1
|
Nguyen AT, Curtis KM, Tepper NK, Kortsmit K, Brittain AW, Snyder EM, Cohen MA, Zapata LB, Whiteman MK. U.S. Medical Eligibility Criteria for Contraceptive Use, 2024. MMWR Recomm Rep 2024; 73:1-126. [PMID: 39106314 PMCID: PMC11315372 DOI: 10.15585/mmwr.rr7304a1] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 08/09/2024] Open
Abstract
The 2024 U.S. Medical Eligibility Criteria for Contraceptive Use (U.S. MEC) comprises recommendations for the use of specific contraceptive methods by persons who have certain characteristics or medical conditions. These recommendations for health care providers were updated by CDC after review of the scientific evidence and a meeting with national experts in Atlanta, Georgia, during January 25-27, 2023. The information in this report replaces the 2016 U.S. MEC (CDC. U.S. Medical Eligibility Criteria for Contraceptive Use, 2016. MMWR 2016:65[No. RR-3]:1-103). Notable updates include 1) the addition of recommendations for persons with chronic kidney disease; 2) revisions to the recommendations for persons with certain characteristics or medical conditions (i.e., breastfeeding, postpartum, postabortion, obesity, surgery, deep venous thrombosis or pulmonary embolism with or without anticoagulant therapy, thrombophilia, superficial venous thrombosis, valvular heart disease, peripartum cardiomyopathy, systemic lupus erythematosus, high risk for HIV infection, cirrhosis, liver tumor, sickle cell disease, solid organ transplantation, and drug interactions with antiretrovirals used for prevention or treatment of HIV infection); and 3) inclusion of new contraceptive methods, including new doses or formulations of combined oral contraceptives, contraceptive patches, vaginal rings, progestin-only pills, levonorgestrel intrauterine devices, and vaginal pH modulator. The recommendations in this report are intended to serve as a source of evidence-based clinical practice guidance for health care providers. The goals of these recommendations are to remove unnecessary medical barriers to accessing and using contraception and to support the provision of person-centered contraceptive counseling and services in a noncoercive manner. Health care providers should always consider the individual clinical circumstances of each person seeking contraceptive services. This report is not intended to be a substitute for professional medical advice for individual patients; when needed, patients should seek advice from their health care providers about contraceptive use.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Antoinette T. Nguyen
- Division of Reproductive Health, National Center for
Chronic Disease Prevention and Health Promotion, CDC, Atlanta, Georgia
| | - Kathryn M. Curtis
- Division of Reproductive Health, National Center for
Chronic Disease Prevention and Health Promotion, CDC, Atlanta, Georgia
| | - Naomi K. Tepper
- Division of Reproductive Health, National Center for
Chronic Disease Prevention and Health Promotion, CDC, Atlanta, Georgia
| | - Katherine Kortsmit
- Division of Reproductive Health, National Center for
Chronic Disease Prevention and Health Promotion, CDC, Atlanta, Georgia
| | - Anna W. Brittain
- Division of Reproductive Health, National Center for
Chronic Disease Prevention and Health Promotion, CDC, Atlanta, Georgia
| | - Emily M. Snyder
- Division of Reproductive Health, National Center for
Chronic Disease Prevention and Health Promotion, CDC, Atlanta, Georgia
| | - Megan A. Cohen
- Division of Reproductive Health, National Center for
Chronic Disease Prevention and Health Promotion, CDC, Atlanta, Georgia
| | - Lauren B. Zapata
- Division of Reproductive Health, National Center for
Chronic Disease Prevention and Health Promotion, CDC, Atlanta, Georgia
| | - Maura K. Whiteman
- Division of Reproductive Health, National Center for
Chronic Disease Prevention and Health Promotion, CDC, Atlanta, Georgia
| |
Collapse
|
2
|
Grandi G, Del Savio MC, Tassi A, Facchinetti F. Postpartum contraception: A matter of guidelines. Int J Gynaecol Obstet 2024; 164:56-65. [PMID: 37334892 DOI: 10.1002/ijgo.14928] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 01/05/2023] [Revised: 05/19/2023] [Accepted: 05/28/2023] [Indexed: 06/21/2023]
Abstract
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.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Giovanni Grandi
- Department of Medical and Surgical Sciences for Mother, Child and Adult, University of Modena and Reggio Emilia, Azienda Ospedaliero Universitaria Policlinico, Modena, Italy
| | - Maria C Del Savio
- Department of Medical and Surgical Sciences for Mother, Child and Adult, University of Modena and Reggio Emilia, Azienda Ospedaliero Universitaria Policlinico, Modena, Italy
| | - Alice Tassi
- Clinic of Obstetrics and Gynecology, DAME, University Hospital of Udine, Udine, Italy
| | - Fabio Facchinetti
- Department of Medical and Surgical Sciences for Mother, Child and Adult, University of Modena and Reggio Emilia, Azienda Ospedaliero Universitaria Policlinico, Modena, Italy
| |
Collapse
|
3
|
Rosa Bolling K, Wahdan Y, Warnock N, Lott J, Schoendorf J, Pisa F, Gomez-Espinosa E, Kistler K, Maiese B. Utilisation, effectiveness, and safety of immediate postpartum intrauterine device insertion: a systematic literature review. BMJ SEXUAL & REPRODUCTIVE HEALTH 2023; 49:e1. [PMID: 36600467 PMCID: PMC10176355 DOI: 10.1136/bmjsrh-2022-201579] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 05/03/2022] [Accepted: 10/25/2022] [Indexed: 05/14/2023]
Abstract
BACKGROUND Intrauterine devices (IUDs) are highly effective contraception. IUDs inserted directly following delivery provide immediate birth control and may decrease unintended pregnancies, including short-interval pregnancies, thereby mitigating health risks and associated economic burden. METHODS This systematic literature review included published global data on the utilisation, effectiveness, and safety of postpartum intrauterine devices (PPIUDs) of any type. English language articles indexed in MEDLINE, Embase, and Cochrane from January 2010-October 2021 were included. RESULTS 133 articles met the inclusion criteria (46% interventional studies; 54% observational; n=87 from lower-income countries; n=46 from higher-income countries). PPIUD use was low in higher-income countries (6/10 000 US deliveries in 2013-2016) and varied widely in lower-income countries (2%-46%). Across both higher- and lower-income countries, in most studies (79%), >80% of women with PPIUDs had an IUD in place by 3 months; at 6 and 12 months, 76% and 54% of included studies reported that >80% of women had an IUD in place; reason for discontinuation was infrequently reported. Pregnancies were rare (96 pregnancies across 12 191 women from 37 studies reporting data) and were generally unrelated to device failure, but rather occurred in women no longer using a PPIUD. Expulsions occurred mainly in the early outpatient period and ranged widely (within 3 months: 0-41%). Abnormal bleeding, infections, or perforations were rare. CONCLUSIONS PPIUDs are safe and effective. Long-term follow-up data are limited. Future research elucidating reasons underlying lack of PPIUD use is warranted.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
| | | | | | - Jason Lott
- Bayer Healthcare, Whippany, New Jersey, USA
| | | | | | | | | | | |
Collapse
|
4
|
Sothornwit J, Kaewrudee S, Lumbiganon P, Pattanittum P, Averbach SH. Immediate versus delayed postpartum insertion of contraceptive implant and IUD for contraception. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2022; 10:CD011913. [PMID: 36302159 PMCID: PMC9612833 DOI: 10.1002/14651858.cd011913.pub3] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 11/06/2022]
Abstract
BACKGROUND Long-acting reversible contraception (LARC), including intrauterine devices (IUDs) and contraceptive implants, are highly effective, reversible methods of contraception. Providing LARC methods during the postpartum period is important to support contraceptive choice, and to prevent unintended pregnancy and short interpregnancy intervals. Delaying offering contraception to postpartum people until the first comprehensive postpartum visit, traditionally at around six weeks postpartum, may put some postpartum people at risk of unintended pregnancy, either due to loss to follow-up or because of initiation of sexual intercourse prior to receiving contraception. Therefore, immediate provision of highly effective contraception, prior to discharge from hospital, has the potential to improve contraceptive use and prevent unintended pregnancies and short interpregnancy intervals. OBJECTIVES To compare the initiation rate, utilization rates (at six months and 12 months after delivery), effectiveness, and adverse effects of immediate versus delayed postpartum insertion of implants and IUDs for contraception. SEARCH METHODS We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, Embase, and POPLINE for eligible studies up to December 2020. We examined review articles and contacted investigators. We checked registers of ongoing clinical trials, citation lists of included studies, key textbooks, grey literature, and previous systematic reviews for potentially relevant studies. SELECTION CRITERIA We sought randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that compared immediate postpartum versus delayed insertion of contraceptive implant and IUDs for contraception. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS Two review authors (JS, SK) independently screened titles and abstracts of the search results, and assessed the full-text articles of potentially relevant studies for inclusion. They extracted data from the included studies, assessed risk of bias, compared results, and resolved disagreements by consulting a third review author (PL, SA or PP). We contacted investigators for additional data, where possible. We computed the Mantel-Haenszel or inverse variance risk ratio (RR) with 95% confidence interval (CI) for binary outcomes and the mean difference (MD) with 95% CI for continuous variables. MAIN RESULTS In this updated review, 16 studies met the inclusion criteria; five were studies of contraceptive implants (715 participants) and 11 were studies of IUDs (1894 participants). We identified 12 ongoing studies. We applied GRADE judgements to our results; the overall certainty of the evidence for each outcome ranged from moderate to very low, with the main limitations being risk of bias, inconsistency, and imprecision. Contraceptive implants Immediate insertion probably improves the initiation rate for contraceptive implants compared with delayed insertion (RR 1.48, 95% CI 1.11 to 1.98; 5 studies, 715 participants; I2 = 95%; moderate-certainty evidence). We are uncertain if there was a difference between the two groups for the utilization rate of contraceptive implants at six months after delivery (RR 1.16, 95% CI 0.90 to 1.50; 3 studies, 330 participants; I2 = 89%; very low-certainty evidence) or at 12 months after insertion (RR 0.98, 95% CI 0.93 to 1.04; 2 studies, 164 participants; I2 = 0%; very low-certainty evidence). People who received an immediate postpartum contraceptive implant insertion may have had a higher mean number of days of prolonged vaginal bleeding within six weeks postpartum (mean difference (MD) 2.98 days, 95% CI -2.71 to 8.66; 2 studies, 420 participants; I2 = 91%; low-certainty evidence) and a higher rate of other adverse effects in the first six weeks after birth (RR 2.06, 95% CI 1.38 to 3.06; 1 study, 215 participants; low-certainty evidence) than those who received a delayed postpartum insertion. We are uncertain if there was a difference between the two groups for prolonged bleeding at six months after delivery (RR 1.19, 95% CI 0.29 to 4.94; 2 studies, 252 participants; I2 = 0%; very low-certainty evidence). There may be little or no difference between the two groups for rates of unintended pregnancy at six months (RR 0.20, 95% CI 0.01 to 4.08; one study, 205 participants; low-certainty evidence). We are uncertain whether there was a difference in rates of unintended pregnancy at 12 months postpartum (RR 1.82, 95% CI 0.38 to 8.71; 1 study, 64 participants; very low-certainty evidence). There may be little or no difference between the two groups for any breastfeeding rates at six months (RR 0.97, 95% CI 0.92 to 1.01; 2 studies, 225 participants; I2 = 48%; low-certainty evidence). IUDs Immediate insertion of IUDs probably improves the initiation rate compared with delayed insertion, regardless of type of IUD (RR 1.27, 95% CI 1.07 to 1.51; 10 studies, 1894 participants; I2 = 98%; moderate-certainty evidence). However, people who received an immediate postpartum IUD insertion may have had a higher expulsion rate at six months after delivery (RR 4.55, 95% CI 2.52 to 8.19; 8 studies, 1206 participants; I2 = 31%; low-certainty evidence) than those who received a delayed postpartum insertion. We are uncertain if there was a difference between the two groups in the utilization of IUDs at six months after insertion (RR 1.02, 95% CI 0.65 to 1.62; 6 studies, 971 participants; I2 = 96%; very low-certainty evidence) or at 12 months after insertion (RR 0.86, 95% CI 0.5 to 1.47; 3 studies, 796 participants; I2 = 92%; very low-certainty evidence). Immediate IUDs insertion may reduce unintended pregnancy at 12 months (RR 0.26, 95% CI 0.17 to 0.41; 1 study, 1000 participants; low-certainty evidence). We are uncertain whether there was difference in any breastfeeding rates at six months in people receiving progestin-releasing IUDs (RR 0.90, 95% CI 0.63 to 1.30; 5 studies, 435 participants; I2 = 54%; very low-certainty evidence). AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS Evidence from this updated review indicates that immediate postpartum insertion improves the initiation rate of both contraceptive implants and IUDs by the first postpartum visit compared to delayed insertion. However, it is not clear whether that there are differences in utilization rates at six and 12 months postpartum. We are uncertain whether there is any difference in the unintended pregnancy rate at 12 months. Provision of progestin-releasing implants and IUDs immediately postpartum may have little or no negative impact on breastfeeding. However, the expulsion rate of IUDs and prolonged vaginal bleeding associated with immediate implants appears to be higher.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Jen Sothornwit
- Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, Faculty of Medicine, Khon Kaen University, Khon Kaen, Thailand
| | - Srinaree Kaewrudee
- Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, Faculty of Medicine, Khon Kaen University, Khon Kaen, Thailand
| | - Pisake Lumbiganon
- Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, Faculty of Medicine, Khon Kaen University, Khon Kaen, Thailand
| | - Porjai Pattanittum
- Department of Epidemiology and Biostatistics, Faculty of Public Health, Khon Kaen University, Khon Kaen, Thailand
| | - Sarah H Averbach
- OB/GYN and Reproductive Sciences, University of California, San Diego, La Jolla, CA, USA
| |
Collapse
|
5
|
Averbach SH, Ermias Y, Jeng G, Curtis KM, Whiteman MK, Berry-Bibee E, Jamieson DJ, Marchbanks PA, Tepper NK, Jatlaoui TC. Expulsion of intrauterine devices after postpartum placement by timing of placement, delivery type, and intrauterine device type: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2020; 223:177-188. [PMID: 32142826 DOI: 10.1016/j.ajog.2020.02.045] [Citation(s) in RCA: 36] [Impact Index Per Article: 9.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 11/12/2019] [Revised: 02/13/2020] [Accepted: 02/24/2020] [Indexed: 12/17/2022]
Abstract
OBJECTIVES To provide updated and more detailed pooled intrauterine device expulsion rates and expulsion risk estimates among women with postpartum intrauterine device placement by timing of insertion, delivery type, and intrauterine device type to inform current intrauterine device insertion practices in the United States. DATA SOURCES We searched PubMed, Cochrane Library, and ClinicalTrials.gov through June 2019. STUDY ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA We included all studies, of any study design, that examined postpartum placement of Copper T380A (copper) or levonorgestrel-containing intrauterine devices that reported counts of expulsion. STUDY APPRAISAL AND SYNTHESIS METHODS We evaluated intrauterine device expulsion among women receiving postpartum intrauterine devices in the "immediate" (within 10 minutes), "early inpatient" (>10 minutes to <72 hours), "early outpatient" (72 hours to <4 weeks), and interval (≥4 weeks) time periods after delivery. We assessed study quality using the US Preventive Services Task Force evidence grading system. We calculated pooled absolute rates of partial and complete intrauterine device expulsion separately and estimated adjusted relative risks by the timing of postpartum placement, delivery type, and intrauterine device type using log-binomial multivariable regression. RESULTS We identified 48 level I to II-3 studies of poor to good quality that reported a total of 7661 intrauterine device placements. Complete intrauterine device expulsion rates varied by timing of placement as follows: 10.2% (range, 0.0-26.7) for immediate; 13.2% (3.5-46.7) for early inpatient; 0% for early outpatient; and 1.8% (0.0-4.8) for interval placements. Complete intrauterine device expulsion rates also varied by delivery type: 14.8% (range, 4.8-43.1) for vaginal and 3.8% (0.0-21.1) for cesarean deliveries. Among immediate postpartum vaginal placements, the expulsion rate for levonorgetrel intrauterine devices was 27.4% (range, 18.8-45.2) and 12.4% (4.8-43.1) for copper intrauterine devices. Compared with interval placement, immediate and early postpartum placements (inpatient and outpatient combined) were associated with greater risk of complete expulsion (adjusted risk ratio, 8.33; 95% confidence interval, 4.32-16.08, and adjusted risk ratio, 5.27; 95% confidence interval, 2.56-10.85, respectively). Among immediate postpartum placements, risk of expulsion was greater for placement after vaginal compared with cesarean deliveries (adjusted risk ratio, 4.57; 95% confidence interval, 3.49-5.99). Among immediate placements at the time of vaginal delivery, levonorgestrel intrauterine devices were associated with a greater risk of expulsion compared with copper intrauterine devices (adjusted risk ratio, 1.90; 95% confidence interval, 1.36-2.65). CONCLUSION Although intrauterine device expulsion rates vary by timing of placement, type, and mode of delivery, intrauterine device insertion can take place at any time. Understanding the risk of intrauterine device expulsion at each time period will enable women to make an informed choice about when to initiate use of an intrauterine device in the postpartum period based on their own goals and preferences.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Sarah H Averbach
- Department of Obstetrics, Gynecology, and Reproductive Sciences, School of Medicine, University of California San Diego, San Diego, CA.
| | - Yokabed Ermias
- School of Medicine, University of California San Diego, San Diego, CA
| | - Gary Jeng
- Division of Reproductive Health, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Atlanta, GA
| | - Kathryn M Curtis
- Division of Reproductive Health, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Atlanta, GA
| | - Maura K Whiteman
- Division of Reproductive Health, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Atlanta, GA
| | - Erin Berry-Bibee
- Division of Reproductive Health, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Atlanta, GA
| | - Denise J Jamieson
- Department of Gynecology and Obstetrics, Emory University School of Medicine, Atlanta, GA
| | - Polly A Marchbanks
- Division of Reproductive Health, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Atlanta, GA
| | - Naomi K Tepper
- Division of Reproductive Health, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Atlanta, GA
| | - Tara C Jatlaoui
- Division of Reproductive Health, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Atlanta, GA
| |
Collapse
|
6
|
Intrauterine Device Expulsion After Postpartum Placement: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis. Obstet Gynecol 2019; 132:895-905. [PMID: 30204688 DOI: 10.1097/aog.0000000000002822] [Citation(s) in RCA: 41] [Impact Index Per Article: 8.2] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 01/31/2023]
Abstract
OBJECTIVE To estimate expulsion rates among women with postpartum intrauterine device (IUD) placement by timing of insertion, IUD type, and delivery method. DATA SOURCES We searched PubMed, Cochrane Library, and ClinicalTrials.gov from 1974 to May 2018. METHODS OF STUDY SELECTION We searched databases for any published studies that examined postpartum placement of a copper IUD or levonorgestrel intrauterine system and reported counts of expulsions. We assessed study quality using the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force evidence grading system. We calculated pooled absolute rates of IUD expulsion and estimated adjusted relative risks (RRs) for timing of postpartum placement, delivery method, and IUD type using log-binomial multivariable regression model. TABULATION, INTEGRATION, AND RESULTS We identified 48 level I to II-3 studies of poor to good quality. Pooled rates of expulsion varied by timing of IUD placement, ranging from 1.9% with interval placements (4 weeks postpartum or greater), 10.0% for immediate placements (10 minutes or less after placental delivery), and 29.7% for early placements (greater than 10 minutes to less than 4 weeks postpartum). Immediate and early postpartum placements were associated with increased risk of expulsion compared with interval placement (adjusted RR 7.63, 95% CI 4.31-13.51; adjusted RR 6.17, 95% CI 3.19-11.93, respectively). Postpartum placement less than 4 weeks after vaginal delivery was associated with an increased risk of expulsion compared with cesarean delivery (adjusted RR 5.19, 95% CI 3.85-6.99). Analysis of expulsion rates at less than 4 weeks postpartum also indicated that the levonorgestrel intrauterine system was associated with a higher risk of expulsion (adjusted RR 1.91, 95% CI 1.50-2.43) compared with CuT380A. CONCLUSION Postpartum IUD expulsion rates vary by timing of placement, delivery method, and IUD type. These results can aid in counseling women to make an informed choice about when to initiate their IUD and to help institutions implement postpartum contraception programs.
Collapse
|
7
|
Abdelhakim AM, Sunoqrot M, Amin AH, Nabil H, Raslan AN, Samy A. The effect of early vs. delayed postpartum insertion of the LNG-IUS on breastfeeding continuation: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials. EUR J CONTRACEP REPR 2019; 24:327-336. [DOI: 10.1080/13625187.2019.1665175] [Citation(s) in RCA: 3] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.6] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 10/26/2022]
Affiliation(s)
- Ahmed Mohamed Abdelhakim
- Medical Research Group of Egypt (MRGE), Cairo, Egypt
- Faculty of Medicine, Cairo University, Cairo, Egypt
| | - Mohammad Sunoqrot
- Medical Research Group of Egypt (MRGE), Cairo, Egypt
- Faculty of Medicine, Cairo University, Cairo, Egypt
| | - Ahmed Hussein Amin
- Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, Faculty of Medicine, Cairo University, Cairo, Egypt
| | - Hala Nabil
- Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, Faculty of Medicine, Cairo University, Cairo, Egypt
| | - Ayman N. Raslan
- Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, Faculty of Medicine, Cairo University, Cairo, Egypt
| | - Ahmed Samy
- Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, Faculty of Medicine, Cairo University, Cairo, Egypt
| |
Collapse
|
8
|
Whitaker AK, Chen BA. Society of Family Planning Guidelines: Postplacental insertion of intrauterine devices. Contraception 2018; 97:2-13. [DOI: 10.1016/j.contraception.2017.09.014] [Citation(s) in RCA: 26] [Impact Index Per Article: 4.3] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 06/03/2017] [Revised: 09/27/2017] [Accepted: 09/28/2017] [Indexed: 01/09/2023]
|
9
|
Taub RL, Jensen JT. Advances in contraception: new options for postpartum women. Expert Opin Pharmacother 2017; 18:677-688. [DOI: 10.1080/14656566.2017.1316370] [Citation(s) in RCA: 3] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.4] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 01/31/2023]
|
10
|
Zerden ML, Stuart GS, Charm S, Bryant A, Garrett J, Morse J. Two-week postpartum intrauterine contraception insertion: a study of feasibility, patient acceptability and short-term outcomes. Contraception 2017; 95:65-70. [DOI: 10.1016/j.contraception.2016.08.005] [Citation(s) in RCA: 8] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.1] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 06/09/2016] [Revised: 08/15/2016] [Accepted: 08/16/2016] [Indexed: 10/21/2022]
|
11
|
Lopez LM, Bernholc A, Hubacher D, Stuart G, Van Vliet HAAM. Immediate postpartum insertion of intrauterine device for contraception. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2015; 2015:CD003036. [PMID: 26115018 PMCID: PMC10777269 DOI: 10.1002/14651858.cd003036.pub3] [Citation(s) in RCA: 59] [Impact Index Per Article: 6.6] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 01/31/2023]
Abstract
BACKGROUND Women who want to start intrauterine contraception (IUC) during the postpartum period might benefit from IUC insertion immediately after delivery. Postplacental insertion greatly reduces the risk of subsequent pregnancy and eliminates the need for a return visit to start contraception. Without the option of immediate insertion, many women may never return for services or may adopt less effective contraception. OBJECTIVES Our aim was to examine the outcomes of IUC insertion immediately after placenta delivery (within 10 minutes), especially when compared with insertion at other postpartum times. We focused on successful IUC placement (insertion), subsequent expulsion, and method use. SEARCH METHODS We searched for trials until 1 April 2015. Sources included PubMed (MEDLINE), the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), POPLINE, Web of Science, EMBASE, LILACS, ClinicalTrials.gov, and ICTRP. For the original review, the authors contacted investigators to identify other trials. SELECTION CRITERIA We sought randomized controlled trials (RCTs) with at least one treatment arm that involved immediate IUC placement (i.e., within 10 minutes of placenta delivery). Comparison arms could have included early postpartum insertion (from 10 minutes postplacental to hospital discharge) or standard insertion (during a postpartum visit). Trials could also have compared different IUC methods or insertion techniques. Delivery may have been vaginal or cesarean. Primary outcomes were placement (insertion), subsequent expulsion, and method use at study assessment. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS For dichotomous outcomes, we used the Mantel-Haenszel odds ratio (OR) with 95% confidence interval (CI). Earlier studies primarily reported results as life-table rates. We aggregated trials in a meta-analysis if they had similar interventions and outcome measures. A sensitivity analysis included studies with moderate or high quality evidence and sufficient outcome data. MAIN RESULTS We included 15 trials. Seven studies reported from 2010 to 2014 were added to eight from the original 2001 review. Newer trials compared immediate postplacental insertion versus early (10 minutes to 48 hours) or standard insertion (during the postpartum visit). Of four with full reports, three were small trials. The other three studies had conference abstracts. The eight early trials examined immediate insertion of different devices or insertion techniques. Most studies were published in the 1980s, some with limited reporting.Our sensitivity analysis included trials with sufficient outcome data and moderate or high quality evidence. Four newer trials comparing insertion times met the inclusion criteria. Two studies used the levonorgestrel-releasing intrauterine system (LNG-IUS) after vaginal delivery. The other two trials placed IUC after cesarean section; one used the CuT 380A intrauterine device (IUD) and the other used the LNG-IUS.A pilot trial compared immediate insertion versus early or standard insertion. In groups comparing immediate versus early insertion (N = 30), all women had the LNG-IUS inserted. By six months, the groups had the same expulsion rate and did not differ significantly in IUC use.For immediate versus standard insertion, we conducted meta-analyses of four trials. Insertion rates did not differ significantly between study arms. However, the trial from Uganda showed insertion was more likely for the immediate group, although the estimate was imprecise. In the meta-analysis, expulsion by six months was more likely for the immediate group, but the confidence interval was wide (OR 4.89, 95% CI 1.47 to 16.32; participants = 210; studies = 4). IUC use at six months was more likely with immediate insertion than with standard insertion (OR 2.04, 95% CI 1.01 to 4.09; participants = 243; studies = 4). Study arms did not differ in use at 3 or 12 months in individual small trials. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS Recent trials compared different insertion times after vaginal or cesarean delivery. Evidence was limited because studies with full reports generally had small sample sizes. Overall, the quality of evidence was moderate; abstracts and older studies had limited reporting. Ongoing trials will add to the evidence, although some are small. Trials of adequate power are needed to estimate expulsion rates and side effects.The benefit of effective contraception immediately after delivery may outweigh the disadvantage of increased risk for expulsion. Frequent prenatal visits during the third trimester provide the opportunity to discuss effective contraceptive methods and desired timing for initiation. Clinical follow-up can help detect early expulsion, as can educating women about expulsion signs and symptoms.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Laureen M Lopez
- FHI 360Clinical and Epidemiological Sciences359 Blackwell St, Suite 200DurhamNorth CarolinaUSA27701
| | - Alissa Bernholc
- FHI 360Biostatistics359 Blackwell St, Suite 200DurhamNorth CarolinaUSA27701
| | - David Hubacher
- FHI 360Contraceptive Technology Innovation Dept359 Blackwell St, Suite 200DurhamNorth CarolinaUSA27701
| | - Gretchen Stuart
- University of North Carolina School of MedicineDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynecology3031 Old Clinic Building CB#7570Chapel HillNorth CarolinaUSA27599‐7570
| | - Huib AAM Van Vliet
- Catharina Hospital EindhovenDepartment of Gynaecology, Division of Reproductive MedicineMichelangelolaan 2EindhovenNetherlandsNL 5623 EJ
| | | |
Collapse
|