1
|
Uhm S, Mastey N, Baker CC, Chen MJ, Matulich MC, Hou MY, Melo J, Wilson SF, Creinin MD. Mifepristone prior to osmotic dilators for dilation and evacuation cervical preparation: A randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled pilot study. Contraception 2021; 107:23-28. [PMID: 34464634 DOI: 10.1016/j.contraception.2021.08.013] [Citation(s) in RCA: 1] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.3] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 05/29/2021] [Revised: 08/20/2021] [Accepted: 08/20/2021] [Indexed: 11/03/2022]
Abstract
OBJECTIVES To evaluate mifepristone impact on osmotic dilator placement and procedural outcomes when given 18 to 24 hours before dilator placement for dilation and evacuation (D&E) at 18 weeks 0 days to 23 weeks 6 days gestation. STUDY DESIGN We performed a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial from April 2019 through February 2021, enrolling participants undergoing osmotic dilator (Dilapan) placement for a planned, next-day D&E. Participants took mifepristone 200 mg or placebo orally 18 to 24 hours before dilator placement. We used a gestational age-based protocol for minimum number of dilators. Our primary outcome was the proportion of participants for whom 2 or more additional dilators could be placed compared to the minimum gestational age-based standard. We secondarily evaluated cervical dilation after dilator removal in the operating room, subjective procedure ease, and complication rates (cervical laceration, uterine perforation, blood transfusion, infection, hospitalization, or extramural delivery). RESULTS Of the planned 66 participants, we enrolled 44 (stopped due to coronavirus disease 2019-related obstacles), and 41 (19 mifepristone; 22 placebo) completed the study. We placed 2 or more additional dilators compared to standard in 7 (36.8%) and 3 (13.6%) participants after mifepristone and placebo, respectively (p = 0.14). We measured greater median initial cervical dilation in the mifepristone (3.2 cm[2.6-3.6]) compared to placebo (2.6 cm[2.2-3.0]) group, p = 0.03. Surgeon's perception of procedure being "easy" (8/19[42.1] vs 9/22[40.9], respectively, p = 1.00) and complication rate (3/19[15.8%] vs 3/22[13.6], respectively, p = 1.00) did not differ. CONCLUSION Our underpowered study did not demonstrate a difference in cervical dilator placement, but mifepristone 18 to 24 hours prior to dilators increases cervical dilation without increasing complications. IMPLICATIONS Mifepristone 18 to 24 hours prior to cervical dilator placement may be a useful adjunct to cervical dilators based on increased cervical dilation at time of procedure; however, logistical barriers, such as an additional visit, may preclude routine adoption without definite clinical benefit.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Suji Uhm
- Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, University of Pittsburgh School of Medicine; Pittsburgh, PA, United States.
| | - Namrata Mastey
- Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, University of California, Davis; Sacramento, CA, United States
| | - Courtney C Baker
- Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, University of California, Davis; Sacramento, CA, United States
| | - Melissa J Chen
- Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, University of California, Davis; Sacramento, CA, United States
| | - Melissa C Matulich
- Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, University of California, Davis; Sacramento, CA, United States
| | - Melody Y Hou
- Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, University of California, Davis; Sacramento, CA, United States
| | - Juliana Melo
- Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, University of California, Davis; Sacramento, CA, United States
| | | | - Mitchell D Creinin
- Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, University of California, Davis; Sacramento, CA, United States
| |
Collapse
|
2
|
Mastey N, Matulich MC, Uhm S, Baker CC, Melo J, Chen MJ, Creinin MD. US referral center experience removing nonpalpable and difficult contraceptive implants with in-office ultrasonography: A case series. Contraception 2021; 103:428-430. [PMID: 33571492 DOI: 10.1016/j.contraception.2021.01.018] [Citation(s) in RCA: 4] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.3] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 11/12/2020] [Revised: 01/13/2021] [Accepted: 01/31/2021] [Indexed: 01/31/2023]
Abstract
OBJECTIVES To assess referral center outcomes with removal of difficult or nonpalpable contraceptive implants using high-frequency point-of-care ultrasonography. STUDY DESIGN We present a case series examining patients referred to our specialty center from January 2019 through September 2020 for difficult or nonpalpable implant removal. RESULTS Of the 54 referrals, 6 had palpable implants and 48 required ultrasonography. We localized 46 (96%) implants in-office, including 13 located subfascially; 2 Implanon implants could not be localized. We successfully completed 50 (96%) of 52 attempted in-office removals, including 12 (92%) subfascial implants. CONCLUSION High-frequency point-of-care ultrasonography can effectively localize nonpalpable contraceptive implants leading to successful in-office removal. IMPLICATIONS Specialists can use high-frequency point-of-care ultrasonography to localize nonpalpable implants without formal radiology scans and skilled technologists, optimizing patient time and convenience. However, the probe is expensive, and providers may need to consider this cost in the context of reimbursement for these highly specialized procedures.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Namrata Mastey
- Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, University of California, Davis, Sacramento, CA, United States.
| | - Melissa C Matulich
- Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, University of California, Davis, Sacramento, CA, United States
| | - Suji Uhm
- Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, University of California, Davis, Sacramento, CA, United States
| | - Courtney C Baker
- Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, University of California, Davis, Sacramento, CA, United States
| | - Juliana Melo
- Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, University of California, Davis, Sacramento, CA, United States
| | - Melissa J Chen
- Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, University of California, Davis, Sacramento, CA, United States
| | - Mitchell D Creinin
- Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, University of California, Davis, Sacramento, CA, United States
| |
Collapse
|
4
|
Rodgers JT, King KY, Brett JO, Cromie MJ, Charville GW, Maguire KK, Brunson C, Mastey N, Liu L, Tsai CR, Goodell MA, Rando TA. mTORC1 controls the adaptive transition of quiescent stem cells from G0 to G(Alert). Nature 2014; 510:393-6. [PMID: 24870234 PMCID: PMC4065227 DOI: 10.1038/nature13255] [Citation(s) in RCA: 482] [Impact Index Per Article: 48.2] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 01/15/2014] [Accepted: 03/13/2014] [Indexed: 12/18/2022]
Abstract
A unique property of many adult stem cells is their ability to exist in a non-cycling, quiescent state1. Although quiescence serves an essential role in preserving stem cell function until the stem cell is needed in tissue homeostasis or repair, defects in quiescence can lead to an impairment in tissue function2, the extent to which stem cells can regulate quiescence is unknown. Here, we show that the stem cell quiescent state is composed of two distinct functional phases: G0 and an “alert” phase we term GAlert, and that stem cells actively and reversibly transition between these phases in response to injury-induced, systemic signals. Using genetic models specific to muscle stem cells (or satellite cells (SCs)), we show that mTORC1 activity is necessary and sufficient for the transition of SCs from G0 into GAlert and that signaling through the HGF receptor, cMet is also necessary. We also identify G0-to-GAlert transitions in several populations of quiescent stem cells. Quiescent stem cells that transition into GAlert possess enhanced tissue regenerative function. We propose that the transition of quiescent stem cells into GAlert functions as an ‘alerting’ mechanism, an adaptive response that positions stem cells to respond rapidly under conditions of injury and stress without requiring cell cycle entry or a cell fate commitment.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Joseph T Rodgers
- 1] Paul F. Glenn Laboratories for the Biology of Aging, Stanford University School of Medicine, Stanford, California 94305, USA [2] Department of Neurology and Neurological Sciences, Stanford University School of Medicine, Stanford, California 94305, USA
| | - Katherine Y King
- Department of Pediatrics and Program in Developmental Biology, Baylor College of Medicine, Houston, Texas 77030, USA
| | - Jamie O Brett
- 1] Paul F. Glenn Laboratories for the Biology of Aging, Stanford University School of Medicine, Stanford, California 94305, USA [2] Department of Neurology and Neurological Sciences, Stanford University School of Medicine, Stanford, California 94305, USA
| | - Melinda J Cromie
- 1] Paul F. Glenn Laboratories for the Biology of Aging, Stanford University School of Medicine, Stanford, California 94305, USA [2] Department of Neurology and Neurological Sciences, Stanford University School of Medicine, Stanford, California 94305, USA
| | - Gregory W Charville
- 1] Paul F. Glenn Laboratories for the Biology of Aging, Stanford University School of Medicine, Stanford, California 94305, USA [2] Department of Neurology and Neurological Sciences, Stanford University School of Medicine, Stanford, California 94305, USA
| | - Katie K Maguire
- 1] Paul F. Glenn Laboratories for the Biology of Aging, Stanford University School of Medicine, Stanford, California 94305, USA [2] Department of Neurology and Neurological Sciences, Stanford University School of Medicine, Stanford, California 94305, USA
| | - Christopher Brunson
- 1] Paul F. Glenn Laboratories for the Biology of Aging, Stanford University School of Medicine, Stanford, California 94305, USA [2] Department of Neurology and Neurological Sciences, Stanford University School of Medicine, Stanford, California 94305, USA
| | - Namrata Mastey
- 1] Paul F. Glenn Laboratories for the Biology of Aging, Stanford University School of Medicine, Stanford, California 94305, USA [2] Department of Neurology and Neurological Sciences, Stanford University School of Medicine, Stanford, California 94305, USA
| | - Ling Liu
- 1] Paul F. Glenn Laboratories for the Biology of Aging, Stanford University School of Medicine, Stanford, California 94305, USA [2] Department of Neurology and Neurological Sciences, Stanford University School of Medicine, Stanford, California 94305, USA
| | - Chang-Ru Tsai
- Department of Pediatrics and Program in Developmental Biology, Baylor College of Medicine, Houston, Texas 77030, USA
| | - Margaret A Goodell
- Department of Pediatrics and Program in Developmental Biology, Baylor College of Medicine, Houston, Texas 77030, USA
| | - Thomas A Rando
- 1] Paul F. Glenn Laboratories for the Biology of Aging, Stanford University School of Medicine, Stanford, California 94305, USA [2] Department of Neurology and Neurological Sciences, Stanford University School of Medicine, Stanford, California 94305, USA [3] Neurology Service and Rehabilitation Research and Development Center of Excellence, Veterans Affairs Palo Alto Health Care System, Palo Alto, California 94304, USA
| |
Collapse
|