Dataset Information

Management of miscarriage: expectant, medical, or surgical? Results of randomised controlled trial (miscarriage treatment (MIST) trial).

ABSTRACT:

Objective

To ascertain whether a clinically important difference exists in the incidence of gynaecological infection between surgical management and expectant or medical management of miscarriage.

Design

Randomised controlled trial comparing medical and expectant management with surgical management of first trimester miscarriage.

Setting

Early pregnancy assessment units of seven hospitals in the United Kingdom.

Participants

Women of less than 13 weeks' gestation, with a diagnosis of early fetal demise or incomplete miscarriage.

Interventions

Expectant management (no specific intervention); medical management (vaginal dose of misoprostol preceded, for women with early fetal demise, by oral mifepristone 24-48 hours earlier); surgical management (surgical evacuation).

Main outcome measures

Confirmed gynaecological infection at 14 days and eight weeks; need for unplanned admission or surgical intervention.

Results

1200 women were recruited: 399 to expectant management, 398 to medical management, and 403 to surgical management. No differences were found in the incidence of confirmed infection within 14 days between the expectant group (3%) and the surgical group (3%) (risk difference 0.2%, 95% confidence interval - 2.2% to 2.7%) or between the medical group (2%) and the surgical group (0.7%, - 1.6% to 3.1%). Compared with the surgical group, the number of unplanned hospital admissions was significantly higher in both the expectant group (risk difference - 41%, - 47% to - 36%) and the medical group (- 10%, - 15% to - 6%). Similarly, when compared with the surgical group, the number of women who had an unplanned surgical curettage was significantly higher in the expectant group (risk difference - 39%, - 44% to - 34%) and the medical group (- 30%, - 35% to - 25%).

Conclusions

The incidence of gynaecological infection after surgical, expectant, and medical management of first trimester miscarriage is low (2-3%), and no evidence exists of a difference by the method of management. However, significantly more unplanned admissions and unplanned surgical curettage occurred after expectant management and medical management than after surgical management. TRIAL REGISTRATION NATIONAL RESEARCH REGISTER: N0467011677/N0467073587.

SUBMITTER: Trinder J

PROVIDER: S-EPMC1471967 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:BACKGROUND:Patients with ectopic pregnancy (EP) and low serum hCG concentrations and women with a pregnancy of unknown location (PUL) and plateauing serum hCG levels are commonly treated with systemic methotrexate (MTX). However, there is no evidence that treatment in these particular subgroups of women is necessary as many of these early EPs may resolve spontaneously. The aim of this study is whether expectant management in women with EP or PUL and with low but plateauing serum hCG concentrations is an alternative to MTX treatment in terms of treatment success, future pregnancy, health related quality of life and costs. METHODS/DESIGN:A multicentre randomised controlled trial in The Netherlands. Hemodynamically stable patients with an EP visible on transvaginal ultrasound and a plateauing serum hCG concentration < 1,500 IU/L or with a persisting PUL with plateauing serum hCG concentrations < 2,000 IU/L are eligible for the trial. Patients with a viable EP, signs of tubal rupture/abdominal bleeding, or a contra-indication for MTX will not be included. Expectant management is compared with systemic MTX in a single dose intramuscular regimen (1 mg/kg) in an outpatient setting. Serum hCG levels are monitored weekly; in case of inadequately declining, systemic MTX is installed or continued. In case of hemodynamic instability and/or signs of tubal rupture, surgery is performed. The primary outcome measure is an uneventful decline of serum hCG to an undetectable level by the initial intervention. Secondary outcomes are (re)interventions (additional systemic MTX injections and/or surgery), treatment complications, health related quality of life, financial costs, and future fertility. Analysis is performed according to the intention to treat principle. Quality of life is assessed by questionnaires before and at three time points after randomisation. Costs are expressed as direct costs with data on costs and used resources in the participating centres. Fertility is assessed by questionnaires after 6, 12, 18 and 24 months. Patients' preferences will be assessed using a discrete choice experiment. DISCUSSION:This trial will provide guidance on the present management dilemmas in women with EPs and PULs with low and plateauing serum hCG concentrations. TRIAL REGISTRATION:Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN 48210491.

Project description:BackgroundIn women with late preterm pre-eclampsia, the optimal time to initiate delivery is unclear because limitation of maternal disease progression needs to be balanced against infant complications. The aim of this trial was to determine whether planned earlier initiation of delivery reduces maternal adverse outcomes without substantial worsening of neonatal or infant outcomes, compared with expectant management (usual care) in women with late preterm pre-eclampsia.MethodsIn this parallel-group, non-masked, multicentre, randomised controlled trial done in 46 maternity units across England and Wales, we compared planned delivery versus expectant management (usual care) with individual randomisation in women with late preterm pre-eclampsia from 34 to less than 37 weeks' gestation and a singleton or dichorionic diamniotic twin pregnancy. The co-primary maternal outcome was a composite of maternal morbidity or recorded systolic blood pressure of at least 160 mm Hg with a superiority hypothesis. The co-primary perinatal outcome was a composite of perinatal deaths or neonatal unit admission up to infant hospital discharge with a non-inferiority hypothesis (non-inferiority margin of 10% difference in incidence). Analyses were by intention to treat, together with a per-protocol analysis for the perinatal outcome. The trial was prospectively registered with the ISRCTN registry, ISRCTN01879376. The trial is closed to recruitment but follow-up is ongoing.FindingsBetween Sept 29, 2014, and Dec 10, 2018, 901 women were recruited. 450 women (448 women and 471 infants analysed) were allocated to planned delivery and 451 women (451 women and 475 infants analysed) to expectant management. The incidence of the co-primary maternal outcome was significantly lower in the planned delivery group (289 [65%] women) compared with the expectant management group (338 [75%] women; adjusted relative risk 0·86, 95% CI 0·79-0·94; p=0·0005). The incidence of the co-primary perinatal outcome by intention to treat was significantly higher in the planned delivery group (196 [42%] infants) compared with the expectant management group (159 [34%] infants; 1·26, 1·08-1·47; p=0·0034). The results from the per-protocol analysis were similar. There were nine serious adverse events in the planned delivery group and 12 in the expectant management group.InterpretationThere is strong evidence to suggest that planned delivery reduces maternal morbidity and severe hypertension compared with expectant management, with more neonatal unit admissions related to prematurity but no indicators of greater neonatal morbidity. This trade-off should be discussed with women with late preterm pre-eclampsia to allow shared decision making on timing of delivery.FundingNational Institute for Health Research Health Technology Assessment Programme.

Project description:BackgroundPre-eclampsia is a pregnancy disorder, characterised by hypertension and multisystem complications in the mother. The adverse outcomes of pre-eclampsia include severe hypertension, stroke, renal and hepatic injury, haemorrhage, fetal growth restriction and even death. The optimal time to instigate delivery to prevent morbidity when pre-eclampsia occurs between 34 and 37?weeks' gestation, without increasing problems related to infant immaturity or complications, remains unclear.Methods/designThe PHOENIX trial is a non-masked, randomised controlled trial, comparing planned early delivery (with initiation of delivery within 48?h of randomisation) with usual care (expectant management) in women with pre-eclampsia between 34+?0 and 36+?6 weeks' gestation. The primary objectives of the trial are to determine if planned delivery reduces adverse maternal outcomes, without increasing the short-term harm to infants (composite of perinatal deaths or neonatal unit admissions up to infant hospital discharge) or impacting long-term infant neurodevelopmental status at 2 years corrected age (Parent Report of Cognitive Abilities-Revised).DiscussionCurrent practice in the UK at the time of trial commencement for management of pre-eclampsia varies by gestation. Previous trials have shown that in women with pre-eclampsia after 37?weeks of gestion, delivery is initiated, as maternal complications are reduced without increasing fetal risks. Prior to 34?weeks of gestation, usual management aims to prolong pregnancy for fetal benefit, unless severe complications occur, necessitating preterm delivery. This trial aims to address the uncertainty for women where the balance of benefits and risks of delivery compared to expectant management are uncertain. Previous trials in this area have been undertaken, but have not provided a definitive answer, and the research question remains active. The results of this trial are expected to influence clinical practice internationally, through direct adoption and by incorporation into guidelines in countries with similar settings.Trial registrationISRCTN01879376 . Registered on 25 November 2013.

Project description:INTRODUCTION:Many subfertile couples are diagnosed with (relatively) unexplained subfertility and a good prognosis. National professional guidelines (eg, the Netherlands and UK) advise 'expectant management (EM)' for 6-12 months, in which no interaction with healthcare staff is offered. Underpowered studies indicate that face-to-face sex-counselling increases the ongoing pregnancy rates of these couples. In patients with other conditions, web-based interactive educational programmes have the same effect on sexual functioning as face-to-face sex counselling. The 'Pleasure&Pregnancy randomised controlled trial (RCT)' will examine in couples with unexplained subfertility and a good prognosis whether a new web-based interactive educational programme results in a higher chance of naturally conceiving an ongoing pregnancy within 6 months as compared with EM. METHODS AND ANALYSIS:A multicentre RCT with cost-effectiveness analysis will include heterosexual couples diagnosed with (relatively) unexplained subfertility and a good prognosis in Dutch and Belgian secondary or tertiary fertility clinics. Couples will be randomised between 6 months of EM and 6 months of the Pleasure&Pregnancy-programme. This new web-based interactive educational programme includes eight progressive modules of information (on the biology of conception and pleasurable sex) and sensate focus, couple communication and mindfulness exercises. Couples are offered interaction with their coaches via email and can take part in three moderated chat sessions with peers. The primary outcome of this RCT is the probability of naturally conceiving an ongoing pregnancy within 6 months after randomisation. Secondary outcomes include time-to-pregnancy, live birth rate, costs, sexual functioning and personal and relational well-being. Analysis will be according to intention to treat. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION:This study has been approved by the Medical Ethical Committees of the Academic Medical Centre (the Netherlands) and the Leuven University Hospital (Belgium). The findings of this RCT will be disseminated through presentations at international scientific meetings and peer-reviewed publications. TRAIL REGISTRATION NUMBER:NTR5709; Pre-results.

Project description:BACKGROUND:The anti-progesterone drug mifepristone and the prostaglandin misoprostol can be used to treat missed miscarriage. However, it is unclear whether a combination of mifepristone and misoprostol is more effective than administering misoprostol alone. We investigated whether treatment with mifepristone plus misoprostol would result in a higher rate of completion of missed miscarriage compared with misoprostol alone. METHODS:MifeMiso was a multicentre, double-blind, placebo-controlled, randomised trial in 28 UK hospitals. Women were eligible for enrolment if they were aged 16 years and older, diagnosed with a missed miscarriage by pelvic ultrasound scan in the first 14 weeks of pregnancy, chose to have medical management of miscarriage, and were willing and able to give informed consent. Participants were randomly assigned (1:1) to a single dose of oral mifepristone 200 mg or an oral placebo tablet, both followed by a single dose of vaginal, oral, or sublingual misoprostol 800 ?g 2 days later. Randomisation was managed via a secure web-based randomisation program, with minimisation to balance study group assignments according to maternal age (<30 years vs ?30 years), body-mass index (<35 kg/m2vs ?35 kg/m2), previous parity (nulliparous women vs parous women), gestational age (<70 days vs ?70 days), amount of bleeding (Pictorial Blood Assessment Chart score; ?2 vs ?3), and randomising centre. Participants, clinicians, pharmacists, trial nurses, and midwives were masked to study group assignment throughout the trial. The primary outcome was failure to spontaneously pass the gestational sac within 7 days after random assignment. Primary analyses were done according to intention-to-treat principles. The trial is registered with the ISRCTN registry, ISRCTN17405024. FINDINGS:Between Oct 3, 2017, and July 22, 2019, 2595 women were identified as being eligible for the MifeMiso trial. 711 women were randomly assigned to receive either mifepristone and misoprostol (357 women) or placebo and misoprostol (354 women). 696 (98%) of 711 women had available data for the primary outcome. 59 (17%) of 348 women in the mifepristone plus misoprostol group did not pass the gestational sac spontaneously within 7 days versus 82 (24%) of 348 women in the placebo plus misoprostol group (risk ratio [RR] 0·73, 95% CI 0·54-0·99; p=0·043). 62 (17%) of 355 women in the mifepristone plus misoprostol group required surgical intervention to complete the miscarriage versus 87 (25%) of 353 women in the placebo plus misoprostol group (0·71, 0·53-0·95; p=0·021). We found no difference in incidence of adverse events between the study groups. INTERPRETATION:Treatment with mifepristone plus misoprostol was more effective than misoprostol alone in the management of missed miscarriage. Women with missed miscarriage should be offered mifepristone pretreatment before misoprostol to increase the chance of successful miscarriage management, while reducing the need for miscarriage surgery. FUNDING:UK National Institute for Health Research Health Technology Assessment Programme.

Project description:Large numbers of women who participate in cervical screening require follow-up for minor cytological abnormalities. Little is known about the psychological consequences of alternative management policies for these women. We compared, over 30-months, psychosocial outcomes of two policies: cytological surveillance (repeat cervical cytology tests in primary care) and a hospital-based colposcopy examination.Women attending for a routine cytology test within the UK NHS Cervical Screening Programmes were eligible to participate. 3399 women, aged 20-59 years, with low-grade abnormal cytology, were randomised to cytological surveillance (six-monthly tests; n = 1703) or initial colposcopy with biopsies and/or subsequent treatment based on colposcopic and histological findings (n = 1696). At 12, 18, 24 and 30-months post-recruitment, women completed the Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale (HADS). A subgroup (n = 2354) completed the Impact of Event Scale (IES) six weeks after the colposcopy episode or first surveillance cytology test. Primary outcomes were percentages over the entire follow-up period of significant depression (? 8) and significant anxiety (? 11; "30-month percentages"). Secondary outcomes were point prevalences of significant depression, significant anxiety and procedure-related distress (? 9). Outcomes were compared between arms by calculating fully-adjusted odds ratios (ORs) for initial colposcopy versus cytological surveillance.There was no significant difference in 30-month percentages of significant depression (OR = 0.99, 95% CI 0.80-1.21) or anxiety (OR = 0.97, 95% CI 0.81-1.16) between arms. At the six-week assessment, anxiety and distress, but not depression, were significantly less common in the initial colposcopy arm (anxiety: 7.9% vs 13.4%; OR = 0.55, 95% CI 0.38-0.81; distress: 30.6% vs 39.3%, OR = 0.67 95% CI 0.54-0.84). Neither anxiety nor depression differed between arms at subsequent time-points.There was no difference in the longer-term psychosocial impact of management policies based on cytological surveillance or initial colposcopy. Policy-makers, clinicians, and women themselves can be reassured that neither management policy has a significantly greater psychosocial cost.Controlled-Trials.com ISRCTN 34841617.