Comparing transcervical balloon with osmotic dilators for cervical preparation prior to procedural abortion: A noninferiority randomized trial.

Serena M Liu, Andrea Henkel, Pamela Meza, Jade M Shorter, Erica Cahill, Paul D Blumenthal, Kate A Shaw
{"title":"Comparing transcervical balloon with osmotic dilators for cervical preparation prior to procedural abortion: A noninferiority randomized trial.","authors":"Serena M Liu, Andrea Henkel, Pamela Meza, Jade M Shorter, Erica Cahill, Paul D Blumenthal, Kate A Shaw","doi":"10.1016/j.contraception.2024.110550","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objectives: </strong>This study aimed to compare cervical preparation with transcervical balloon to osmotic dilators for second-trimester procedural abortions.</p><p><strong>Study design: </strong>We performed an unblinded, randomized, noninferiority trial of people undergoing second-trimester procedural abortion at 18 + 0 to 23 + 6 weeks' gestation. We randomized participants to either overnight osmotic dilators (Dilapan-S) or transcervical balloon (Foley). Both groups received overnight mifepristone and preprocedural misoprostol. We powered the study on mean difference in procedure duration, a noninferiority limit of 5 minutes. We compared preprocedure cervical dilation and the need for additional dilation and, using a 100-point visual analog scale, measured physician satisfaction and ease of procedure, and participant pain and satisfaction.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>We recruited 32 participants at a single academic center. Although procedure time (minutes) was similar (balloon: 22.6 ± 8.9 vs Dilapan-S: 22.4 ± 12.8, p = 0.96), noninferiority was not met (mean difference, 0.2 minutes; 95% CI, -7.8 to 8.2). Cervical dilation >2 cm was more likely after Dilapan-S (100% vs 62.5%, p = 0.02). Placement was well tolerated with similar time (minutes) for insertion (balloon: 4.8 ± 1.0, Dilapan-S: 5.1 ± 2.3, p = 0.64) and maximum pain (median) with insertion (balloon 39 [5-78], Dilapan-S: 39 [0-100], p = 0.92). Pain immediately postinsertion was higher for Dilapan-S (33 [0-100] vs 18 [0-50], p = 0.046) and similar for maximum pain overnight, participant satisfaction, and likelihood to recommend. Complications were minor and similar between groups (p = 0.60).</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>While significantly more people with transcervical balloon required mechanical dilation, the difference in operative time was clinically negligible. The transcervical balloon was well tolerated and acceptable by participants.</p><p><strong>Implications: </strong>Clinicians experienced in mechanical dilation may consider a transcervical balloon as a lower-cost tool for second-trimester abortion cervical preparation.</p><p><strong>Clinical trial registration: </strong>ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT05099991.</p>","PeriodicalId":93955,"journal":{"name":"Contraception","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-07-25","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Contraception","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1016/j.contraception.2024.110550","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Objectives: This study aimed to compare cervical preparation with transcervical balloon to osmotic dilators for second-trimester procedural abortions.

Study design: We performed an unblinded, randomized, noninferiority trial of people undergoing second-trimester procedural abortion at 18 + 0 to 23 + 6 weeks' gestation. We randomized participants to either overnight osmotic dilators (Dilapan-S) or transcervical balloon (Foley). Both groups received overnight mifepristone and preprocedural misoprostol. We powered the study on mean difference in procedure duration, a noninferiority limit of 5 minutes. We compared preprocedure cervical dilation and the need for additional dilation and, using a 100-point visual analog scale, measured physician satisfaction and ease of procedure, and participant pain and satisfaction.

Results: We recruited 32 participants at a single academic center. Although procedure time (minutes) was similar (balloon: 22.6 ± 8.9 vs Dilapan-S: 22.4 ± 12.8, p = 0.96), noninferiority was not met (mean difference, 0.2 minutes; 95% CI, -7.8 to 8.2). Cervical dilation >2 cm was more likely after Dilapan-S (100% vs 62.5%, p = 0.02). Placement was well tolerated with similar time (minutes) for insertion (balloon: 4.8 ± 1.0, Dilapan-S: 5.1 ± 2.3, p = 0.64) and maximum pain (median) with insertion (balloon 39 [5-78], Dilapan-S: 39 [0-100], p = 0.92). Pain immediately postinsertion was higher for Dilapan-S (33 [0-100] vs 18 [0-50], p = 0.046) and similar for maximum pain overnight, participant satisfaction, and likelihood to recommend. Complications were minor and similar between groups (p = 0.60).

Conclusion: While significantly more people with transcervical balloon required mechanical dilation, the difference in operative time was clinically negligible. The transcervical balloon was well tolerated and acceptable by participants.

Implications: Clinicians experienced in mechanical dilation may consider a transcervical balloon as a lower-cost tool for second-trimester abortion cervical preparation.

Clinical trial registration: ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT05099991.

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
经宫颈球囊与渗透扩张器在程序性流产前宫颈准备中的比较:非劣效随机试验。
目的:比较经宫颈球囊和渗透扩张器在第二胎程序性流产中的宫颈准备:比较使用经宫颈球囊和渗透扩张器进行宫颈准备的二胎程序性人工流产:研究设计:我们对妊娠 18+0 至 23+6 周接受二胎程序性人工流产的患者进行了一项非盲法、随机、非劣效试验。我们将参与者随机分为使用隔夜渗透扩张器(Dilapan-S)或经宫颈球囊(Foley)的两组。两组患者均接受过夜米非司酮和术前米索前列醇治疗。我们的研究以手术时间的平均差异为依据;非劣效限值为 5 分钟。我们比较了术前宫颈扩张情况;是否需要额外扩张;并使用100分视觉模拟量表测量了医生的满意度和手术的简便性,以及参与者的疼痛和满意度:我们在一个学术中心招募了 32 名参与者。虽然手术时间(分钟)相似(球囊:22.6+8.9 vs Dilapan-S:22.4+12.8,P=0.96),但非劣效性不达标(平均差异为 0.2 分钟;95% 置信区间为-7.8 至 8.2)。使用 Dilapan-S 后,宫颈扩张大于 2 厘米的可能性更大(100% 对 62.5%,P=0.02)。植入耐受性良好,插入时间(分钟)相似(球囊:4.8+1.0,Dilapan-S:5.1+2.3,p=0.64),插入时最大疼痛(中值)相似(球囊:39(5-78),Dilapan-S:39(0-100),p=0.92)。Dilapan-S插入后即刻疼痛感较高(33(0-100) vs 18(0-50),p=0.046),而隔夜最大疼痛感、参与者满意度和推荐可能性相似。并发症较少,组间相似(P=0.60):结论:虽然使用经宫颈球囊需要机械扩张的人数明显较多,但手术时间的差异在临床上可以忽略不计。经宫颈球囊的耐受性和可接受性良好:启示:有机械扩张经验的临床医生可以考虑使用经宫颈球囊作为第二胎流产宫颈准备的低成本工具:临床试验注册:ClinicalTrials.gov:临床试验注册:ClinicalTrials.gov:NCT05099991。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Economic analysis of foregoing Rh immunoglobulin for bleeding in pregnancy <12 weeks gestation. Modeling the impact of decreasing waiting period length for Medicaid sterilization: A multi-site cohort study. Ongoing contraceptive goals of patients who did not achieve desired postpartum permanent contraception prior to hospital discharge. The association of insertion methods on immediate postpartum intrauterine device expulsion rates: A retrospective cohort study. Society of Family Planning Research Practice Support: Strategies and considerations for addressing race and racism in quantitative family planning studies.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1