在中低收入国家,妊娠 15-24 周时进行扩宫和排空手术与药物流产的比较:回顾性队列研究

Q2 Medicine Contraception: X Pub Date : 2024-01-01 DOI:10.1016/j.conx.2024.100110
Abraham Fessehaye Sium, Amani Nureddin Abdu, Zerihun Beyene
{"title":"在中低收入国家,妊娠 15-24 周时进行扩宫和排空手术与药物流产的比较:回顾性队列研究","authors":"Abraham Fessehaye Sium,&nbsp;Amani Nureddin Abdu,&nbsp;Zerihun Beyene","doi":"10.1016/j.conx.2024.100110","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><h3>Objective</h3><p>To compare the effectiveness and safety of dilation and evacuation (D&amp;E) to that of medication abortion at 15–24 weeks in a low-middle income country.</p></div><div><h3>Study design</h3><p>We conducted a retrospective cohort on effectiveness and safety of D&amp;E vs medication abortion at 15–24 weeks in an Ethiopian setting over a year (January 1–December 31, 2023). We looked at success (need for additional procedure) of both abortion procedures and their complication rates. Hemorrhage, infection, uterine perforation/rupture, and cervical tear were the complications we compared between the groups (D&amp;E group vs medication abortion group). <em>P</em>-value less than 0.05 and Adjusted odds ratio (AOR) with 95% CI were used to present results significance.</p></div><div><h3>Results</h3><p>A total of 225 abortion cases (162 medication abortion cases and 63 D&amp;E cases) at gestational age of 15–24 weeks were included in the final analysis. The mean gestational age was 18 ± 2.8 weeks in the D&amp;E group compared to 21 ± 3 weeks in the medication abortion group (<em>p</em>-value<!--> <!-->&lt;<!--> <!-->0.001). The overall procedure effectiveness between the abortion procedures was similar (95.2% vs 96.9% in the D&amp;E group and medication abortion groups, <em>p</em>-value<!--> <!-->=<!--> <!-->0.542). D&amp;E (AOR<!--> <!-->=<!--> <!-->2.92 [95% CI<!--> <!-->=<!--> <!-->0.62–13.69]) was not associated with increased overall complications compared to medication abortion, after controlling for parity, gestational age, and history of prior uterine scar.</p></div><div><h3>Conclusion</h3><p>We found both abortion methods (D&amp;E and medication abortion) are effective with comparable complication rates.</p></div><div><h3>Implications</h3><p>D&amp;E and medication abortion are safe and effective methods of abortion for gestations up to 24 weeks even in a low-middle income country (LMIC) setting; as such, greater resources are needed to ensure to increase availability of D&amp;E in order for women to have a choice in their treatment options.</p></div>","PeriodicalId":10655,"journal":{"name":"Contraception: X","volume":"6 ","pages":"Article 100110"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2590151624000078/pdfft?md5=f4cf2c2381c0def0532e91cb2471a6ce&pid=1-s2.0-S2590151624000078-main.pdf","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Dilation and evacuation versus medication abortion at 15–24 weeks of gestation in low-middle income country: A retrospective cohort study\",\"authors\":\"Abraham Fessehaye Sium,&nbsp;Amani Nureddin Abdu,&nbsp;Zerihun Beyene\",\"doi\":\"10.1016/j.conx.2024.100110\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<div><h3>Objective</h3><p>To compare the effectiveness and safety of dilation and evacuation (D&amp;E) to that of medication abortion at 15–24 weeks in a low-middle income country.</p></div><div><h3>Study design</h3><p>We conducted a retrospective cohort on effectiveness and safety of D&amp;E vs medication abortion at 15–24 weeks in an Ethiopian setting over a year (January 1–December 31, 2023). We looked at success (need for additional procedure) of both abortion procedures and their complication rates. Hemorrhage, infection, uterine perforation/rupture, and cervical tear were the complications we compared between the groups (D&amp;E group vs medication abortion group). <em>P</em>-value less than 0.05 and Adjusted odds ratio (AOR) with 95% CI were used to present results significance.</p></div><div><h3>Results</h3><p>A total of 225 abortion cases (162 medication abortion cases and 63 D&amp;E cases) at gestational age of 15–24 weeks were included in the final analysis. The mean gestational age was 18 ± 2.8 weeks in the D&amp;E group compared to 21 ± 3 weeks in the medication abortion group (<em>p</em>-value<!--> <!-->&lt;<!--> <!-->0.001). The overall procedure effectiveness between the abortion procedures was similar (95.2% vs 96.9% in the D&amp;E group and medication abortion groups, <em>p</em>-value<!--> <!-->=<!--> <!-->0.542). D&amp;E (AOR<!--> <!-->=<!--> <!-->2.92 [95% CI<!--> <!-->=<!--> <!-->0.62–13.69]) was not associated with increased overall complications compared to medication abortion, after controlling for parity, gestational age, and history of prior uterine scar.</p></div><div><h3>Conclusion</h3><p>We found both abortion methods (D&amp;E and medication abortion) are effective with comparable complication rates.</p></div><div><h3>Implications</h3><p>D&amp;E and medication abortion are safe and effective methods of abortion for gestations up to 24 weeks even in a low-middle income country (LMIC) setting; as such, greater resources are needed to ensure to increase availability of D&amp;E in order for women to have a choice in their treatment options.</p></div>\",\"PeriodicalId\":10655,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Contraception: X\",\"volume\":\"6 \",\"pages\":\"Article 100110\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-01-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2590151624000078/pdfft?md5=f4cf2c2381c0def0532e91cb2471a6ce&pid=1-s2.0-S2590151624000078-main.pdf\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Contraception: X\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2590151624000078\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"Medicine\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Contraception: X","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2590151624000078","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"Medicine","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

研究设计我们在埃塞俄比亚进行了一项回顾性队列研究,对 15-24 周扩张排空术(D&E)与药物流产的有效性和安全性进行了为期一年(2023 年 1 月 1 日至 12 月 31 日)的比较。我们调查了两种人工流产手术的成功率(是否需要额外手术)及其并发症发生率。出血、感染、子宫穿孔/破裂和宫颈撕裂是我们比较的两组(D&E 组和药物流产组)并发症。P 值小于 0.05 和调整后的几率比(AOR)(95% CI)用于表示结果的显著性。结果 最终分析共纳入 225 例孕龄在 15-24 周的人工流产病例(药物流产 162 例,D&E 63 例)。D&E组的平均孕周为18 ± 2.8周,而药物流产组的平均孕周为21 ± 3周(P值为0.001)。两种人工流产术的总有效率相似(D&E 组和药物流产组的有效率分别为 95.2% 和 96.9%,P 值 = 0.542)。与药物流产相比,D&E(AOR = 2.92 [95% CI = 0.62-13.69])与总体并发症的增加无关,在控制了奇偶数、妊娠年龄和既往子宫疤痕史之后,D&E(AOR = 2.92 [95% CI = 0.62-13.69])与并发症的增加无关。意义即使在中低收入国家(LMIC),D&E 和药物流产对妊娠 24 周以内的妇女来说都是安全有效的流产方法;因此,需要更多资源来确保增加 D&E 的可用性,以便妇女在治疗方案中有所选择。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
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
Dilation and evacuation versus medication abortion at 15–24 weeks of gestation in low-middle income country: A retrospective cohort study

Objective

To compare the effectiveness and safety of dilation and evacuation (D&E) to that of medication abortion at 15–24 weeks in a low-middle income country.

Study design

We conducted a retrospective cohort on effectiveness and safety of D&E vs medication abortion at 15–24 weeks in an Ethiopian setting over a year (January 1–December 31, 2023). We looked at success (need for additional procedure) of both abortion procedures and their complication rates. Hemorrhage, infection, uterine perforation/rupture, and cervical tear were the complications we compared between the groups (D&E group vs medication abortion group). P-value less than 0.05 and Adjusted odds ratio (AOR) with 95% CI were used to present results significance.

Results

A total of 225 abortion cases (162 medication abortion cases and 63 D&E cases) at gestational age of 15–24 weeks were included in the final analysis. The mean gestational age was 18 ± 2.8 weeks in the D&E group compared to 21 ± 3 weeks in the medication abortion group (p-value < 0.001). The overall procedure effectiveness between the abortion procedures was similar (95.2% vs 96.9% in the D&E group and medication abortion groups, p-value = 0.542). D&E (AOR = 2.92 [95% CI = 0.62–13.69]) was not associated with increased overall complications compared to medication abortion, after controlling for parity, gestational age, and history of prior uterine scar.

Conclusion

We found both abortion methods (D&E and medication abortion) are effective with comparable complication rates.

Implications

D&E and medication abortion are safe and effective methods of abortion for gestations up to 24 weeks even in a low-middle income country (LMIC) setting; as such, greater resources are needed to ensure to increase availability of D&E in order for women to have a choice in their treatment options.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Contraception: X
Contraception: X Medicine-Obstetrics and Gynecology
CiteScore
5.10
自引率
0.00%
发文量
17
审稿时长
22 weeks
期刊最新文献
Outpatient medical management of later second trimester abortion (18–23.6 weeks) with procedural evacuation backup: A large case series Experiences of delay-causing obstacles and mental health at the time of abortion seeking Maximizing the effectiveness of 1.5 mg levonorgestrel for emergency contraception: The case for precoital use How does person-centered maternity care relate to postpartum contraceptive counseling and use? Evidence from a longitudinal study of women delivering at health facilities in Ethiopia Dilation and evacuation versus medication abortion at 15–24 weeks of gestation in low-middle income country: A retrospective cohort study
×
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