Erika E Levi1, Gretchen S Stuart, Matthew L Zerden, Joanne M Garrett, Amy G Bryant. 1. Division of Family Planning and Global Health, Department of Obstetrics & Gynecology and Women's Health, Albert Einstein College of Medicine, Bronx, New York; and the Division of Family Planning, Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill, North Carolina.
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: I.
RCT Entities:
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: I.
Authors: Ana Lúcia Letti Müller; José Geraldo Lopes Ramos; Sérgio H Martins-Costa; Ricardo S Palma Dias; Edimárlei G Valério; Luciano S Hammes; Cristina L Glitz; Angela E Zucatto; Daniela V Vettori; José Antonio A Magalhães Journal: Contraception Date: 2005-09 Impact factor: 3.375
Authors: Abigail R A Aiken; Mitchell D Creinin; Andrew M Kaunitz; Anita L Nelson; James Trussell Journal: Contraception Date: 2014-08-07 Impact factor: 3.375
Authors: Elizabeth P Gurney; Sarita Sonalkar; Arden McAllister; Mary D Sammel; Courtney A Schreiber Journal: Am J Obstet Gynecol Date: 2018-06-02 Impact factor: 8.661
Authors: Sarah H Averbach; Yokabed Ermias; Gary Jeng; Kathryn M Curtis; Maura K Whiteman; Erin Berry-Bibee; Denise J Jamieson; Polly A Marchbanks; Naomi K Tepper; Tara C Jatlaoui Journal: Am J Obstet Gynecol Date: 2020-03-03 Impact factor: 8.661
Authors: Blair G Darney; Sandra G Sosa-Rubi; Edson Servan-Mori; Maria I Rodriguez; Dilys Walker; Rafael Lozano Journal: Contraception Date: 2016-01-30 Impact factor: 3.375