Mifepristone followed by misoprostol or oxytocin for second-trimester abortion: a randomized controlled trial

24-Hour Compared With 12-Hour Mifepristone-Misoprostol Interval for Second-Trimester Abortion: A Randomized Controlled Trial

OBJECTIVE

To compare 24-hour and 12-hour mifepristone-to-misoprostol intervals for second-trimester medication abortion.

METHODS

We conducted a prospective randomized controlled trial. Participants were allocated to receive mifepristone either 24 hours or 12 hours before misoprostol administration. The primary outcome was the time from the first misoprostol administration to abortion (induction time). Secondary outcomes included the time from mifepristone to abortion (total abortion time); fetal expulsion percentages at 12, 24, and 48 hours after the first misoprostol dose; side effects proportion; and pain and satisfaction scores. A sample size of 40 per group (N=80) was planned to compare the 24- and 12-hour regimens.

RESULTS

Eighty patients were enrolled between July 2020 and June 2023, with 40 patients per group. Baseline characteristics were comparable between groups. Median induction time was 9.5 hours (95% CI, 10.3-17.8 hours) and 12.5 hours (95% CI, 13.5-20.2 hours) in the 24- and 12-hour interval arms, respectively ( P =.028). Median total abortion time was 33.0 hours (95% CI, 34.2-41.9 hours) and 24.5 hours (95% CI, 25.7-32.4 hours) in the 24- and 12-hour interval groups, respectively ( P <.001). At 12 hours from misoprostol administration, 25 patients (62.5%) in the 24-hour arm and 18 patients (45.0%) in the 12-hour arm completed abortion ( P =.178). At 24 hours from misoprostol administration, 36 patients (90.0%) in the 24-hour arm and 30 patients (75.0%) in the 12-hour arm had complete abortion ( P =.139). The need for additional medication or surgical treatment for uterine evacuation, pain scores, side effects, and satisfaction levels were not different between groups.

CONCLUSION

A 24-hour mifepristone-to-misoprostol regimen for medication abortion in the second trimester provides a median 3-hour shorter induction time compared with the 12-hour interval. However, the median total abortion time was 8.5-hours longer in the 24-hour interval regimen. These findings can aid in shared decision making before medication abortion in the second trimester.

CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION

ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT04160221.

Society of Family Planning Clinical Recommendation: Medication abortion between 14 0/7 and 27 6/7 weeks of gestation: Jointly developed with the Society for Maternal-Fetal Medicine

The objective of this Clinical Recommendation is to review relevant literature and provide evidence-based recommendations for medication abortion between 14 0/7 and 27 6/7 weeks of gestation, with a focus on mifepristone-misoprostol and misoprostol-only regimens. We systematically reviewed PubMed articles published between 2008 and 2022 and reviewed reference lists of included articles to identify additional publications. See Search Strategy for more details. Several randomized trials of medication abortion between 14 0/7 and 27 6/7 weeks of gestation demonstrate that mifepristone 200 mg orally before misoprostol increases effectiveness (complete abortion at 24 or 48 hours) compared to misoprostol only. Studies continue to evaluate different doses, routes, and dosing intervals for misoprostol. If mifepristone is unavailable, several misoprostol regimens with individual doses of at least 200 mcg or more are effective. Adjunctive osmotic dilators are of limited benefit. It is important to individualize care, with consideration to reducing misoprostol dose in low-resource settings or at 24 0/7 weeks of gestation or later (or equivalent uterine size). Misoprostol in the setting of two or more previous cesarean sections is associated with increased risk of uterine rupture compared to one or none, but risk remains low. Most contraceptives can be started during or immediately following abortion. Appropriately trained and credentialed advanced practice clinicians can provide medication abortion between 14 0/7 and 27 6/7 weeks of gestation with appropriate backup within the confines of local regulations and licensure.

Society of Family Planning Clinical Recommendation: Medication abortion between 14 0/7 and 27 6/7 weeks of gestation: Jointly developed with the Society for Maternal-Fetal Medicine

The objective of this Clinical Recommendation is to review relevant literature and provide evidence-based recommendations for medication abortion between 14 0/7 and 27 6/7 weeks of gestation, with a focus on mifepristone-misoprostol and misoprostol-only regimens. We systematically reviewed PubMed articles published between 2008 and 2022 and reviewed reference lists of included articles to identify additional publications. See Search Strategy for more details. Several randomized trials of medication abortion between 14 0/7 and 27 6/7 weeks of gestation demonstrate that mifepristone 200 mg orally before misoprostol increases effectiveness (complete abortion at 24 or 48 hours) compared to misoprostol only. Studies continue to evaluate different doses, routes, and dosing intervals for misoprostol. If mifepristone is unavailable, several misoprostol regimens with individual doses of at least 200 mcg or more are effective. Adjunctive osmotic dilators are of limited benefit. It is important to individualize care, with consideration to reducing misoprostol dose in low-resource settings or at 24 0/7 weeks of gestation or later (or equivalent uterine size). Misoprostol in the setting of two or more previous cesarean sections is associated with increased risk of uterine rupture compared to one or none, but risk remains low. Most contraceptives can be started during or immediately following abortion. Appropriately trained and credentialed advanced practice clinicians can provide medication abortion between 14 0/7 and 27 6/7 weeks of gestation with appropriate backup within the confines of local regulations and licensure.

Vaginal Bleeding Before 20 Weeks Gestation

Conditions that often present with vaginal bleeding before 20 weeks are common and can cause morbidity and mortality. Clinically stable patients can choose their management options. Clinically unstable patients require urgent procedural management: uterine aspiration, dilation and evacuation, or surgical removal of an ectopic pregnancy. Septic abortion requires prompt procedural management, intravenous antibiotics, and intravenous fluids. Available data on prognosis with expectant management of pre-viable rupture of membranes in the United States are poor for mothers and fetuses.

Clinical Utility of Mifepristone: Apprising the Expanding Horizons

Mifepristone is a progesterone and glucocorticoid receptor antagonist. Medical abortion with mifepristone and prostaglandin has revolutionized the abortion process extending abortion care to the doors of females. From as low as 2 mg/day to doses extending to 600 mg, from daily dosing to single dosage treatment, mifepristone has a wide perspective in the treatment of various pathologies. Cervical dilatation and myometrial contractility have made the utility of mifepristone feasible for second-trimester termination of pregnancy and induction of labor awaiting Food and Drug Administration approvals. Its anti-progesterone action on the menstrual cycle has a new dimension of use as a contraceptive, as well as use as a menstruation inductive agent. Its role in endometriosis, ectopic pregnancy, and adenomyosis requires more intensive research. Apoptotic action of mifepristone, interference of heterotypic cell adhesion to the basement membrane, cell migration, growth inhibition of various cancer cell lines, decreased epidermal growth factor expression, suppression of invasive and metastatic cancer potential, increase in tumor necrosis factor, downregulation of cyclin-dependent kinase 2, B-cell lymphoma 2, and Nuclear factor kappa B have opened its potential to be explored as anti-cancer treatment and its effects on leiomyoma. The drug needs to be studied more for the prospectus of its anti-glucocorticoid actions in a wider dimension beyond its acquiescence for the treatment of Cushing syndrome.

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.

Safety of medical second trimester abortions for women with prior cesarean sections

PURPOSE

Medical second-trimester abortion in women with prior cesarean section (CS) is becoming an increasingly common phenomenon. However, data about the safety of the procedure are limited. This study addresses this issue.

METHODS

Retrospective cohort single-center study, done in Hadassah Medical Center in Jerusalem, a tertiary-care university hospital. This study included 779 women who needed pregnancy termination between 13 and 26 gestational weeks. 128 women had at least one previous CS (study group), whereas 651 had no CS (reference group). Protocols used were: (1) misoprostol tablets, 800 mcg vaginally followed by 400 mcg orally every 3 h up to four oral doses, (2) Oxytocin drip. Nearly one-fourth of the women received mifepristone as a preliminary treatment for cervical ripening. The outcomes assessed included the following complications: retained placenta, bleeding with or without requiring blood transfusion, infection, cervical lacerations, uterine adhesions and uterine ruptures.

RESULTS

Previous CS does not appear to increase the incidence of complications, excluding clinical bleeding without requiring blood transfusions (p value 0.05), which has a minimal clinical significance. Oxytocin protocol had 3.44 OR for complications, compared to misoprostol (p value 0.03, CI; 1.12- 10.52). No significant correlation was found between Misoprostol dosage and complications (Mann-Whitney U test, p value 0.057).

CONCLUSION

Medical second-trimester abortions for women with prior CS should be considered a safe and effective procedure, with a low complication rate. The most serious complication is uterine rupture, which is uncommon; we recorded one case only. Misoprostol protocol should be preferred.

CLINICAL TRIAL NUMBER AND DATE

IRB 0177-17-HMO, 5/2014.

Mifepristone Followed by Misoprostol or Ethacridine Lactate and Oxytocin for Second Trimester Abortion: A Randomized Trial

Objective

To compare two medical methods for second-trimester abortion, mifepristone followed by misoprostol versus mifepristone followed by ethacridine lactate and oxytocin for success rate, induction to abortion time and acceptability.

Materials and Methods

This is a randomized trial conducted from July 2014 to May 2016 and enrolled 120 women undergoing second trimester abortion (13-20 weeks). All patients received 200mg mifepristone orally and were randomized to receive further treatment after 36 hrs. Patients in Group M (n=60) received 400 microgram of misoprostol vaginally every 3 hours (maximum - 5 doses) and Group E (n=60) had extra-amniotic ethacridine lactate instillation followed by oxytocin infusion (max-100miu).

Results

Baseline demographic characteristics were comparable in both the groups. Success rate was 100% in group M and 98.3% in group E (p=0.31). Mean induction to abortion time was significantly shorter in group M than group E (8.2+2.3hours & 10.9+2.6 hours respectively; p=0.001). Majority of women reported side effects, 96.7% women in group M and 75% women in group E (p=0.001). Fall in hemoglobin after procedure was significantly higher in group M (0.70+0.33gram %) than group E (0.52+0.23 gram %) (p=0.001). Perception of intensity of pain was significantly more in group M but patient satisfaction in both groups was similar.

Conclusion

Both methods are comparable for success rate, induction interval was more for ethacridine lactate compared to misoprostol.

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.

Current and potential methods for second trimester abortion

Medical and surgical methods can both be recommended for second trimester abortion (after 12-weeks of gestational age). Induced abortion with a mifepristone and misoprostol regimen is the preferred approach; where mifepristone is not available, misoprostol alone for medical abortion is also effective. Dilation and evacuation (D&E) is the procedure of choice for surgical abortions, and adequate cervical preparation contributes significantly to safety. Availability of drugs and instruments, ability to provide pain control, provider skill and comfort, client preference, cultural considerations, and local legislation all influence the method of abortion likely to be performed in a given setting. Both surgical and modern medical methods are safe and effective when provided by a trained, experienced provider.

Medical treatment of second-trimester fetal miscarriage; A retrospective analysis

OBJECTIVES

Research on the treatment of second-trimester miscarriages is scarce. We studied the outcomes, and the factors associated with adverse events and need for hospital resources in the medical treatment of second-trimester miscarriage.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

In these retrospective analyses we studied women treated for spontaneous fetal miscarriage with misoprostol-only (n = 24) or mifepristone and misoprostol (n = 177) in duration of gestation 12+1-21+6. Primary outcomes were the risk factors for surgical evacuation and excessive bleeding. Secondary outcomes were total misoprostol dose, time to expulsion and the length of hospital stay.

RESULTS

History of surgical evacuation of the uterus increased the risk of surgical evacuation (p = 0.027). Excessive bleeding was not associated with any of the studied variables. More misoprostol was needed when the duration of gestation exceeded 17+0 weeks (p = 0.036). In multivariate analysis the time to fetal expulsion was shorter in women with history of 1-2 deliveries (hazard ratio [HR] 1.49, 95% confidence interval [CI]; 1.07-2.07), ≥3 deliveries (HR 1.63, 95% CI; 1.11-2.38) and with a two-day interval between mifepristone-misoprostol administration (HR 1.71, 95% CI; 1.05-2.81). Patients with symptoms (i.e. uterine bleeding or pain) at baseline had longer hospital stay (HR 0.66, 95% CI; 0.47-0.92).

CONCLUSIONS

The factors affecting the outcomes of medical treatment of second-trimester fetal miscarriage are similar to those of second-trimester induced abortion. Two-day interval between mifepristone-misoprostol administration might decrease the time to fetal expulsion and the need of hospital resources.

Physical symptoms and emotional responses among women undergoing induced abortion protocols during the second trimester

OBJECTIVE

To compare the physical and emotional effects of two medical protocols for induced abortion during the second trimester.

METHODS

The present study was part of a prospective randomized controlled trial comparing mifepristone followed by oxytocin or misoprostol that was conducted at the Hadassah Hebrew University Medical Center, Jerusalem, Israel, from January 10, 2009, to February 22, 2012. Inclusion criteria were pregnancy (14-24weeks), epidural analgesia, and medical induction of abortion (either elective or following missed abortion). A structured questionnaire was used to assess the participants' physical symptoms and emotional responses. The primary outcome for the present analysis was the degree of physical symptoms reported.

RESULTS

Overall, 68 women in the oxytocin group and 67 in the misoprostol group received epidural analgesia and completed the questionnaire. As assessed using a five-point Likert scale, women in the misoprostol group were more likely than those in the oxytocin group to experience diarrhea (1.34±0.84 vs 1.10±0.55; P=0.05) and shivers (3.03±1.75 vs 1.75±1.21; P<0.001). No other between-group differences were detected for the physical or emotional variables evaluated.

CONCLUSION

Differences in physical symptoms experienced by the two treatment groups did not influence the participants' subsequent emotional response. ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT00784797.

A Comparative Study of Misoprostol Only and Mifepristone Plus Misoprostol in Second Trimester Termination of Pregnancy

OBJECTIVE

To compare the effectiveness, success rate and induction to abortion interval between administration of misoprostol only and mifepristone with misoprostol in second trimester abortions (14-20 weeks) .

MATERIALS AND METHODS

The study was conducted by dividing women approaching for second trimester termination, into two groups each consisting of 100 women. Group-I received only misoprostol; 600 mcg initial vaginal insertion followed by 400 mcg sublingually every 3 h until termination. Women in Group-II received mifepristone 200 mg and after 24 h started with 600 mcg misoprostol, per vaginal followed by 400 mcg sublingually till abortion was completed, up to a maximum of five doses in both groups.

RESULTS

The success rate in Group-I was 89 %, whereas in Group-II it was 96 %. The mean induction abortion interval in Group-I was 10.67 ± 3.96 h compared to Group-II which was significantly less 6.19 ± 2.70 h (p value < 0.01). The mean dose of misoprostol in Group-I was 1610 ± 511.18 mcg and in Group-II, it was lesser 1046 ± 392.71 mcg (p value < 0.01). There was significant difference in the mean blood loss also, 97.20 ± 36.35 ml in Group-I and 52.55 ± 27.96 ml in Group-II. Also among the individual groups multigravidae and lower gestational age (<17 weeks), women had lesser IAI as well as lesser misoprostol dose was required.

CONCLUSION

Pretreatment with mifepristone significantly reduces the induction abortion interval and the misoprostol dose along with minimal blood loss.