Second-Trimester Abortion for Fetal Anomalies or Fetal Death Labor Induction Compared With Dilation and Evacuation

被引:68
作者
Bryant, Amy G. [1 ]
Grimes, David A. [1 ]
Garrett, Joanne M. [1 ]
Stuart, Gretchen S. [1 ]
机构
[1] Univ N Carolina, Dept Obstet & Gynecol, Chapel Hill, NC USA
关键词
PREGNANCY TERMINATION; TRIMESTER ABORTION; MIDTRIMESTER-ABORTION; DILATATION; ABNORMALITIES; MISOPROSTOL; DIAGNOSIS; TRIAL; RISK;
D O I
10.1097/AOG.0b013e31820c3d26
中图分类号
R71 [妇产科学];
学科分类号
100211 ;
摘要
OBJECTIVE: To compare the safety and effectiveness of dilation and evacuation (D&E) and labor-induction abortion performed for fetal anomalies or fetal death in the second trimester. METHODS: We performed a retrospective cohort study of second-trimester abortions performed for fetal indications. We compared the frequency of complications and effectiveness of abortions performed at 13-24 weeks for these indications. We calculated proportions of patients with complications for these two methods and controlled for confounding using a log binomial model. RESULTS: Labor-induction abortions had higher complication rates and lower effectiveness than did D&E. Thirty-two of 136 women undergoing labor induction (24%) experienced one or more complications, in contrast to 9 of 263 women (3%) undergoing D&E (unadjusted relative risk 6.9 [95% confidence interval 3.4-14.0]). When controlled for confounding, the adjusted risk ratio for labor induction was 8.5 (95% confidence interval 3.7-19.8) compared with D&E. CONCLUSION: Dilation and evacuation is significantly safer and more effective than labor induction for second-trimester abortion for fetal indications. Bias and chance are unlikely explanations for these large discrepancies. Women facing this difficult decision should be offered a choice of methods and be provided information about their comparative safety and effectiveness. (Obstet Gynecol 2011; 117: 788-92) DOI: 10.1097/AOG.0b013e31820c3d26
引用
收藏
页码:788 / 792
页数:5
相关论文
共 27 条
[1]  
[Anonymous], 2005, American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists. Obstetrics Gynecology, V106, P1127, DOI https://doi.org/10.1097/00006250-200511000-00058
[2]   A comparison of medical induction and dilation and evacuation for second-trimester abortion [J].
Autry, AM ;
Hayes, EC ;
Jacobson, GF ;
Kirby, RS .
AMERICAN JOURNAL OF OBSTETRICS AND GYNECOLOGY, 2002, 187 (02) :393-397
[3]   A randomized clinical trial of the addition of laminaria to misoprostol and hypertonic saline for second-trimester induction abortion [J].
Borgatta, L ;
Chen, AY ;
Vragovic, O ;
Stubblefield, PG ;
Magloire, CA .
CONTRACEPTION, 2005, 72 (05) :358-361
[4]   An Historical Overview of Second Trimester Abortion Methods [J].
Bygdeman, Marc ;
Gemzell-Danielsson, Kristina .
REPRODUCTIVE HEALTH MATTERS, 2008, 16 (31) :196-204
[5]  
Eskild A, 2000, Tidsskr Nor Laegeforen, V120, P1000
[6]   Second Trimester Medical Abortion with Mifepristone-Misoprostol and Misoprostol Alone: A Review of Methods and Management [J].
Gewell-Danielsson, Kristina ;
Lalitkumar, Sujata .
REPRODUCTIVE HEALTH MATTERS, 2008, 16 (31) :162-172
[7]   MIDTRIMESTER-ABORTION BY DILATATION AND EVACUATION VERSUS INTRA-AMNIOTIC INSTILLATION OF PROSTAGLANDIN-F2-ALPHA - A RANDOMIZED CLINICAL-TRIAL [J].
GRIMES, DA ;
HULKA, JF ;
MCCUTCHEN, ME .
AMERICAN JOURNAL OF OBSTETRICS AND GYNECOLOGY, 1980, 137 (07) :785-790
[8]   Mifepristone and misoprostol versus dilation and evacuation for midtrimester abortion:: a pilot randomised controlled trial [J].
Grimes, DA ;
Smith, MS ;
Witham, AD .
BJOG-AN INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF OBSTETRICS AND GYNAECOLOGY, 2004, 111 (02) :148-153
[9]   MID-TRIMESTER ABORTION BY DILATATION AND EVACUATION - SAFE AND PRACTICAL ALTERNATIVE [J].
GRIMES, DA ;
SCHULZ, KF ;
CATES, W ;
TYLER, CW .
NEW ENGLAND JOURNAL OF MEDICINE, 1977, 296 (20) :1141-1145
[10]   The Choice of Second Trimester Abortion Method: Evolution, Evidence and Ethics [J].
Grimes, David A. .
REPRODUCTIVE HEALTH MATTERS, 2008, 16 (31) :183-188