Advertisement

Risk factors for surgical intervention of early medical abortion

Published:February 11, 2019DOI:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajog.2019.02.014

      Background

      By being noninvasive, medical termination of pregnancy has increased worldwide access to abortion and improved safety of unsafe abortion. However, secondary surgical intervention is the most frequent complication to medical abortion.

      Objective

      We aimed to identify and quantify risk factors for surgical intervention in women undergoing medically induced termination of pregnancy before 9 completed weeks of gestation.

      Study Design

      We conducted a nationwide cohort study, including all pregnancies terminated before 63 gestational days in women aged 15–49 years during the period 2005–2015. Induction regimen was 200 mg mifepristone followed 24–48 hours later by 0.8 mg vaginal misoprostol. All included pregnancies were followed up for 8 weeks from mifepristone administration. Data were retrieved from national health registers. Multiple logistic regression provided adjusted odds ratios of surgical intervention with 95% confidence intervals. The discriminative ability of the risk factors in identifying surgical intervention was assessed by cross-validated area under the receiver operating characteristic curve.

      Results

      Of 86,437 early medical abortions, 5320 (6.2%) underwent a surgical intervention within 8 weeks after induction. The proportion of surgical interventions increased from 3.5% in the 5th to 6th gestational week to 10.3% in week 9, odds ratio, 3.2 (95% confidence interval, 2.9–3.6). Compared with women aged 15–19 years, the risk of surgical intervention increased with increasing maternal age until the age of 30–34 years, odds ratio, 1.7 (95% confidence interval, 1.5–1.9), where after the risk decreased to an odds ratio for age group 40–49 of 1.2 (95% confidence interval, 1.0–1.4). Compared with nulliparous women, a history of only vaginal deliveries with spontaneous delivery of placenta implied an odds ratio of 1.1 (95% confidence interval, 1.0–1.2), women with a history of at least 1 cesarean delivery, an odds ratio of 1.5 (95% confidence interval, 1.3–1.6), and women having experienced a manual removal of placenta after a vaginal birth, an odds ratio of 2.0 (95% confidence interval, 1.7–2.4). Previous medically induced abortion decreased the risk of surgical intervention, odds ratio 0.84 (95% confidence interval, 0.78–0.91), whereas previous early (before 56 days of gestation) surgically induced abortion implied a 53% (95% confidence interval, 1.4–1.7) increased risk of surgical intervention. Previous surgical abortion after 55 days of gestation increased the risk by 17% (95% confidence interval, 1.1–1.3). The area under the receiver operating characteristic curve of the model including all quantified risk factors was 63% (95% confidence interval, 62-64%).

      Conclusion

      Gestational age, maternal age, previous deliveries, and history of medically and surgically induced abortions all had a significant influence on the risk of surgical intervention of early medical abortion. However, inclusion of all quantified risk factors still left most interventions unpredictable.

      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

        • World Health Organization, Department of Reproductive Health and Research
        Safe abortion: technical and policy guidance for health systems.
        World Health Organization, Geneva2012
        • Singh S.
        • Remez L.
        • Sedgh G.
        • Kwok L.
        • Onda T.
        Abortion worldwide 2017: uneven progress and unequal access.
        Guttmacher Institute, New York2018
        • Kahn J.G.
        • Becker B.J.
        • MacIsaa L.
        • et al.
        The efficacy of medical abortion: a meta-analysis.
        Contraception. 2000; 61: 29-40
        • Kulier R.
        • Kapp N.
        • Gülmezoglu A.M.
        • Hofmeyr G.J.
        • Cheng L.
        • Campana A.
        Medical methods for first trimester abortion.
        Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2011; 11: CD002855
        • Reeves M.F.
        • Monmaney J.A.
        • Creinin M.D.
        Predictors of uterine evacuation following early medical abortion with mifepristone and misoprostol.
        Contraception. 2016; 93: 119-125
        • Chien L.W.
        • Liu W.M.
        • Tzeng C.R.
        • Au H.K.
        Effect of previous live birth and prior route of delivery on the outcome of early medical abortion.
        Obstet Gynecol. 2009; 113: 669-674
        • Haimov-Kochman R.
        • Arbel R.
        • Sciaky-Tamir Y.
        • Brzezinski A.
        • Laufer N.
        • Yagel S.
        Risk factors for unsuccessful medical abortion with mifepristone and misoprostol.
        Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand. 2007; 86: 462-466
        • Ashok P.W.
        • Templeton A.
        • Wagaarachchi P.T.
        • Flett G.M.
        Factors affecting the outcome of early medical abortion: a review of 4132 consecutive cases.
        BJOG. 2002; 109: 12819
        • Knudsen U.B.
        First trimester abortion with mifepristone and vaginal misoprostol.
        Contraception. 2001; 63: 247-250
      1. Danish National Clinical Guideline on Medical Abortion, 1. Trimester. Updated 2014. Available at: https://static1.squarespace.com/static/5467abcce4b056d72594db79/t/548e08cee4b06f8a5b8130d7/1418594510349/14-11-29+Ab+med+guide+14.pdf. Accessed Oct. 8, 2018.

        • Tølbøll Blenstrup L.
        • Knudsen L.B.
        Danish registers on aspects of reproduction.
        Scand J Public Health. 2011; 39: 79-82
        • Lynge E.
        • Sandegaard J.L.
        • Rebolj M.
        The Danish National Patient Register.
        Scand J Public Health. 2011; 39: 30-33
        • Knudsen L.B.
        • Olsen J.
        The Danish Medical Birth Registry.
        Dan Med Bull. 1998; 45: 320-323
        • Harrell F.E.
        Regression modeling strategies, with applications to linear models, survival analysis and logistic regression.
        Springer, London2001
      2. R Core Team. R: A language and environment for statistical computing. RFoundation for statistical Computing. Vienna, Austria, 2017. Available at: https://www.R-project.org/. Accessed January 10, 2019.

        • Von Hertzen H.
        • Piaggio G.
        • Wojdyla D.
        • et al.
        Two mifepristone doses and two intervals of misoprostol administration for termination of early pregnancy: a randomised factorial controlled equivalence trial.
        Br J Obstet Gynaecol. 2009; 116: 381-389
        • Tang O.S.
        • Chan C.C.
        • Ng E.H.
        • Lee S.W.
        • Ho P.C.
        A prospective, randomized, placebo-controlled trial on the use of mifepristone with sublingual or vaginal misoprostol for medical abortions of less than 9 weeks gestation.
        Hum Reprod. 2003; 18: 2315-2318
        • Shannon C.
        • Wiebe E.
        • Jacot F.
        • et al.
        Regimens of misoprostol with mifepristone for early medical abortion: a randomised trial.
        Br J Obstet Gynaecol. 2006; 113: 621-628
        • Chawdhary R.
        • Rana A.
        • Pradhan N.
        Mifepristone plus vaginal misoprostol vs vaginal misoprostol alone for medical abortion in gestation 63 days or less in Nepalese women: a quasi-randomized controlled trial.
        J Obstet Gynaecol Res. 2009; 35: 78-85
        • Middleton T.
        • Schaff E.
        • Fielding S.L.
        • et al.
        Randomized trial of mifepristone and buccal or vaginal misoprostol for abortion through 56 days of last menstrual period.
        Contraception. 2005; 72: 328-332
        • Ashok P.W.
        • Penney G.C.
        • Flett G.M.
        • Templeton A.
        An effective regimen for early medical abortion: a report of 2000 consecutive cases.
        Hum Reprod. 1998; 13: 2962-2965
        • Bartley J.
        • Tong S.
        • Everington D.
        • Baird D.T.
        Parity is a major determinant of success rate in medical abortion: a retrospective analysis of 3161 consecutive cases of early medical abortion treated with reduced doses of mifepristone and vaginal gemeprost.
        Contraception. 2000; 62: 297-303
        • Dehlendorf C.E.
        • Fox E.E.
        • Ali R.F.
        • et al.
        Medication abortion failure in women with and without previous cesarean delivery.
        Contraception. 2015; 92: 463-468
        • Allen R.H.
        • Westhoff C.
        • De Nonno L.
        • Fielding S.L.
        • Schaff E.A.
        Curettage after mifepristone-induced abortion: Frequency, timing, and indications.
        Obstet Gynecol. 2001; 98: 101-106
        • Suhonen S.
        • Tikka M.
        • Kivinen S.
        • Kauppila T.
        Pain during medical abortion: predicting factors from gynecologic history and medical staff evaluation of severity.
        Contraception. 2011; 83: 357-361
        • Spitz I.
        • Bardin W.
        • Benton L.
        • Robbins A.
        Early pregnancy termination with mifepristone in the United States.
        N Engl J Med. 1998; 338: 1241-1246
        • Winikoff B.
        • Sivin I.
        • Coyaji K.
        • et al.
        Safety, efficacy, and acceptability of medical abortion in China, Cuba, and India: a comparative trial of mifepristone-misoprostol versus surgical abortion.
        Am J Obstet Gynecol. 1997; 176: 431-437
        • Au H.
        • Liu C.
        • Tzeng C.
        • Chien L.
        Association between ultrasonographic parameters of Cesarean scar defect and outcome of early termination of pregnancy.
        Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2016; 47: 506-510