B Harwood1, T Nansel. 1. Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, University of Illinois at Chicago College of Medicine, Chicago, IL 60612, USA. brynah@uic.edu
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: This study compares quality of life (QOL) and acceptability of medical versus surgical treatment of early pregnancy failure (EPF). DESIGN: A randomised clinical trial of treatment for EPF compared misoprostol vaginally versus vacuum aspiration (VA). SETTING: A multisite trial at four US Urban University Hospitals. POPULATION: A total of 652 women with an EPF were randomised to treatment. METHODS: Participants completed a daily symptom diary and a questionnaire 2 weeks after treatment. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The questionnaire assessment included subscales of the Short Form-36 Health Survey Revised for QOL and measures of wellbeing, recovery difficulties, and treatment acceptability. RESULTS: The two groups did not differ in mean scores for QOL except bodily pain; medical treatment was associated with higher levels of bodily pain than VA (P < 0.001). Success of treatment was not related to QOL, but acceptability of the procedure was decreased for medical therapy if unsuccessful (P = 0.003). Type of treatment was not associated with differences in recovery, and the two groups reported similar acceptability except for cramping (P = 0.02), bleeding (P < 0.001), and symptom duration (P = 0.03). CONCLUSIONS: Despite reporting greater pain and lower acceptability of treatment-related symptoms, QOL and treatment acceptability were similar for medical and surgical treatment of EPF. Acceptability, but not QOL, was influenced by success or failure of medical management.
RCT Entities:
OBJECTIVE: This study compares quality of life (QOL) and acceptability of medical versus surgical treatment of early pregnancy failure (EPF). DESIGN: A randomised clinical trial of treatment for EPF compared misoprostol vaginally versus vacuum aspiration (VA). SETTING: A multisite trial at four US Urban University Hospitals. POPULATION: A total of 652 women with an EPF were randomised to treatment. METHODS:Participants completed a daily symptom diary and a questionnaire 2 weeks after treatment. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The questionnaire assessment included subscales of the Short Form-36 Health Survey Revised for QOL and measures of wellbeing, recovery difficulties, and treatment acceptability. RESULTS: The two groups did not differ in mean scores for QOL except bodily pain; medical treatment was associated with higher levels of bodily pain than VA (P < 0.001). Success of treatment was not related to QOL, but acceptability of the procedure was decreased for medical therapy if unsuccessful (P = 0.003). Type of treatment was not associated with differences in recovery, and the two groups reported similar acceptability except for cramping (P = 0.02), bleeding (P < 0.001), and symptom duration (P = 0.03). CONCLUSIONS: Despite reporting greater pain and lower acceptability of treatment-related symptoms, QOL and treatment acceptability were similar for medical and surgical treatment of EPF. Acceptability, but not QOL, was influenced by success or failure of medical management.
Authors: Premila W Ashok; Avril Kidd; Gillian M M Flett; Ann Fitzmaurice; Wendy Graham; Allan Templeton Journal: Hum Reprod Date: 2002-01 Impact factor: 6.918
Authors: Margreet Wieringa-De Waard; Esther E Hartman; Willem M Ankum; Johannes B Reitsma; Patrick J E Bindels; Gouke J Bonsel Journal: Hum Reprod Date: 2002-06 Impact factor: 6.918
Authors: Vanessa K Dalton; Lisa H Harris; Jason D Bell; Jay Schulkin; Jodi Steinauer; Melissa Zochowski; A Mark Fendrick Journal: Am J Obstet Gynecol Date: 2011-03-17 Impact factor: 8.661
Authors: Mary Rausch; Scott Lorch; Karine Chung; Margaret Frederick; Jun Zhang; Kurt Barnhart Journal: Fertil Steril Date: 2011-12-21 Impact factor: 7.329
Authors: Vanessa K Dalton; Lisa H Harris; Katherine J Gold; Lisa Kane-Low; Jay Schulkin; Ken Guire; A Mark Fendrick Journal: Am J Obstet Gynecol Date: 2010-03-15 Impact factor: 8.661
Authors: Marike Lemmers; Marianne Ac Verschoor; Bobae Veronica Kim; Martha Hickey; Juan C Vazquez; Ben Willem J Mol; James P Neilson Journal: Cochrane Database Syst Rev Date: 2019-06-17
Authors: Jay Ghosh; Argyro Papadopoulou; Adam J Devall; Hannah C Jeffery; Leanne E Beeson; Vivian Do; Malcolm J Price; Aurelio Tobias; Özge Tunçalp; Antonella Lavelanet; Ahmet Metin Gülmezoglu; Arri Coomarasamy; Ioannis D Gallos Journal: Cochrane Database Syst Rev Date: 2021-06-01