University Hospital, Trondheim, Norway ,Malawi-Liverpool-Welcome Trust Research Institute, Blantyre, 312225 Malawi ,grid.10025.360000 0004 1936 8470Institute of Life Course and Medical Sciences, University of Liverpool, Liverpool, L69 3BX UK
| |
Collapse
|
2
|
Ghosh J, Papadopoulou A, Devall AJ, Jeffery HC, Beeson LE, Do V, Price MJ, Tobias A, Tunçalp Ö, Lavelanet A, Gülmezoglu AM, Coomarasamy A, Gallos ID. Methods for managing miscarriage: a network meta-analysis. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2021; 6:CD012602. [PMID: 34061352 PMCID: PMC8168449 DOI: 10.1002/14651858.cd012602.pub2] [Citation(s) in RCA: 4] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.3] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 01/24/2023]
Abstract
BACKGROUND Miscarriage, defined as the spontaneous loss of a pregnancy before 24 weeks' gestation, is common with approximately 25% of women experiencing a miscarriage in their lifetime. An estimated 15% of pregnancies end in miscarriage. Miscarriage can lead to serious morbidity, including haemorrhage, infection, and even death, particularly in settings without adequate healthcare provision. Early miscarriages occur during the first 14 weeks of pregnancy, and can be managed expectantly, medically or surgically. However, there is uncertainty about the relative effectiveness and risks of each option. OBJECTIVES To estimate the relative effectiveness and safety profiles for the different management methods for early miscarriage, and to provide rankings of the available methods according to their effectiveness, safety, and side-effect profile using a network meta-analysis. SEARCH METHODS We searched the Cochrane Pregnancy and Childbirth's Trials Register (9 February 2021), ClinicalTrials.gov and the WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP) (12 February 2021), and reference lists of retrieved studies. SELECTION CRITERIA We included all randomised controlled trials assessing the effectiveness or safety of methods for miscarriage management. Early miscarriage was defined as less than or equal to 14 weeks of gestation, and included missed and incomplete miscarriage. Management of late miscarriages after 14 weeks of gestation (often referred to as intrauterine fetal deaths) was not eligible for inclusion in the review. Cluster- and quasi-randomised trials were eligible for inclusion. Randomised trials published only as abstracts were eligible if sufficient information could be retrieved. We excluded non-randomised trials. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS At least three review authors independently assessed the trials for inclusion and risk of bias, extracted data and checked them for accuracy. We estimated the relative effects and rankings for the primary outcomes of complete miscarriage and composite outcome of death or serious complications. The certainty of evidence was assessed using GRADE. Relative effects for the primary outcomes are reported subgrouped by the type of miscarriage (incomplete and missed miscarriage). We also performed pairwise meta-analyses and network meta-analysis to determine the relative effects and rankings of all available methods. MAIN RESULTS Our network meta-analysis included 78 randomised trials involving 17,795 women from 37 countries. Most trials (71/78) were conducted in hospital settings and included women with missed or incomplete miscarriage. Across 158 trial arms, the following methods were used: 51 trial arms (33%) used misoprostol; 50 (32%) used suction aspiration; 26 (16%) used expectant management or placebo; 17 (11%) used dilatation and curettage; 11 (6%) used mifepristone plus misoprostol; and three (2%) used suction aspiration plus cervical preparation. Of these 78 studies, 71 (90%) contributed data in a usable form for meta-analysis. Complete miscarriage Based on the relative effects from the network meta-analysis of 59 trials (12,591 women), we found that five methods may be more effective than expectant management or placebo for achieving a complete miscarriage: · suction aspiration after cervical preparation (risk ratio (RR) 2.12, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.41 to 3.20, low-certainty evidence), · dilatation and curettage (RR 1.49, 95% CI 1.26 to 1.75, low-certainty evidence), · suction aspiration (RR 1.44, 95% CI 1.29 to 1.62, low-certainty evidence), · mifepristone plus misoprostol (RR 1.42, 95% CI 1.22 to 1.66, moderate-certainty evidence), · misoprostol (RR 1.30, 95% CI 1.16 to 1.46, low-certainty evidence). The highest ranked surgical method was suction aspiration after cervical preparation. The highest ranked non-surgical treatment was mifepristone plus misoprostol. All surgical methods were ranked higher than medical methods, which in turn ranked above expectant management or placebo. Composite outcome of death and serious complications Based on the relative effects from the network meta-analysis of 35 trials (8161 women), we found that four methods with available data were compatible with a wide range of treatment effects compared with expectant management or placebo: · dilatation and curettage (RR 0.43, 95% CI 0.17 to 1.06, low-certainty evidence), · suction aspiration (RR 0.55, 95% CI 0.23 to 1.32, low-certainty evidence), · misoprostol (RR 0.50, 95% CI 0.22 to 1.15, low-certainty evidence), · mifepristone plus misoprostol (RR 0.76, 95% CI 0.31 to 1.84, low-certainty evidence). Importantly, no deaths were reported in these studies, thus this composite outcome was entirely composed of serious complications, including blood transfusions, uterine perforations, hysterectomies, and intensive care unit admissions. Expectant management and placebo ranked the lowest when compared with alternative treatment interventions. Subgroup analyses by type of miscarriage (missed or incomplete) agreed with the overall analysis in that surgical methods were the most effective treatment, followed by medical methods and then expectant management or placebo, but there are possible subgroup differences in the effectiveness of the available methods. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Based on relative effects from the network meta-analysis, all surgical and medical methods for managing a miscarriage may be more effective than expectant management or placebo. Surgical methods were ranked highest for managing a miscarriage, followed by medical methods, which in turn ranked above expectant management or placebo. Expectant management or placebo had the highest chance of serious complications, including the need for unplanned or emergency surgery. A subgroup analysis showed that surgical and medical methods may be more beneficial in women with missed miscarriage compared to women with incomplete miscarriage. Since type of miscarriage (missed and incomplete) appears to be a source of inconsistency and heterogeneity within these data, we acknowledge that the main network meta-analysis may be unreliable. However, we plan to explore this further in future updates and consider the primary analysis as separate networks for missed and incomplete miscarriage.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Jay Ghosh
- Tommy's National Centre for Miscarriage Research, Institute of Metabolism and Systems Research (IMSR), WHO Collaborating Centre for Global Women's Health Research, University of Birmingham, Birmingham, UK
| | - Argyro Papadopoulou
- Tommy's National Centre for Miscarriage Research, Institute of Metabolism and Systems Research (IMSR), WHO Collaborating Centre for Global Women's Health Research, University of Birmingham, Birmingham, UK
| | - Adam J Devall
- Tommy's National Centre for Miscarriage Research, Institute of Metabolism and Systems Research (IMSR), WHO Collaborating Centre for Global Women's Health Research, University of Birmingham, Birmingham, UK
| | - Hannah C Jeffery
- Tommy's National Centre for Miscarriage Research, Institute of Metabolism and Systems Research (IMSR), WHO Collaborating Centre for Global Women's Health Research, University of Birmingham, Birmingham, UK
| | - Leanne E Beeson
- Institute of Applied Health Research, College of Medical and Dental Sciences, University of Birmingham, Birmingham, UK
| | - Vivian Do
- University of Birmingham, Birmingham, UK
| | - Malcolm J Price
- Test Evaluation Research Group, Institute of Applied Health Research, University of Birmingham, Birmingham, UK
| | - Aurelio Tobias
- Tommy's National Centre for Miscarriage Research, Institute of Metabolism and Systems Research (IMSR), WHO Collaborating Centre for Global Women's Health Research, University of Birmingham, Birmingham, UK
| | - Özge Tunçalp
- UNDP/UNFPA/UNICEF/WHO/World Bank Special Programme of Research, Development and Research Training in Human Reproduction (HRP), Department of Sexual and Reproductive Health and Research, World Health Organization, Geneva, Switzerland
| | - Antonella Lavelanet
- UNDP/UNFPA/UNICEF/WHO/World Bank Special Programme of Research, Development and Research Training in Human Reproduction (HRP), Department of Sexual and Reproductive Health and Research, World Health Organization, Geneva, Switzerland
| | | | - Arri Coomarasamy
- Tommy's National Centre for Miscarriage Research, Institute of Metabolism and Systems Research (IMSR), WHO Collaborating Centre for Global Women's Health Research, University of Birmingham, Birmingham, UK
| | - Ioannis D Gallos
- Tommy's National Centre for Miscarriage Research, Institute of Metabolism and Systems Research (IMSR), WHO Collaborating Centre for Global Women's Health Research, University of Birmingham, Birmingham, UK
| |
Collapse
|
3
|
Lemmers M, Verschoor MAC, Kim BV, Hickey M, Vazquez JC, Mol BWJ, Neilson JP. Medical treatment for early fetal death (less than 24 weeks). Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2019; 6:CD002253. [PMID: 31206170 PMCID: PMC6574399 DOI: 10.1002/14651858.cd002253.pub4] [Citation(s) in RCA: 13] [Impact Index Per Article: 2.6] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 11/06/2022]
Abstract
BACKGROUND In most pregnancies that miscarry, arrest of embryonic or fetal development occurs some time (often weeks) before the miscarriage occurs. Ultrasound examination can reveal abnormal findings during this phase by demonstrating anembryonic pregnancies or embryonic or fetal death. Treatment has traditionally been surgical but medical treatments may be effective, safe, and acceptable, as may be waiting for spontaneous miscarriage. This is an update of a review first published in 2006. OBJECTIVES To assess, from clinical trials, the effectiveness and safety of different medical treatments for the termination of non-viable pregnancies. SEARCH METHODS For this update, we searched Cochrane Pregnancy and Childbirth's Trials Register, ClinicalTrials.gov, the WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP) (24 October 2018) and reference lists of retrieved studies. SELECTION CRITERIA Randomised trials comparing medical treatment with another treatment (e.g. surgical evacuation), or placebo, or no treatment for early pregnancy failure. Quasi-randomised studies were excluded. Cluster-randomised trials were eligible for inclusion, as were studies reported in abstract form, if sufficient information was available to assess eligibility. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS Two review authors independently assessed trials for inclusion and risk of bias, extracted data and checked them for accuracy. We assessed the quality of the evidence using the GRADE approach. MAIN RESULTS Forty-three studies (4966 women) were included. The main interventions examined were vaginal, sublingual, oral and buccal misoprostol, mifepristone and vaginal gemeprost. These were compared with surgical management, expectant management, placebo, or different types of medical interventions were compared with each other. The review includes a wide variety of different interventions which have been analysed across 23 different comparisons. Many of the comparisons consist of single studies. We limited the grading of the quality of evidence to two main comparisons: vaginal misoprostol versus placebo and vaginal misoprostol versus surgical evacuation of the uterus. Risk of bias varied widely among the included trials. The quality of the evidence varied between the different comparisons, but was mainly found to be very-low or low quality.Vaginal misoprostol versus placeboVaginal misoprostol may hasten miscarriage when compared with placebo: e.g. complete miscarriage (5 trials, 305 women, risk ratio (RR) 4.23, 95% confidence interval (CI) 3.01 to 5.94; low-quality evidence). No trial reported on pelvic infection rate for this comparison. Vaginal misoprostol made little difference to rates of nausea (2 trials, 88 women, RR 1.38, 95% CI 0.43 to 4.40; low-quality evidence), diarrhoea (2 trials, 88 women, RR 2.21, 95% CI 0.35 to 14.06; low-quality evidence) or to whether women were satisfied with the acceptability of the method (1 trial, 32 women, RR 1.17, 95% CI 0.83 to 1.64; low-quality evidence). It is uncertain whether vaginal misoprostol reduces blood loss (haemoglobin difference > 10 g/L) (1 trial, 50 women, RR 1.25, 95% CI 0.38 to 4.12; very-low quality) or pain (opiate use) (1 trial, 84 women, RR 5.00, 95% CI 0.25 to 101.11; very-low quality), because the quality of the evidence for these outcomes was found to be very low.Vaginal misoprostol versus surgical evacuation Vaginal misoprostol may be less effective in accomplishing a complete miscarriage compared to surgical management (6 trials, 943 women, average RR 0.40, 95% CI 0.32 to 0.50; Heterogeneity: Tau² = 0.03, I² = 46%; low-quality evidence) and may be associated with more nausea (1 trial, 154 women, RR 21.85, 95% CI 1.31 to 364.37; low-quality evidence) and diarrhoea (1 trial, 154 women, RR 40.85, 95% CI 2.52 to 662.57; low-quality evidence). There may be little or no difference between vaginal misoprostol and surgical evacuation for pelvic infection (1 trial, 618 women, RR 0.73, 95% CI 0.39 to 1.37; low-quality evidence), blood loss (post-treatment haematocrit (%) (1 trial, 50 women, mean difference (MD) 1.40%, 95% CI -3.51 to 0.71; low-quality evidence), pain relief (1 trial, 154 women, RR 1.42, 95% CI 0.82 to 2.46; low-quality evidence) or women's satisfaction/acceptability of method (1 trial, 45 women, RR 0.67, 95% CI 0.40 to 1.11; low-quality evidence).Other comparisonsBased on findings from a single trial, vaginal misoprostol was more effective at accomplishing complete miscarriage than expectant management (614 women, RR 1.25, 95% CI 1.09 to 1.45). There was little difference between vaginal misoprostol and sublingual misoprostol (5 trials, 513 women, average RR 0.84, 95% CI 0.61 to 1.16; Heterogeneity: Tau² = 0.10, I² = 871%; or between oral and vaginal misoprostol in terms of complete miscarriage at less than 13 weeks (4 trials, 418 women), average RR 0.68, 95% CI 0.45 to 1.03; Heterogeneity: Tau² = 0.13, I² = 90%). However, there was less abdominal pain with vaginal misoprostol in comparison to sublingual (3 trials, 392 women, RR 0.58, 95% CI 0.46 to 0.74). A single study (46 women) found mifepristone to be more effective than placebo: miscarriage complete by day five after treatment (46 women, RR 9.50, 95% CI 2.49 to 36.19). However the quality of this evidence is very low: there is a very serious risk of bias with signs of incomplete data and no proper intention-to-treat analysis in the included study; and serious imprecision with wide confidence intervals. Mifepristone did not appear to further hasten miscarriage when added to a misoprostol regimen (3 trials, 447 women, RR 1.18, 95% CI 0.95 to 1.47). AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS Available evidence from randomised trials suggests that medical treatment with vaginal misoprostol may be an acceptable alternative to surgical evacuation or expectant management. In general, side effects of medical treatment were minor, consisting mainly of nausea and diarrhoea. There were no major differences in effectiveness between different routes of administration. Treatment satisfaction was addressed in only a few studies, in which the majority of women were satisfied with the received intervention. Since the quality of evidence is low or very low for several comparisons, mainly because they included only one or two (small) trials; further research is necessary to assess the effectiveness, safety and side effects, optimal route of administration and dose of different medical treatments for early fetal death.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Marike Lemmers
- Academic Medical CenterDepartment of Obstetrics and GynaecologyMeibergdreef 9AmsterdamNetherlands1105 AZ
| | - Marianne AC Verschoor
- Academic Medical CenterDepartment of Obstetrics and GynaecologyMeibergdreef 9AmsterdamNetherlands1105 AZ
| | - Bobae Veronica Kim
- School of Medicine, The University of AdelaideRobinson Research InstituteAdelaideSAAustralia5006
| | - Martha Hickey
- The Royal Women's HospitalThe University of MelbourneLevel 7, Research PrecinctMelbourneVictoriaAustraliaParkville 3052
| | - Juan C Vazquez
- Instituto Nacional de Endocrinologia (INEN)Departamento de Salud ReproductivaZapata y DVedadoHabanaCuba10 400
| | - Ben Willem J Mol
- Monash UniversityDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynaecology246 Clayton RoadClaytonVictoriaAustralia3168
| | | | | |
Collapse
|
4
|
Smith PP, Dhillon-Smith RK, O'Toole E, Cooper N, Coomarasamy A, Clark TJ. Outcomes in prevention and management of miscarriage trials: a systematic review. BJOG 2019; 126:176-189. [PMID: 30461160 DOI: 10.1111/1471-0528.15528] [Citation(s) in RCA: 10] [Impact Index Per Article: 2.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Accepted: 10/20/2018] [Indexed: 01/18/2023]
Abstract
BACKGROUND There is a substantial body of research evaluating ways to prevent and manage miscarriage, but all studies do not report on the same outcomes. OBJECTIVE To review systematically, outcomes reported in existing miscarriage trials. SEARCH STRATEGY MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, and Cochrane were searched from inception until January 2017. SELECTION CRITERIA Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) reporting prevention or management of miscarriage. Miscarriage was defined as a pregnancy loss in the first trimester. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS Data about the study characteristics, primary, and secondary outcomes were extracted. MAIN RESULTS We retrieved 1553 titles and abstracts, from which 208 RCTs were included. For prevention of miscarriage, the most commonly reported primary outcome was live birth and the top four reported outcomes were pregnancy loss/stillbirth (n = 112), gestation of birth (n = 68), birth dimensions (n = 65), and live birth (n = 49). For these four outcomes, 58 specific measures were used for evaluation. For management of miscarriage, the most commonly reported primary outcome was efficacy of treatment. The top four reported outcomes were bleeding (n = 186), efficacy of miscarriage treatment (n = 105), infection (n = 97), and quality of life (n = 90). For these outcomes, 130 specific measures were used for evaluation. CONCLUSIONS Our review found considerable variation in the reporting of primary and secondary outcomes along with the measures used to assess them. There is a need for standardised patient-centred clinical outcomes through the development of a core outcome set; the work from this systematic review will form the foundation of the core outcome set for miscarriage. TWEETABLE ABSTRACT There is disparity in the reporting of outcomes and the measures used to assess them in miscarriage trials.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- P P Smith
- Institute of Metabolism and Systems Research, College of Medical & Dental Sciences, University of Birmingham, Birmingham, UK.,Tommy's Centre for Miscarriage Research, College of Medical & Dental Sciences, University of Birmingham, Birmingham, UK
| | - R K Dhillon-Smith
- Institute of Metabolism and Systems Research, College of Medical & Dental Sciences, University of Birmingham, Birmingham, UK.,Tommy's Centre for Miscarriage Research, College of Medical & Dental Sciences, University of Birmingham, Birmingham, UK
| | - E O'Toole
- Women's Voices Involvement Panel, Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists, London, UK
| | - Nam Cooper
- Barts and the London School of Medicine and Dentistry, Queen Mary University, London, UK
| | - A Coomarasamy
- Institute of Metabolism and Systems Research, College of Medical & Dental Sciences, University of Birmingham, Birmingham, UK.,Tommy's Centre for Miscarriage Research, College of Medical & Dental Sciences, University of Birmingham, Birmingham, UK
| | - T J Clark
- Institute of Metabolism and Systems Research, College of Medical & Dental Sciences, University of Birmingham, Birmingham, UK.,Tommy's Centre for Miscarriage Research, College of Medical & Dental Sciences, University of Birmingham, Birmingham, UK
| |
Collapse
|
5
|
Abstract
BACKGROUND Miscarriage occurs in 10% to 15% of pregnancies. The traditional treatment, after miscarriage, has been to perform surgery to remove any remaining placental tissues in the uterus ('evacuation of uterus'). However, medical treatments, or expectant care (no treatment), may also be effective, safe, and acceptable. OBJECTIVES To assess the effectiveness, safety, and acceptability of any medical treatment for incomplete miscarriage (before 24 weeks). SEARCH METHODS We searched Cochrane Pregnancy and Childbirth's Trials Register (13 May 2016) and reference lists of retrieved papers. SELECTION CRITERIA We included randomised controlled trials comparing medical treatment with expectant care or surgery, or alternative methods of medical treatment. We excluded quasi-randomised trials. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS Two review authors independently assessed the studies for inclusion, assessed risk of bias, and carried out data extraction. Data entry was checked. We assessed the quality of the evidence using the GRADE approach. MAIN RESULTS We included 24 studies (5577 women). There were no trials specifically of miscarriage treatment after 13 weeks' gestation.Three trials involving 335 women compared misoprostol treatment (all vaginally administered) with expectant care. There was no difference in complete miscarriage (average risk ratio (RR) 1.23, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.72 to 2.10; 2 studies, 150 women, random-effects; very low-quality evidence), or in the need for surgical evacuation (average RR 0.62, 95% CI 0.17 to 2.26; 2 studies, 308 women, random-effects; low-quality evidence). There were few data on 'deaths or serious complications'. For unplanned surgical intervention, we did not identify any difference between misoprostol and expectant care (average RR 0.62, 95% CI 0.17 to 2.26; 2 studies, 308 women, random-effects; low-quality evidence).Sixteen trials involving 4044 women addressed the comparison of misoprostol (7 studies used oral administration, 6 studies used vaginal, 2 studies sublingual, 1 study combined vaginal + oral) with surgical evacuation. There was a slightly lower incidence of complete miscarriage with misoprostol (average RR 0.96, 95% CI 0.94 to 0.98; 15 studies, 3862 women, random-effects; very low-quality evidence) but with success rate high for both methods. Overall, there were fewer surgical evacuations with misoprostol (average RR 0.05, 95% CI 0.02 to 0.11; 13 studies, 3070 women, random-effects; very low-quality evidence) but more unplanned procedures (average RR 5.03, 95% CI 2.71 to 9.35; 11 studies, 2690 women, random-effects; low-quality evidence). There were few data on 'deaths or serious complications'. Nausea was more common with misoprostol (average RR 2.50, 95% CI 1.53 to 4.09; 11 studies, 3015 women, random-effects; low-quality evidence). We did not identify any difference in women's satisfaction between misoprostol and surgery (average RR 1.00, 95% CI 0.99 to 1.00; 9 studies, 3349 women, random-effects; moderate-quality evidence). More women had vomiting and diarrhoea with misoprostol compared with surgery (vomiting: average RR 1.97, 95% CI 1.36 to 2.85; 10 studies, 2977 women, random-effects; moderate-quality evidence; diarrhoea: average RR 4.82, 95% CI 1.09 to 21.32; 4 studies, 757 women, random-effects; moderate-quality evidence).Five trials compared different routes of administration, or doses, or both, of misoprostol. There was no clear evidence of one regimen being superior to another. Limited evidence suggests that women generally seem satisfied with their care. Long-term follow-up from one included study identified no difference in subsequent fertility between the three approaches. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS The available evidence suggests that medical treatment, with misoprostol, and expectant care are both acceptable alternatives to routine surgical evacuation given the availability of health service resources to support all three approaches. Further studies, including long-term follow-up, are clearly needed to confirm these findings. There is an urgent need for studies on women who miscarry at more than 13 weeks' gestation.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Caron Kim
- WHODepartment of Reproductive Health and Research20 Avenue AppiaGenevaSwitzerland1211
| | | | | | - Martha Hickey
- The Royal Women's HospitalThe University of MelbourneLevel 7, Research PrecinctMelbourneVictoriaAustraliaParkville 3052
| | - Juan C Vazquez
- Instituto Nacional de Endocrinologia (INEN)Departamento de Salud ReproductivaZapata y DVedadoHabanaCuba10 400
| | - Lixia Dou
- The University of LiverpoolCochrane Pregnancy and Childbirth Group, Department of Women's and Children's HealthFirst Floor, Liverpool Women's NHS Foundation TrustCrown StreetLiverpoolUKL8 7SS
| | | |
Collapse
|
6
|
Ng BK, Annamalai R, Lim PS, Aqmar Suraya S, Nur Azurah AG, Muhammad Abdul Jamil MY. Outpatient versus inpatient intravaginal misoprostol for the treatment of first trimester incomplete miscarriage: a randomised controlled trial. Arch Gynecol Obstet 2014; 291:105-13. [PMID: 25078052 DOI: 10.1007/s00404-014-3388-0] [Citation(s) in RCA: 7] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.7] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 01/09/2014] [Accepted: 07/21/2014] [Indexed: 10/25/2022]
Abstract
BACKGROUND Study objective To assess the efficacy of outpatient misoprostol administration versus inpatient misoprostol administration for the treatment of first trimester incomplete miscarriage. MATERIALS AND METHODS A prospective randomised controlled trial was conducted at a tertiary hospital from May 2012 to April 2013. A total of 154 patients with first trimester incomplete miscarriage were randomised to receive misoprostol either as outpatient or inpatient. Intra-vaginal misoprostol 800 mcg was administered eight hourly to a maximum of three doses. Complete evacuation is achieved when the cervical os was closed on vaginal examination or ultrasound showed no more retained products of conception evidenced by endometrial thickness of less than 15 mm. Treatment failure was defined as failure in achieving complete evacuation on day seven hence surgical evacuation is offered. RESULTS Outpatient administration of misoprostol was as effective as inpatient treatment with success rate of 89.2 and 85.7 % (p = 0.520). The side effects were not significantly different between the two groups. Side effects that occurred were minor and only required symptomatic treatment. Duration of bleeding was 6.0 days in both groups (p = 0.317). Mean reduction in haemoglobin was lesser in the outpatient group (0.4 g/dl) as compared to in the inpatient group (0.6 g/dl) which was statistically significant (p = 0.048). CONCLUSION Medical evacuation using intra-vaginal misoprostol 800 mcg eight hourly for a maximum of three doses in an outpatient setting is as effective as in inpatient setting with tolerable side effects.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Beng Kwang Ng
- Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, Universiti Kebangsaan Malaysia Medical Centre, Jalan Yaacob Latif, Cheras, 56000, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia,
| | | | | | | | | | | |
Collapse
|