A randomized controlled trial of methylergonovine prophylaxis after dilation and evacuation abortion

Society of Family Planning Clinical Recommendation: Management of hemorrhage at the time of abortion

Hemorrhage after abortion is rare, occurring in fewer than 1% of abortions, but associated morbidity may be significant. Although medication abortion is associated with more bleeding than procedural abortion, overall bleeding for the two methods is minimal and not clinically different. Hemorrhage can be caused by atony, coagulopathy, and abnormal placentation, as well as by such procedure complications as perforation, cervical laceration, and retained tissue. Evidence for practices around postabortion hemorrhage is extremely limited. The Society of Family Planning recommends preoperative identification of individuals at high risk of hemorrhage as well as development of an organized approach to treatment. Specifically, individuals with a uterine scar and complete placenta previa seeking abortion at gestations after the first trimester should be evaluated for placenta accreta spectrum. For those at high risk of hemorrhage, referral to a higher-acuity center should be considered. We propose an algorithm for treating postabortion hemorrhage as follows: (1) assessment and examination, (2) uterine massage and medical therapy, (3) resuscitative measures with laboratory evaluation and possible reaspiration or balloon tamponade, and (4) interventions such as embolization and surgery. Evidence supports the use of oxytocin as prophylaxis for bleeding with dilation and evacuation; methylergonovine prophylaxis, however, is associated with more bleeding at the time of dilation and evacuation. Future research is needed on tranexamic acid as prophylaxis and treatment and misoprostol as prophylaxis. Structural inequities contribute to bleeding risk. Acknowledging how our policies hinder or remedy health inequities is essential when developing new guidelines and approaches to clinical services.

Clinical interventions are more accurate than quantitative measurements for defining hemorrhage with dilation and evacuation

OBJECTIVES

To assess if quantitative blood loss (QBL) with dilation and evacuation (D&E) procedures correlated with clinically relevant outcomes or hemorrhage.

STUDY DESIGN

We used a de-identified database to review D&E procedures performed at UC Davis Health from April 2019 through March 2020. Surgeons determined QBL during procedures and estimated blood loss, when excessive, during post-procedure recovery. We extracted patient demographic and procedure-related information. We defined clinically relevant bleeding as cases with bleeding-related interventions within 24 hours post-procedure including use of ≥2 uterotonics, tranexamic acid administration, cervical injury requiring repair, uterine balloon tamponade, blood transfusion, uterine artery embolization, hospitalization, or return to operating room; the latter 5 criteria defined hemorrhage. We used χ2 test for trend to evaluate bleeding outcomes.

RESULTS

We evaluated 431 procedures with a mean gestational age of 19 weeks and 3 days. Clinically relevant bleeding outcomes occurred in 6/319 (2%), 15/97 (15%) and 7/12 (58%) patients with total blood loss <250mL, 250-500mL and >500mL, respectively (p<0.0001); 11 had bleeding related to cervical injuries. Hemorrhage occurred in 0, 4/97 (4%) and 5/12 (42%) patients, respectively (p<0.0001). Patients with relevant bleeding outcomes had QBLs ranging from 150-1800mL (median QBL 312.5mL, interquartile range [IQR] 250-550mL) while those without clinically relevant bleeding ranged from 10-900mL (median QBL 150mL, IQR 75-200mL).

CONCLUSION

Most patients (75%) with clinically relevant bleeding outcomes had QBL ≤500mL. Although higher QBL correlates with clinical interventions, the need for significant interventions rather than a single blood loss amount should be used to define hemorrhage with D&E procedures.

IMPLICATIONS

Clinical hemorrhage is best defined by the necessary clinical interventions required to manage bleeding rather than any quantified amount of blood loss.

Impact of anesthetic agents on the amount of bleeding during dilatation and evacuation: A systematic review and meta-analysis

Purpose

Patients undergo dilatation and evacuation for abortion or miscarriage. However, bleeding is sometimes problematic. Despite reports on the association between volatile anesthetics and increased bleeding during the procedure, firm evidence is lacking. Therefore, we conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis to compare the effects of volatile anesthetics and propofol on the amount of bleeding in patients undergoing dilatation and evacuation.

Methods

We conducted a systematic search of four databases, namely PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials databases, and Web of Science (Clarivate Analytics), from their respective inception to April 2021. Moreover, we searched two trial registration sites. The inclusion criterion was randomized controlled trials of patients who underwent dilatation and evacuation under general anesthesia using volatile anesthetics or propofol. The primary outcome was the amount of perioperative bleeding. The mean difference of the bleeding was combined using a random-effects model. The I² statistic was used to assess heterogeneity. We assessed risk of bias with Cochrane domains. We controlled type I and II errors due to sparse data and repetitive testing with Trial Sequential Analysis. We assessed the quality of evidence with GRADE.

Results

Five studies were included in the systematic review. The amount of bleeding was compared in four studies and was higher in the volatile anesthetic group, with a mean difference of 164.7 ml (95% confidence interval, 43.6 to 285.7; p = 0.04). Heterogeneity was considerable, with an I² value of 97%. Two studies evaluated the incidence of significant bleeding, which was significantly higher in the volatile anesthetic group (RR, 2.42; 95% confidence interval, 1.04–5.63; p = 0.04).

Conclusion

Choosing propofol over volatile anesthetics during dilatation and evacuation might reduce bleeding and the incidence of excessive bleeding. However, the quality of the evidence was very low. This necessitates further trials with a low risk of bias.

Trial registration

PROSPERO (CRD42019120873).