Kayla N Anderson1, Naomi K Tepper2, Karrie Downing3, Elizabeth C Ailes3, Ginnie Abarbanell4, Sherry L Farr3. 1. Division of Birth Defects and Infant Disorders, National Center on Birth Defects and Developmental Disabilities, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Atlanta, GA, USA. Electronic address: KAnderson5@cdc.gov. 2. Division of Reproductive Health, National Center for Chronic Disease Prevention and Health Promotion, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Atlanta, GA, USA. 3. Division of Birth Defects and Infant Disorders, National Center on Birth Defects and Developmental Disabilities, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Atlanta, GA, USA. 4. Department of Pediatrics, Division of Pediatric Cardiology, Washington University School of Medicine/St. Louis Children's Hospital, St. Louis, MO, USA.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The American Heart Association recommends women with congenital heart defects (CHD) receive contraceptive counseling early in their reproductive years, but little is known about contraceptive method use among women with CHD. We describe recent female sterilization and reversible prescription contraceptive method use by presence of CHD and CHD severity in 2014. METHODS: Using IBM MarketScan Commercial Databases, we included women aged 15 to 44 years with prescription drug coverage in 2014 who were enrolled ≥11 months annually in employer-sponsored health plans between 2011 and 2014. CHD, CHD severity, contraceptive methods, and obstetrics-gynecology and cardiology provider encounters were identified using billing codes. We used log-binomial regression to calculate adjusted prevalence ratios (aPRs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) to compare contraceptive method use overall and by effectiveness tier by CHD presence and, for women with CHD, severity. RESULTS: Recent sterilization or current reversible prescription contraceptive method use varied slightly among women with (39.2%) and without (37.3%) CHD, aPR = 1.04, 95% CI [1.01-1.07]. Women with CHD were more likely to use any Tier I method (12.9%) than women without CHD (9.3%), aPR = 1.41, 95% CI [1.33-1.50]. Women with severe, compared to non-severe, CHD were less likely to use any method, aPR = 0.85, 95% CI [0.78-0.92], or Tier I method, aPR = 0.84, 95% CI [0.70-0.99]. Approximately 60% of women with obstetrics-gynecology and <40% with cardiology encounters used any included method. CONCLUSIONS: There may be missed opportunities for providers to improve uptake of safe, effective contraceptive methods for women with CHD who wish to avoid pregnancy. Published by Elsevier Inc.
BACKGROUND: The American Heart Association recommends women with congenital heart defects (CHD) receive contraceptive counseling early in their reproductive years, but little is known about contraceptive method use among women with CHD. We describe recent female sterilization and reversible prescription contraceptive method use by presence of CHD and CHD severity in 2014. METHODS: Using IBM MarketScan Commercial Databases, we included women aged 15 to 44 years with prescription drug coverage in 2014 who were enrolled ≥11 months annually in employer-sponsored health plans between 2011 and 2014. CHD, CHD severity, contraceptive methods, and obstetrics-gynecology and cardiology provider encounters were identified using billing codes. We used log-binomial regression to calculate adjusted prevalence ratios (aPRs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) to compare contraceptive method use overall and by effectiveness tier by CHD presence and, for women with CHD, severity. RESULTS: Recent sterilization or current reversible prescription contraceptive method use varied slightly among women with (39.2%) and without (37.3%) CHD, aPR = 1.04, 95% CI [1.01-1.07]. Women with CHD were more likely to use any Tier I method (12.9%) than women without CHD (9.3%), aPR = 1.41, 95% CI [1.33-1.50]. Women with severe, compared to non-severe, CHD were less likely to use any method, aPR = 0.85, 95% CI [0.78-0.92], or Tier I method, aPR = 0.84, 95% CI [0.70-0.99]. Approximately 60% of women with obstetrics-gynecology and <40% with cardiology encounters used any included method. CONCLUSIONS: There may be missed opportunities for providers to improve uptake of safe, effective contraceptive methods for women with CHD who wish to avoid pregnancy. Published by Elsevier Inc.
Authors: Pamela D Miner; Mary M Canobbio; Dorothy D Pearson; Mary Schlater; Yvonne Balon; Kathryn J Junge; Ami Bhatt; Deena Barber; Michelle J Nickolaus; Adrienne H Kovacs; Philip Moons; Kate Shaw; Susan M Fernandes Journal: Am J Cardiol Date: 2016-12-18 Impact factor: 2.778
Authors: Karen K Stout; Curt J Daniels; Jamil A Aboulhosn; Biykem Bozkurt; Craig S Broberg; Jack M Colman; Stephen R Crumb; Joseph A Dearani; Stephanie Fuller; Michelle Gurvitz; Paul Khairy; Michael J Landzberg; Arwa Saidi; Anne Marie Valente; George F Van Hare Journal: Circulation Date: 2019-04-02 Impact factor: 29.690
Authors: Elizabeth C Ailes; Regina M Simeone; April L Dawson; Emily E Petersen; Suzanne M Gilboa Journal: Birth Defects Res A Clin Mol Teratol Date: 2016-11
Authors: Fred H Rodriguez; Georges Ephrem; Jennifer F Gerardin; Cheryl Raskind-Hood; Carol Hogue; Wendy Book Journal: Congenit Heart Dis Date: 2017-12-20 Impact factor: 2.007
Authors: Jennifer L Thompson; Elena V Kuklina; Brian T Bateman; William M Callaghan; Andra H James; Chad A Grotegut Journal: Obstet Gynecol Date: 2015-08 Impact factor: 7.661
Authors: Sherry L Farr; Karrie F Downing; Elizabeth C Ailes; Michelle Gurvitz; Gretchen Koontz; Emmy L Tran; C J Alverson; Matthew E Oster Journal: J Am Heart Assoc Date: 2019-09-12 Impact factor: 5.501
Authors: Karrie F Downing; Naomi K Tepper; Regina M Simeone; Elizabeth C Ailes; Michelle Gurvitz; Sheree L Boulet; Margaret A Honein; Penelope P Howards; Anne M Valente; Sherry L Farr Journal: Circ Cardiovasc Qual Outcomes Date: 2020-06-08
Authors: Kathryn J Lindley; C Noel Bairey Merz; Melinda B Davis; Tessa Madden; Ki Park; Natalie A Bello Journal: J Am Coll Cardiol Date: 2021-04-13 Impact factor: 24.094