Fertility outcome after a randomized trial comparing curettage with misoprostol for treatment of early pregnancy failure

Reproductive outcome after early miscarriage: comparing vaginal misoprostol treatment with expectant management in a planned secondary analysis of a randomized controlled trial

OBJECTIVE

To compare the reproductive outcome after early miscarriage between women managed expectantly and those treated with vaginal misoprostol.

METHODS

This study was a planned secondary analysis of data collected prospectively in a randomized controlled trial comparing expectant management with vaginal misoprostol treatment (single dose of 800 µg) in women with early embryonic or anembryonic miscarriage and vaginal bleeding. The outcome measures were the number of women with a clinical pregnancy conceived within 14 months after complete miscarriage and the outcome of these pregnancies in terms of live birth, miscarriage, ectopic pregnancy and legal termination of pregnancy. The participants replied to a questionnaire sent by post covering their reproductive history ≤ 14 months after the index miscarriage was complete. Supplementary information and data for women who did not return their questionnaire were retrieved from medical records.

RESULTS

Of 94 women randomized to misoprostol treatment and 95 allocated to expectant management, 94 and 90 women, respectively, were included for analysis. Information on reproductive outcome was available for 89/94 (95%) and 83/90 (92%) women, respectively. Complete miscarriage without surgical evacuation was achieved within 31 days in 85% (76/89) of the women in the misoprostol group and in 65% (54/83) of those managed expectantly. The proportion of women treated with surgical evacuation was 33% (27/83) in the expectant-management group vs 12% (11/89) in the misoprostol group. At 14 months after the index miscarriage was complete, 75% (67/89) of women treated with misoprostol and 75% (62/83) of those managed expectantly had achieved at least one clinical pregnancy, while 40% (36/89) and 35% (29/83), respectively, had had at least one live birth (mean difference, 5.5% (95% CI, -9.7 to 20.3%)). When considering the outcome of all pregnancies conceived within 14 months after the index miscarriage was complete, 63% (56/89) of women in the misoprostol group and 55% (46/83) of those in the expectant-management group delivered a live baby after a pregnancy (mean difference, 7.5% (95% CI, -7.9 to 22.4%)).

CONCLUSION

Women with early miscarriage can be reassured that fertility is similar after misoprostol treatment and expectant management. © 2021 The Authors. Ultrasound in Obstetrics & Gynecology published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd on behalf of International Society of Ultrasound in Obstetrics and Gynecology.

Methods for managing miscarriage: a network meta-analysis

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.

Misoprostol treatment for early pregnancy loss: an international survey

RESEARCH QUESTION

What is the global variability in misoprostol treatment for the management of early pregnancy loss (EPL)?

DESIGN

An international web-based survey of fertility specialists and obstetrics and gynaecology clinicians was conducted between August and November 2020. The survey consisted of 16 questions addressing several aspects of misoprostol treatment for EPL.

RESULTS

Overall, 309 clinicians from 80 countries participated in the survey, of whom 67.3% were fertility specialists. Nearly one-half (47.9%) of the respondents let the patient choose the first line of treatment (expectant management, misoprostol treatment or surgical aspiration) according to her own preference. The 248 respondents who administer misoprostol in their daily practice were asked further questions; 59.7% of them advise patients to take the medication at home. The most common dose and route of administration is 800 µg administered vaginally. Only 28.6% of participants use mifepristone pretreatment. Variation in the timing of the first follow-up visit after misoprostol administration was wide, ranging from 24 h to 1 week in most clinics. In case of incomplete expulsion, only 42.3% of the respondents routinely administer a second dose. The timing of the final visit and the definition of successful treatment also differed greatly among respondents.

CONCLUSIONS

There is large variability in the use of misoprostol for the management of EPL. High-quality research is necessary to examine several aspects of the treatment. Particularly, the timing and effectiveness of a second dose administration and the criteria to decide on treatment failure or success deserve more research in the future.

Conception rates after medical versus surgical evacuation of early miscarriage

OBJECTIVE

To compare short-term fertility rates after medical and surgical management of early miscarriage.

DESIGN

Observational cohort study.

SETTING

Academic tertiary-care medical center.

PATIENT(S)

A total of 203 patients were enrolled between June 2017 and May 2018, comprising 106 surgical evacuations and 97 medical evacuations.

INTERVENTION(S)

Either surgical or medical evacuation of the uterine cavity.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE(S)

Conception rates 6 months after miscarriage.

RESULT(S)

Conception rates 6 months after miscarriage among women who had attempted to become pregnant were similar between the medically and surgically evacuated groups (68.0% vs. 65.1%). There were no significant differences in background characteristics between the groups, apart from younger age and earlier gestational age among the medically treated group. There was no difference in the proportion of women using assisted reproductive technologies between the medically and surgically managed groups (15.5% vs. 12.6%, respectively). The median time-to-conception was 4 ± 2 months in both groups. Cumulative pregnancy rate 12 months after pregnancy loss, live birth rate, and repeat miscarriage rate also were similar between groups.

CONCLUSION(S)

Modality of uterine evacuation after early miscarriage does not affect short-term fertility outcomes.

Reproductive outcome after early pregnancy loss treated with misoprostol versus surgical aspiration

RESEARCH QUESTION

Does long-term reproductive outcome after early pregnancy loss (EPL) differ between women who are treated with misoprostol and surgical aspiration.

DESIGN

A historic cohort study of all women who were diagnosed with early pregnancy loss (≤12 weeks), in a single medical centre, between September 2016 and August 2017, was conducted. The women were treated with either misoprostol or surgical aspiration according to their own preferences. Women who were lost to follow-up or did not attempt to conceive again were excluded. The primary outcome measure was the cumulative pregnancy rate within 12 months from intervention.

RESULTS

Baseline characteristics were comparable between women who received misoprostol (n = 163) and women who underwent surgical aspiration (n = 122). Women who received misoprostol had a higher rate of interventions for retained products of conception (11.0% versus 3.3%, respectively; P = 0.015). The misoprostol and the surgical aspiration groups did not differ in rate of repeated miscarriages (17.8% versus 21.3%, respectively; P = 0.45), or pregnancy rate within 6 months (58.3% versus 50.0%, respectively; P = 0.16), 12 months (78.5% versus 78.7%, respectively; P = 0.97) and 24 months (92.0% versus 91.8%, respectively; P = 0.94). Live birth rate within 24 months was comparable (62.0% versus 58.2%, respectively; P = 0.52), as well as gestational age at birth (38.5 versus 38.6 weeks, respectively; P = 0.81) and birthweight (3295 versus 3161 g, respectively; P = 0.07).

CONCLUSIONS

Long-term reproductive outcomes are comparable in women with EPL who are treated with either misoprostol or surgical aspiration. Our findings may help counselling patients facing EPL who have concerns about their future reproduction.

Medical treatment for early fetal death (less than 24 weeks)

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.

Fecundability among Danish women with a history of miscarriage: a prospective cohort study

OBJECTIVE

To examine the association between history of miscarriage and fecundability (the cycle-specific probability of conception).

DESIGN

Nationwide prospective cohort study using web-based questionnaires.

SETTING

Denmark, 2007-2012.

PARTICIPANTS

977 women attempting to conceive, not using fertility treatment, and with a reproductive history of only miscarriage or only live birth.

EXPOSURE AND OUTCOME MEASURES

Information on previous pregnancy outcomes, including miscarriage, came from self-report or from relevant registries. Participants were followed for up to 12 months or until they reported a pregnancy, stopped trying to conceive or started fertility treatment, whichever came first. We used Kaplan-Meier methods to estimate cumulative probabilities of conception for women whose reproductive history included only miscarriage or only live birth. Using proportional probabilities regression modelling, we computed fecundability ratios (FR) with 95% CI comparing women with a history of only miscarriage with women with a history of only live birth.

RESULTS

After adjustment for potential confounders, the cumulative probabilities of conception within 12 cycles of follow-up were 85% (95% CI 81% to 89%) for women with a history of 1 miscarriage, 85% (95% CI 73% to 92%) for women with a history of ≥2 miscarriages and 88% (95% CI 87% to 89%) for women whose reproductive history included only live birth. Adjusted FRs were 0.87 (95% CI 0.71 to 1.07) and 0.65 (95% CI 0.36 to 1.17) for women with a history of 1 and ≥2 miscarriages, respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

Our results indicate that women with a history of miscarriage may have slightly reduced fecundability compared with women with a history of only live birth. The reduction in fecundability was greater for women with repeated miscarriages, although the estimates were imprecise. Despite a potential delay in conception, women with previous miscarriage may have similar probability of pregnancy by 12 cycles of attempts to women with proven fertility.

Medical treatments for incomplete miscarriage

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.

Fertility and obstetric outcomes after curettage versus expectant management in randomised and non-randomised women with an incomplete evacuation of the uterus after misoprostol treatment for miscarriage

OBJECTIVE

To assess fertility and obstetric outcomes in women treated with curettage or undergoing expectant management for an incomplete miscarriage after misoprostol treatment.

STUDY DESIGN

Between June 2012 and July 2014, we conducted a multicentre randomised clinical trial (RCT) with a parallel cohort study for non-randomised women, treated according to their preference. In the RCT 30 women were allocated curettage and 29 expectant management. In the cohort 197 women participated; 65 underwent curettage and 132 women underwent expectant management. Primary outcome was curation, defined as either an empty uterus on sonography at six weeks or an uneventful clinical follow-up. We used questionnaires to assess fertility and obstetric outcome of the first new pregnancy subsequent to study enrolment.

RESULTS

Curation was seen in 91/95 women treated with curettage (95.8%) versus 134/161 women managed expectantly (83.2%) (p=0.003). The response rate was 211/255 (82%). In 198 women pursuing a new pregnancy, conception rates were 92% (67/73) in the curettage group versus 96% (120/125) in the expectant management group (OR 0.96, 95% CI 0.89;1.03, p=0.34), with ongoing pregnancy rates of 87% (58/67) versus 78% (94/120), respectively (OR 1.12, 95% CI 0.99;1.28, p=0.226). Preterm birth rates were 1/46 in the curettage group versus 8/81 in the expectant management group (OR 0.22, 95% CI 0.03;1.71 P=0.15). Caesarean section rates were 23% and 24% for women in the curettage group and expectant management group respectively.

CONCLUSION

In women with an incomplete evacuation of the uterus after misoprostol treatment, curettage and expectant management does not lead to different fertility and pregnancy outcomes, as compared to expectant management.

The effect of medical versus surgical treatment of spontaneous miscarriage on subsequent in vitro fertilization cycles

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the effect of dilation and curettage (D&C) and misoprostol as treatments for spontaneous miscarriage (SM) on in vitro fertilization (IVF) parameters in the subsequent IVF cycle.

DESIGN

Multicenter, retrospective, cohort study. Women treated for SM after IVF treatment with D&C or misoprostol and underwent a subsequent IVF cycle was included. The main outcome measures were ovarian response, endometrial thickness and pregnancy rate in the subsequent IVF cycle after MA.

RESULTS

Among 73 patients with miscarriage, 41 had D&C and 32 were given misoprostol. Baseline serum follicle stimulating hormone (FSH) levels and ovarian responses before and after treatment of miscarriage were comparable. No significant differences were observed between the D&C and the misoprostol groups in basal FSH levels, endometrial thickness and parameters of ovarian response in the subsequent IVF cycle.

CONCLUSION

D&C and misoprostol are both effective treatments for IVF patients with miscarriage, without an adverse effect on subsequent IVF treatment outcome.

Practice variation in the management of first trimester miscarriage in the Netherlands: a nationwide survey

Objectives. To survey practice variation in the management of first trimester miscarriage in The Netherlands. Methods. We sent an online questionnaire to gynecologists in eight academic, 37 nonacademic teaching, and 47 nonteaching hospitals. Main outcome measures were availability of a local protocol; estimated number of patients treated with curettage, misoprostol, or expectant management; misoprostol regimen; and estimated number of curettages performed after initial misoprostol treatment. Outcomes were compared to the results of a previous nationwide survey. Results. The response rate was 100%. A miscarriage protocol was present in all academic hospitals, 68% of nonacademic teaching hospitals, and 38% of nonteaching hospitals (P = 0.008). Misoprostol was first-choice treatment for 41% of patients in academic hospitals versus 34% and 27% in teaching-and nonteaching hospitals (P = 0.045). There were 23 different misoprostol regimens. Curettage was first-choice treatment in 29% of patients in academic hospitals versus 46% and 50% in nonacademic teaching or nonteaching hospitals (P = 0.007). In 30% of patients, initial misoprostol treatment was followed by curettage. Conclusions. Although the percentage of gynaecologists who are aware of the availability of misoprostol for miscarriage treatment has doubled to almost 100% since 2005, practice variation is still large. This practice variation underlines the need for a national guideline.

Misoprostol treatment for early pregnancy failure does not impair future fertility

AIMS

To examine whether misoprostol treatment for first trimester missed abortion affects future fertility.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

In a historical prospective approach, we analyzed our database for patients treated with misoprostol. All eligible patients underwent an interview according to a questionnaire, which includes their demographic characteristics, obstetric, gynecologic and infertility history. They were asked about the side effects, intention and subsequent ability to conceive. Their future pregnancy rates were calculated and compared to the acceptable figures in the literature.

RESULTS

The infertility rates among our patients were similar to those reported in the general population. Pregnancy rates 2 years after treatment were similar to the previously published reports, except for lower rates during the first three months post-treatment. Although no between-group differences were observed in the subsequent pregnancy rates, 2 years following misoprostol treatment in ≤35 versus >35 years old patients, primi- versus multigravida and nulli- versus parous women, higher pregnancy rates were observed in patients ≤35 versus >35 years old, primi- versus multigravida and nulli- versus, parous, during the first 3 months following misoprostol treatment.

CONCLUSION

Misoprostol treatment, for women with first trimester missed abortion and favorable reproductive history, is an acceptable treatment with no detrimental effect on future fertility.

Systematic review and meta-analysis of intrauterine adhesions after miscarriage: prevalence, risk factors and long-term reproductive outcome

BACKGROUND

Approximately 15-20% of all clinically confirmed pregnancies end in a miscarriage. Intrauterine adhesions (IUAs) are a possible complication after miscarriage, but their prevalence and the contribution of possible risk factors have not been elucidated yet. In addition, the long-term reproductive outcome in relation to IUAs has to be elucidated.

METHODS

We systematically searched the literature for studies that prospectively assessed the prevalence and extent of IUAs in women who suffered a miscarriage. To be included, women diagnosed with a current miscarriage had to be systematically evaluated within 12 months by hysteroscopy after either spontaneous expulsion or medical or surgical treatment. Studies that included women with a history of recurrent miscarriage only or that evaluated the IUAs after elective abortion or beyond 12 months after the last miscarriage were not included. Subsequently, long-term reproductive outcomes after expectant (conservative), medical or surgical management were assessed in women with and without post-miscarriage IUAs.

RESULTS

We included 10 prospective studies reporting on 912 women with hysteroscopic evaluation within 12 months of miscarriage and 8 prospective studies, including 1770 women, reporting long-term reproductive outcome. IUAs were detected in 183 women, resulting in a pooled prevalence of 19.1% [95% confidence interval (CI): 12.8-27.5%]. The extent of IUAs was reported in 124 women (67.8%) and was mild, moderate and severe respectively in 58.1, 28.2 and 13.7% of cases. Relative to women with one miscarriage, women with two or three or more miscarriages showed an increased risk of IUAs by a pooled OR of 1.41 and 2.1, respectively. The number of dilatation and curettage (D&C) procedures seemed to be the main driver behind these associations. A total of 150 congenital and acquired intrauterine abnormalities were encountered in 675 women, resulting in a pooled prevalence of 22.4% (95% CI: 16.3-29.9%). Similar reproductive outcomes were reported subsequent to conservative, medical or surgical management for miscarriage, although the numbers of studies and of included women were limited. No studies reported long-term reproductive outcomes following post-miscarriage IUAs.

CONCLUSIONS

IUAs are frequently encountered, in one in five women after miscarriage. In more than half of these, the severity and extent of the adhesions was mild, with unknown clinical relevance. Recurrent miscarriages and D&C procedures were identified as risk factors for adhesion formation. Congenital and acquired intrauterine abnormalities such as polyps or fibroids were frequently identified. There were no studies reporting on the link between IUAs and long-term reproductive outcome after miscarriage, while similar pregnancy outcomes were reported subsequent to conservative, medical or surgical management. Although this review does not allow strong clinical conclusions on treatment management, it signals an important clinical problem. Treatment strategies are proposed to minimize the number of D&C in an attempt to reduce IUAs.

Medical treatments for incomplete miscarriage

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 the Cochrane Pregnancy and Childbirth Group's Trials Register (30 November 2012) and reference lists of retrieved papers.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised controlled trials comparing medical treatment with expectant care or surgery or alternative methods of medical treatment. Quasi-randomised trials were excluded.

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.

MAIN RESULTS

Twenty studies (4208 women) were included. 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 statistically significant difference in complete miscarriage (average risk ratio (RR) 1.23, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.72 to 2.10; two studies, 150 women, random-effects), or in the need for surgical evacuation (average RR 0.62, 95% CI 0.17 to 2.26; two studies, 308 women, random-effects). There were few data on 'deaths or serious complications'.Twelve studies involving 2894 women addressed the comparison of misoprostol (six studies used oral administration, four studies used vaginal, one study sub-lingual, one study combined vaginal + oral) with surgical evacuation. There was a slightly lower incidence of complete miscarriage with misoprostol (average RR 0.97, 95% CI 0.95 to 0.99, 11 studies, 2493 women, random-effects) but with success rate high for both methods. Overall, there were fewer surgical evacuations with misoprostol (average RR 0.06, 95% CI 0.02 to 0.13; 11 studies, 2654 women, random-effects) but more unplanned procedures (average RR 5.82, 95% CI 2.93 to 11.56; nine studies, 2274 women, random-effects). There were few data on 'deaths or serious complications'. Nausea was more common with misoprostol (average RR 2.41, 95% CI 1.44 to 4.03; nine studies, 2179 women, random-effects).Five trials compared different routes of administration and/or doses 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. Women experiencing miscarriage at less than 13 weeks should be offered an informed choice. Future studies should include long-term follow-up.

Medical treatments for incomplete miscarriage (less than 24 weeks)

BACKGROUND

Miscarriage occurs in 10% to 15% of pregnancies. The traditional treatment, after miscarriage, has been to perform surgery to remove any remaining pregnancy tissues in the uterus. However, it has been suggested that drug-based 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 early incomplete miscarriage (before 24 weeks).

SEARCH STRATEGY

We searched the Cochrane Pregnancy and Childbirth Group's Trials Register (September 2009).

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised controlled trials comparing medical treatment with expectant care or surgery. Quasi-randomised trials were excluded.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

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

MAIN RESULTS

Fifteen studies (2750 women) were included, there were no studies on women over 13 weeks' gestation. Studies addressed a number of comparisons and data are therefore limited.Three trials compared misoprostol treatment (all vaginally administered) with expectant care. There was no significant difference in complete miscarriage (average risk ratio (RR) 1.23, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.72 to 2.10; two studies, 150 women), or in the need for surgical evacuation (average RR 0.62, 95% CI 0.17 to 2.26; two studies, 308 women). There were few data on 'deaths or serious complications'.Nine studies involving 1766 women addressed the comparison of misoprostol (four oral, four vaginal, one vaginal + oral) with surgical evacuation. There was no statistically significant difference in complete miscarriage (average RR 0.96, 95% CI 0.92 to 1.00, eight studies, 1377 women) with success rate high for both methods. Overall, there were fewer surgical evacuations with misoprostol (average RR 0.07, 95% CI 0.03 to 0.18; eight studies, 1538 women) but more unplanned procedures (average RR 6.32, 95% CI 2.90 to 13.77; six studies, 1158 women). There were few data on 'deaths or serious complications'. 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. Women experiencing miscarriage at less than 13 weeks should be offered an informed choice.

Medical treatment for early fetal death (less than 24 weeks)

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 before 14 weeks has traditionally been surgical but medical treatments may be effective, safe, and acceptable, as may be waiting for spontaneous miscarriage.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effectiveness, safety and acceptability of any medical treatment for early pregnancy failure (anembryonic pregnancies or embryonic and fetal deaths before 24 weeks).

SEARCH STRATEGY

We searched the Cochrane Pregnancy and Childbirth Group Trials Register (30 November 2005).

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised trials comparing medical treatment with another treatment (e.g. surgical evacuation), or placebo, or no treatment for early pregnancy failure. Quasi-random studies were excluded.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Data were extracted unblinded.

MAIN RESULTS

Twenty four studies (1888 women) were included. Vaginal misoprostol hastens miscarriage (complete or incomplete) when compared with placebo: e.g. miscarriage less than 24 hours (two trials, 138 women, relative risk (RR) 4.73, 95% confidence interval (CI) 2.70 to 8.28), with less need for uterine curettage (two trials, 104 women, RR 0.40, 95% CI 0.26 to 0.60) and no significant increase in nausea or diarrhoea. Lower-dose regimens of vaginal misoprostol tend to be less effective in producing miscarriage (three trials, 247 women, RR 0.85, 95% CI 0.72 to 1.00) with similar incidence of nausea. There seems no clear advantage to administering a 'wet' preparation of vaginal misoprostol or of adding methotrexate, or of using laminaria tents after 14 weeks. Vaginal misoprostol is more effective than vaginal prostaglandin E in avoiding surgical evacuation. Oral misoprostol was less effective than vaginal misoprostol in producing complete miscarriage (two trials, 218 women, RR 0.90, 95% CI 0.82 to 0.99). Sublingual misoprostol had equivalent efficacy to vaginal misoprostol in inducing complete miscarriage but was associated with more frequent diarrhoea. The two trials of mifepristone treatment generated conflicting results. There was no statistically significant difference between vaginal misoprostol and gemeprost in the induction of miscarriage for fetal death after 13 weeks.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Available evidence from randomised trials supports the use of vaginal misoprostol as a medical treatment to terminate non-viable pregnancies before 24 weeks. Further research is required to assess effectiveness and safety, optimal route of administration and dose. Conflicting findings about the value of mifepristone need to be resolved by additional study.

Long-term reproductive outcome subsequent to medical versus surgical treatment for miscarriage

BACKGROUND

When compared with the conventional surgical evacuation for the treatment of miscarriage, medical evacuation has been largely accepted as an effective and safe management. However, there is a lack of data on the long-term reproductive outcome of these two treatment modalities, which is crucial in patient counselling. The current study evaluates and compares the long-term fertility and pregnancy outcome following these two treatments.

METHODS

A cohort of 604 women enrolled in a previous randomized controlled trial comparing medical and surgical evacuation for miscarriage were followed up prospectively by telephone interview at a median of 6 (range 4-9) years using a structured questionnaire.

RESULTS

A total of 423 women were contacted and four declined to participate (response rate 69.4%). Of these, 261 women (131 medical and 130 surgical evacuations) had attempted to become pregnant since the miscarriage. There were no differences in their baseline characteristics including age, reproductive and contraceptive history. The natural conception rates were the same (97.7%, P = 0.99) and the cumulative pregnancy rates were similar between groups, being 60 and 80% at 12 and 24 months respectively. The median time-to-pregnancy was 8 months in both groups (P = 0.97) and the subsequent live birth rates (85.2 versus 88.2%, P = 0.72) resulting from the immediate pregnancy following previous treatment were similar.

CONCLUSIONS

The long-term conception rate and pregnancy outcome are not different following medical or surgical evacuation for miscarriage. Women should be reassured that their long-term fertility potential will not be compromised after medical treatment.