Advertisement

Pregnancy outcome in women with an intrauterine contraceptive device

Published:August 31, 2009DOI:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajog.2009.06.031

      Objective

      To investigate pregnancy outcome in patients who conceived with an intrauterine contraceptive device.

      Study Design

      A retrospective study comparing the pregnancy outcome of women with retained intrauterine device (n = 98), patients after intrauterine device removal in early pregnancy (n = 194), and pregnancies without an intrauterine device (n = 141,191) was performed.

      Results

      A significant linear association was documented among the 3 groups and adverse outcomes such as preterm delivery (18.4% in the retained intrauterine device, 14.4 % in removed intrauterine device, and 7.3% in the no-intrauterine device group; P < .001) and chorioamnionitis (7.1% in the retained intrauterine device, 4.1% in removed intrauterine device and 0.7% in the no-intrauterine device group; P < .001). The presence of retained or removed intrauterine device was found as an independent risk factor for both preterm delivery and chorioamnionitis in multivariable models.

      Conclusion

      Women conceiving with an intrauterine device are at increased risk for adverse obstetric outcomes, whereas the risk is higher for pregnancies with retained intrauterine device compared with early intrauterine device removal.

      Key words

      To read this article in full you will need to make a payment

      Purchase one-time access:

      Academic & Personal: 24 hour online accessCorporate R&D Professionals: 24 hour online access
      One-time access price info
      • For academic or personal research use, select 'Academic and Personal'
      • For corporate R&D use, select 'Corporate R&D Professionals'

      Subscribe:

      Subscribe to American Journal of Obstetrics & Gynecology
      Already a print subscriber? Claim online access
      Already an online subscriber? Sign in
      Institutional Access: Sign in to ScienceDirect

      References

        • Maurice J.
        The intrauterine device (IUD)—worth singing about.
        Progress in Reproductive Health Research, World Health Organization. 2002; 60: 1-8
        • Rowe P.J.
        • Boccard S.
        • Farley T.M.M.
        • Peregoudov S.
        Long-term reversible contraception twelve years of experience with the TCu380A and TCu220C.
        Contraception. 1997; 56: 341-352
      1. Mechanisms of the contraceptive action of hormonal methods and intrauterine devices (IUDs).
        Family Health International, 2006
        • Keller S.
        IUDs block fertilization.
        Network Family Health International. 1996; : 16
        • Stanford J.
        • Mikolajczyk R.
        Mechanisms of action of intrauterine devices: update and estimation of postfertilization effects.
        Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2002; 187: 1699-1708
      2. 6a
        • Sivin I.
        IUDs and ectopic pregnancy.
        Contraception. 1995; 52: 321-322
      3. 6b
        • Skjeldestad F.E.
        • Hammervold R.
        • Peterson D.R.
        Outcomes of pregnancy with an IUD in situ - a population based case-control study.
        Adv Contracept. 1988; : 265-270
        • Furlong L.A.
        Ectopic pregnancy risk when contraception fails.
        J Reprod Med. 2002; 47: 881-885
        • Rollnik J.D.
        • Lück H.J.
        • Giersig C.
        Two cases of abortion and premature birth after removal of a levonorgestrel-releasing intrauterine system.
        Eur J Contracept Reprod Health Care. 2002; 7: 244-246
        • Alvior Jr, G.T.
        Pregnancy outcome with removal of intrauterine device.
        Obstet Gynecol. 1973; 41: 894-896
      4. Pill, IUD users run no increased risk of ectopics, malformation, miscarriage in planned pregnancies.
        Fam Plann Perspect. 1980; 12: 156-157
        • Simpson J.L.
        Do contraceptive methods pose fetal risks?.
        Res Front Fertil Regul. 1985; 3: 1-11
        • Fulcheri E.
        • di Capua E.
        • Ragni N.
        Pregnancy despite IUD: adverse effects on pregnancy evolution and fetus.
        Contraception. 2003; 68: 35-38
        • Dunn Jr, J.S.
        • Zerbe M.J.
        • Bloomquist J.L.
        • Ellerkman R.M.
        • Bent A.E.
        Ectopic IUD complicating pregnancy.
        J Reprod Med. 2002; 47: 57-59
        • Inal M.
        • Ertopçu K.
        • Ozelmas I.
        The evaluation of 318 intrauterine pregnancy cases with an intrauterine device.
        Eur J Contracept Reprod Health Care. 2005; 10: 266-271
      5. Selected practice recommendations for contraceptive use.
        2nd ed. World Health Organization, Geneva, Switzerland2004
        • Ofir K.
        • Sheiner E.
        • Levy A.
        • Katz M.
        • Mazor M.
        Uterine rupture: differences between a scarred and an unscarred uterus.
        Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2004; 191: 425-429
        • Ramsey P.S.
        • Lieman J.M.
        • Brumfield C.G.
        • Carlo W.
        Chorioamnionitis increases neonatal morbidity in pregnancies complicated by preterm premature rupture of membranes.
        Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2005; 192: 1162-1166
        • Agresti A.
        Introduction to categorical data analysis.
        in: John Wiley, New York1996: 231-236
        • Hnat M.
        • Vu J.
        • Mcintire D.
        Pregnancy outcomes in women with intrauterine device contraceptive failure.
        Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2005; 193: s111
        • Chi I.C.
        • Balogh S.
        Interval insertion of intrauterine device in women with previous cesarean section.
        Contraception. 1984; 30: 209-214