Dataset Information

Intrauterine Device Placement During Cesarean Delivery and Continued Use 6 Months Postpartum: A Randomized Controlled Trial.

ABSTRACT:

Objective

To compare intrauterine device (IUD) use at 6 months postpartum among women who underwent intracesarean delivery (during cesarean delivery) IUD placement compared with women who planned for interval IUD placement 6 or more weeks postpartum.

Methods

In this nonblinded randomized trial, women who were undergoing a cesarean delivery and desired an IUD were randomized to intracesarean delivery or interval IUD placement. The primary outcome was IUD use at 6 months postpartum. A sample size of 112 (56 in each group) was planned to detect a 15% difference in IUD use at 6 months postpartum between groups.

Results

From March 2012 to June 2014, 172 women were screened and 112 women were randomized into the trial. Baseline characteristics were similar between groups. Data regarding IUD use at 6 months postpartum were available for 98 women, 48 and 50 women in the intracesarean delivery and interval groups, respectively. A larger proportion of the women in the intracesarean delivery group were using an IUD at 6 months postpartum (40/48 [83%]) compared with those in the interval group (32/50 [64%], relative risk 1.3, 95% confidence interval 1.02-1.66). Among the 56 women randomized to interval IUD insertion, 22 (39%) of them never received an IUD; 14 (25%) never returned for IUD placement, five (9%) women declined an IUD, and three (5%) had a failed IUD placement.

Conclusion

Intrauterine device placement at the time of cesarean delivery leads to a higher proportion of IUD use at 6 months postpartum when compared with interval IUD placement.

Level of evidence

SUBMITTER: Levi EE

PROVIDER: S-EPMC5354629 | biostudies-literature | 2015 Jul

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Intrauterine Device Placement During Cesarean Delivery and Continued Use 6 Months Postpartum: A Randomized Controlled Trial.

Levi Erika E EE Stuart Gretchen S GS Zerden Matthew L ML Garrett Joanne M JM Bryant Amy G AG

Obstetrics and gynecology 20150701 1

<h4>Objective</h4>To compare intrauterine device (IUD) use at 6 months postpartum among women who underwent intracesarean delivery (during cesarean delivery) IUD placement compared with women who planned for interval IUD placement 6 or more weeks postpartum.<h4>Methods</h4>In this nonblinded randomized trial, women who were undergoing a cesarean delivery and desired an IUD were randomized to intracesarean delivery or interval IUD placement. The primary outcome was IUD use at 6 months postpartum. ...[more]

PMID: 26241250

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundSeveral studies have investigated the effectiveness of intrauterine device placement at cesarean delivery as a contraceptive method. However, national-level use and outcomes of a postplacental intrauterine device at cesarean delivery are currently understudied in the United States.ObjectiveThis study aimed to examine the trends, characteristics, and outcomes of patients who received a postplacental intrauterine device at cesarean delivery.Study designThis retrospective cohort study used the National Inpatient Sample. The study cohort included patients who underwent cesarean delivery from October 2015 to December 2018. The exclusion criteria included hemorrhage, chorioamnionitis, uterine anomaly, hysterectomy, and permanent surgical sterilization. Eligible cases were grouped on the basis of the use of a postplacental intrauterine device at cesarean delivery. The primary outcome measures were temporal trends and characteristics associated with the use of a postplacental intrauterine device at cesarean delivery, assessed using the generalized estimating equation model in multivariable analysis. The secondary outcome measure was perioperative morbidity (leukocytosis, endometritis, myometritis, and sepsis). Propensity score matching was used to balance the baseline characteristics.ResultsAmong 2,983,978 patients who met the inclusion criteria, 10,145 patients (0.3%) received a postplacental intrauterine device at cesarean delivery. The use of a postplacental intrauterine device increased from 0.1% in the fourth quarter of 2015 to 0.6% in the fourth quarter of 2018 (P<.001). In a multivariable analysis, the use of a postplacental intrauterine device increased by 14% every quarter-year (adjusted odds ratio, 1.14; 95% confidence interval, 1.13-1.15). In addition, (1) patient characteristics of young age, non-White race, obesity, tobacco use, lowest quartile median household income, and insured with Medicaid; (2) hospital characteristics of large bed capacity and urban teaching setting in Northeast region; and (3) pregnancy characteristics of early gestational age at cesarean delivery, hypertensive disease, previous cesarean delivery, multifetal pregnancy, grand multiparity, placenta previa, and nonelective cesarean delivery represented the independent characteristics associated with the use of a postplacental intrauterine device (all P<.05). A regression tree model identified 35 discrete patterns of the use of a postplacental intrauterine device based on 8 factors (time, race or ethnicity, primary expected payer, obesity, hospital bed capacity, hospital teaching status, hospital region, and previous cesarean delivery). There were 9 patterns, representing 8.8% of the study population, exhibiting a use rate of ≥1.0%, whereas there were 7 patterns, representing 16.0% of the study population, exhibiting no use of a postplacental intrauterine device (absolute rate difference from the highest group to the lowest group, 4.7%). In a propensity score-matched model, postplacental intrauterine device placement at cesarean delivery was not associated with increased risk of measured morbidity (any, 1.8% vs 1.7%; odds ratio, 1.06; 95% confidence interval, 0.66-1.69; P=.812), including postpartum endometritis (1.2% vs 1.0%; odds ratio, 1.19; 95% confidence interval, 0.67-2.14; P=.554).ConclusionThe use of a postplacental intrauterine device at cesarean delivery increased significantly in recent years in the United States.

Project description:ImportanceThe early postpartum period, 2 to 4 weeks after birth, may be a convenient time for intrauterine device (IUD) placement; the placement could then coincide with early postpartum or well-baby visits.ObjectiveTo determine expulsion rates for IUDs placed early postpartum compared with those placed at the standard interval 6-week visit.Design, setting, and participantsIn this randomized noninferiority trial, people who had a vaginal or cesarean birth were randomly assigned to undergo early (14-28 days) or interval (42-56 days) postpartum IUD placement. Clinicians blinded to participant study group used transvaginal ultrasonography to confirm IUD presence and position at the 6-month postpartum follow-up. The study assessed 642 postpartum people from 4 US medical centers, enrolled a consecutive sample of 404 participants from March 2018 to July 2021, and followed up each participant for 6 months postpartum.InterventionsEarly postpartum IUD placement, at 2 to 4 weeks postpartum, vs standard interval placement 6 to 8 weeks postpartum.Main outcomes and measuresThe primary outcome was complete IUD expulsion by 6 months postpartum; the prespecified noninferiority margin was 6%. Secondary outcomes were partial IUD expulsion, IUD removal, pelvic infection, patient satisfaction, uterine perforation, pregnancy, and IUD use at 6 months postpartum. IUD malposition was an exploratory outcome.ResultsAmong 404 enrolled participants, 203 participants were randomly assigned to undergo early IUD placement and 201 to undergo interval IUD placement (mean [SD] age, 29.9 [5.4] years; 46 [11.4%] were Black, 228 [56.4%] were White, and 175 [43.3%] were Hispanic). By 6 months postpartum, 53 participants (13%) never had an IUD placed and 57 (14%) were lost to follow-up. Among the 294 participants (73%) who received an IUD and completed 6-month follow-up, complete expulsion rates were 3 of 149 (2.0% [95% CI, 0.4%-5.8%]) in the early placement group and 0 of 145 (0% [95% CI, 0.0%-2.5%]) in the interval placement group (between-group difference, 2.0 [95% CI, -0.5 to 5.7] percentage points). Partial expulsion occurred in 14 (9.4% [95% CI, 5.2%-15.3%]) participants in the early placement group and 11 (7.6% [95% CI, 3.9%-13.2%]) participants in the interval placement group (between-group difference, 1.8 [95% CI, -4.8 to 8.6] percentage points). IUD use at 6 months was similar between the groups: 141 (69.5% [95% CI, 62.6%-75.7%]) participants in the early group vs 139 (67.2% [95% CI, 60.2%-73.6%]) in the interval group.Conclusions and relevanceEarly IUD placement at 2 to 4 weeks postpartum compared with 6 to 8 weeks postpartum was noninferior for complete expulsion, but not partial expulsion. Understanding the risk of expulsion at these time points may help patients and clinicians make informed choices about the timing of IUD placement.Trial registrationClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT03462758.

Project description:ObjectiveTo investigate whether a 20-mL buffered 1% lidocaine paracervical block decreases pain during intrauterine device (IUD) placement.MethodsIn a randomized, single-blind, placebo-controlled trial, women were assigned to receive either a 20-mL buffered 1% lidocaine paracervical block or no block before IUD placement. The primary outcome was pain with IUD placement measured on a 100-mm visual analog scale. Our sample size had 80% power (α=0.05) to detect a 20-mm difference in visual analog scale scores with a SD of 28 mm. Secondary outcomes included pain with speculum placement, paracervical block administration, tenaculum placement, 5 minutes postprocedure, and overall pain perception.ResultsFrom October 7, 2014, through October 26, 2017, 64 women were enrolled and analyzed (33 in the paracervical block arm, 31 in the no-block arm). There were no differences in baseline demographics between the groups. Women who received the paracervical block reported less pain with IUD placement compared with women who received no block (median visual analog scale score of 33 mm vs 54 mm, P=.002). Pain was significantly less in the intervention group for uterine sounding (30 mm vs 47 mm, P=.005), 5 minutes after placement (12 mm vs 27 mm, P=.005), and overall pain perception (30 mm vs 51 mm, P=.015). Participants who received the paracervical block experienced more pain with block administration compared with placebo (30 mm vs 8 mm, P=.003). There was no perceived pain difference for speculum insertion (10 mm vs 6 mm, P=.447) or tenaculum placement (15 mm vs 10 mm, P=.268).ConclusionA 20-mL buffered 1% lidocaine paracervical block decreases pain with IUD placement (primary outcome), uterine sounding (secondary outcome), and 5 minutes after placement (secondary outcome). Although paracervical block administration can be painful, perception of pain for overall IUD placement procedure is lower compared with no block.Clinical trial registrationClinicalTrials.gov, NCT02219308.

Project description:IntroductionPercutaneous auricular nerve stimulation has been used for the treatment of symptoms associated with opioid withdrawal, including abdominal pain, nausea, and general discomfort. However, its potential utility for pain management and opioid minimization after surgery has not been investigated. The purpose of this study was to test the feasibility and acceptability of a trial protocol designed to assess the effectiveness of the NSS2-Bridge device as a non-pharmacologic alternative to opioids after cesarean delivery.MethodsIn a randomized control design, healthy women receiving cesarean delivery were randomized to receive the active device, placebo device, or no device. Devices were placed on the ear following cesarean delivery and left in place for 5 days. Feasibility and acceptability of the device was assessed by patient reports of device tolerability (rated on a 100mm visual analog scale where 0 is not tolerable at all and 100 is the most tolerable) as well as qualitative reporting. Additional outcomes assessed included proportion of patients not using opioids in hospital, as well as pain at rest, pain with movement, and total opioid consumption in the hospital and for the first 5 days after surgery.ResultsThere were 60 patients included in the final analysis. Device tolerability was rated highly, with an average daily score of >75 mm on the visual analog scale. The trial retention rate was 89.7% with most exclusions (42.9%) occurring due to unanticipated development of care complexity (e.g., hemorrhage and additional surgical procedures), with only 1 exclusion (14.3%) due to device discomfort. The active device group achieved the highest proportion of opioid-free hospitalizations (40%) compared to placebo (20%) and no device groups (30%). Pain at rest and with movement was similar between treatment groups.ConclusionsThis trial protocol designed to test the efficacy of NSS2-Bridge device for post-cesarean pain management is feasible and acceptable. Larger proportions of patients not using opioids in the active device group justifies additional investigation on device effectiveness in pregnant and postpartum people at highest risk for pain.

Project description:ImportanceIntrauterine device (IUD) expulsion increases the risk of unintended pregnancy; how timing of postpartum IUD insertion and breastfeeding are associated with risk of expulsion is relevant to the benefit-risk profile.ObjectiveTo evaluate the association of postpartum timing of IUD insertion and breastfeeding status with incidence and risk of IUD expulsion.Design, setting, and participantsThe Association of Perforation and Expulsion of Intrauterine Devices (APEX-IUD) cohort study included women aged 50 years or younger with an IUD insertion between 2001 and 2018. The breastfeeding analysis focused on a subcohort of women at 52 or fewer weeks post partum with known breastfeeding status. The study was conducted using data from electronic health records (EHRs) at 4 research sites with access to EHR: 3 Kaiser Permanente sites (Northern California, Southern California, Washington) and the Regenstrief Institute (Indiana). Data analysis was conducted from June to November 2019.ExposuresTiming of IUD insertion post partum was categorized into discrete time periods: 0 to 3 days, 4 days to 6 or fewer weeks, more than 6 weeks to 14 or fewer weeks, more than 14 weeks to 52 or fewer weeks, and non-post partum (>52 weeks or no evidence of delivery). Breastfeeding status at the time of insertion was determined from clinical records, diagnostic codes, or questionnaires from well-baby visits.Main outcomes and measuresIncidence rates and adjusted hazard ratios (aHRs) were estimated using propensity scores to adjust for confounding.ResultsThe full cohort included 326 658 women (mean [SD] age, 32.0 [8.3] years; 38 911 [11.9%] Asian or Pacific Islander; 696 [0.2%] Hispanic Black; 56 180 [17.2%] Hispanic other; 42 501 [13.0%] Hispanic White; 28 323 [8.7%] non-Hispanic Black; 137 102 [42.0%] non-Hispanic White), and the subcohort included 94 817 women. Most IUDs were levonorgestrel-releasing (259 234 [79.4%]). There were 8943 expulsions. The 5-year cumulative incidence of IUD expulsion was highest for insertions 0 to 3 days post partum (10.73%; 95% CI, 9.12%-12.61%) and lowest for insertions more than 6 weeks to 14 or fewer weeks post partum (3.18%; 95% CI, 2.95%-3.42%). Adjusted HRs using women with non-post partum IUD insertion as the referent were 5.34 (95% CI, 4.47-6.39) for those with postpartum insertion at 0 to 3 days; 1.22 (95% CI, 1.05-1.41) for those with postpartum insertion at 4 days to 6 or fewer weeks; 1.06 (95% CI, 0.95-1.18) for those with postpartum insertion at more than 6 to 14 or fewer weeks; and 1.43 (95% CI, 1.29-1.60) for those with postpartum insertion at more than 14 to 52 or fewer weeks. In the subcohort, 5-year cumulative incidence was 3.49% (95% CI, 3.25%-3.73%) for breastfeeding women and 4.57% (95% CI, 4.22%-4.95%) for nonbreastfeeding women; the adjusted HR for breastfeeding vs not breastfeeding was 0.71 (95% CI, 0.64-0.78).Conclusions and relevanceIn this study of real-world data, IUD expulsion was rare but more common with immediate postpartum insertion. Breastfeeding was associated with lower expulsion risk.

Dataset Information

Intrauterine Device Placement During Cesarean Delivery and Continued Use 6 Months Postpartum: A Randomized Controlled Trial.

Objective

Methods

Results

Conclusion

Level of evidence

Publications

Intrauterine Device Placement During Cesarean Delivery and Continued Use 6 Months Postpartum: A Randomized Controlled Trial.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets