Objective

Describe the implementation of a preoperative telemedicine program at a Northern California hospital-based center for abortion procedures requiring cervical preparation.

Study design

We implemented a pilot program using telemedicine for preoperative visits for patients needing cervical preparation prior to an abortion procedure from 12 to 18 weeks. We required ultrasonography for gestational age documentation in addition to placental localization in patients with a prior cesarean delivery. We prescribed misoprostol for cervical preparation for patients undergoing the telemedicine preoperative visit; in-person preoperative visits typically involve placement of osmotic dilators. Secondarily, we surveyed patients who had telemedicine and in-person preoperative visits to compare their preoperative experiences.

Results

Implementation required 8 months of multidisciplinary meetings. From March 2018 through March 2019, we received 200 abortion referrals at 12 to 18 weeks gestation. Of these 200 patients, 119 did not meet telemedicine eligibility criteria, most commonly due to inability to obtain required ultrasonography (n = 89 [75%]). Of the remaining 81 patients, 43 scheduled telemedicine visits of which 41 initiated and 38 (88%) completed the visits. Twenty-one (55%) telemedicine encounters had no or minor technical difficulties. Thirty-one of 34 (91%) telemedicine and 91 of 108 (84%) in-person visit patients expressed high satisfaction with their preoperative appointment (p = 0.4); none reported dissatisfaction. Patients chose the telemedicine visit primarily for convenience and transportation concerns.

Conclusion

A multidisciplinary team is essential for the successful implementation of a preoperative telemedicine program for procedural abortion care. Patients reported high satisfaction and reduced logistical burdens with the telemedicine option.

Implications

Telemedicine preoperative visits for abortion procedures at 12 to 18 weeks gestation may improve access to abortion care, reduce patient burdens, and provide an alternative encounter option which may improve the patient experience.

Objectives

To assess if quantitative blood loss (QBL) with dilation and evacuation (D&E) procedures correlated with clinically relevant outcomes or hemorrhage.

Study design

We used a de-identified database to review D&E procedures performed at UC Davis Health from April 2019 through March 2020. Surgeons determined QBL during procedures and estimated blood loss, when excessive, during post-procedure recovery. We extracted patient demographic and procedure-related information. We defined clinically relevant bleeding as cases with bleeding-related interventions within 24 hours post-procedure including use of ≥2 uterotonics, tranexamic acid administration, cervical injury requiring repair, uterine balloon tamponade, blood transfusion, uterine artery embolization, hospitalization, or return to operating room; the latter 5 criteria defined hemorrhage. We used χ2 test for trend to evaluate bleeding outcomes.

Results

We evaluated 431 procedures with a mean gestational age of 19 weeks and 3 days. Clinically relevant bleeding outcomes occurred in 6/319 (2%), 15/97 (15%) and 7/12 (58%) patients with total blood loss <250mL, 250-500mL and >500mL, respectively (p<0.0001); 11 had bleeding related to cervical injuries. Hemorrhage occurred in 0, 4/97 (4%) and 5/12 (42%) patients, respectively (p<0.0001). Patients with relevant bleeding outcomes had QBLs ranging from 150-1800mL (median QBL 312.5mL, interquartile range [IQR] 250-550mL) while those without clinically relevant bleeding ranged from 10-900mL (median QBL 150mL, IQR 75-200mL).

Conclusion

Most patients (75%) with clinically relevant bleeding outcomes had QBL ≤500mL. Although higher QBL correlates with clinical interventions, the need for significant interventions rather than a single blood loss amount should be used to define hemorrhage with D&E procedures.

Implications

Clinical hemorrhage is best defined by the necessary clinical interventions required to manage bleeding rather than any quantified amount of blood loss.

Objective

To describe our experience with office removal of nonpalpable contraceptive implants at our referral center.

Methods

We performed a retrospective cohort study by reviewing the charts of patients referred to our family planning specialty center for nonpalpable or complex contraceptive implant removal from January 2015 through December 2018. We localized nonpalpable implants using high-frequency ultrasonography and skin mapping in radiology, followed by attempted removal in the office using local anesthesia and a modified vasectomy clamp. We abstracted information on demographics, implant location, and outcomes.

Results

Of 61 referrals, 55 patients attended their scheduled appointments. Seven patients had palpable implants; six elected removal. The other 48 patients had ultrasound localization, which identified 47 (98%) of the implants; the remaining patient had successful localization with computed tomography imaging. Nonpalpable implants were suprafascial (n=22), subfascial (n=25) and intrafascial (n=1); four of these patients opted to delay removal. Of 50 attempted office removals, all palpable (n=6), all nonpalpable suprafascial (n=21 [100%, 95% CI 83-100%]), and 19 out of 23 (83%, 95% CI 67-98%) subfascial implants were successful. Three of the four patients with failed subfascial implant office removal had successful operating room removal with a collaborative orthopedic surgeon; the other patient sought removal elsewhere. Transient postprocedure neuropathic complaints were noted in 7 out of 23 (30%, 95% CI 12-49%) subfascial and 1 out of 21 (5%, 95% CI 0-13%) suprafascial removals (P=.048). Nonpalpable implants were more likely to be subfascial in nonobese patients (24/34, 71%) as compared with obese (1/13, 8%) patients (P<.001). Seven (28%) of the 25 subfascially located implants had been inserted during a removal-reinsertion procedure through the same incision.

Conclusion

Most nonpalpable contraceptive implants can be removed in the office by an experienced subspecialty health care provider after ultrasound localization. Some patients may experience transient postprocedure neuropathic pain. Nonpalpable implants in thinner women are more likely to be in a subfascial location.

Objectives

To assess referral center outcomes with removal of difficult or nonpalpable contraceptive implants using high-frequency point-of-care ultrasonography.

Study design

We present a case series examining patients referred to our specialty center from January 2019 through September 2020 for difficult or nonpalpable implant removal.

Results

Of the 54 referrals, 6 had palpable implants and 48 required ultrasonography. We localized 46 (96%) implants in-office, including 13 located subfascially; 2 Implanon implants could not be localized. We successfully completed 50 (96%) of 52 attempted in-office removals, including 12 (92%) subfascial implants.

Conclusion

High-frequency point-of-care ultrasonography can effectively localize nonpalpable contraceptive implants leading to successful in-office removal.

Implications

Specialists can use high-frequency point-of-care ultrasonography to localize nonpalpable implants without formal radiology scans and skilled technologists, optimizing patient time and convenience. However, the probe is expensive, and providers may need to consider this cost in the context of reimbursement for these highly specialized procedures.

Objective

To evaluate if gabapentin 600 mg reduces pain after osmotic dilator placement the day before a dilation and evacuation (D&E) procedure.

Study design

We conducted a double-blind, placebo-controlled, randomized (stratified by vaginal parity) trial among women undergoing osmotic dilator placement before D&E at 15-23 5/7 weeks gestation. Subjects received gabapentin 600 mg or placebo 30 min before dilator placement, with re-dosing 8 h later. We assessed pain after dilator placement using a numeric rating scale (NRS; scale 0-10) at 5 min, 2, 4, and 8 h, and at presentation for D&E. The primary outcome was median NRS pain score change from baseline to 8 h after dilator placement. Secondary outcomes included gabapentin-related side effects and analgesic use.

Results

Of 121 randomized women, we excluded three subjects (allergic reaction [placebo], randomization error, no NRS data), leaving 60 gabapentin and 58 placebo subjects. Of 110 (93%) women who provided 8-hour data, median pain score changes from baseline did not differ between gabapentin and placebo groups overall (2 vs. 2.5, p = 0.52), in vaginally nulliparous women (2 vs. 4, p = 0.10) or in parous women (2 vs. 1.5, p = 0.37). We found no statistically significant differences in median pain score change from baseline to any timepoint overall or when stratified by parity. Beginning at 2 h after dilator placement, more gabapentin than placebo users experienced dizziness (29/53[55%] vs. 11/53[21%], p = 0.001) and tiredness (34/54[63%] vs. 17/54[31%], p = 0.002). The proportion of women using narcotics did not differ between gabapentin (35/60[58%]) or placebo (40/58[69%]) users (p = 0.26).

Conclusions

Gabapentin does not reduce pain with overnight osmotic dilator placement prior to D&E and causes drug-related side effects.

Implications statement

Women experience pain, mostly mild to moderate, with overnight cervical dilator placement at 15-23 5/7 weeks gestation. About 2/3 of women will use a limited quantity of narcotics if provided. Gabapentin does not decrease the pain with or following dilator placement and does not decrease narcotic use.

Objective

To explore the effect on ovarian activity and ovulation of 28 days of correct daily use of a progestogen-only pill containing norgestrel 0.075 mg.

Study design

We performed a prospective, randomized, crossover study at 2 US sites, recruiting healthy women of reproductive age to use norgestrel 0.075 mg daily for three 28-day treatment cycles. We monitored ovarian activity every 3 to 4 days with reproductive hormone measurements and ovarian ultrasonography. Participants recorded pill use in daily diaries. An adjudication committee independent of the research sites assessed ovarian activity using a modified Hoogland score combining hormone concentrations and follicle diameter and appearance (quiescence 1-3, ovarian activity without ovulation 4-5, and ovulatory/postovulatory 6-7).

Results

We report here the findings of the initial 28-day treatment cycle in which 51 of 52 recruited participants provided data sufficient for analysis. Two thirds of subjects had no evidence of ovulation (34/51, 66.6%); eight of these (15.7%) had quiescent ovaries (follicle <13 mm diameter) and 26 (51%) had follicular development (follicle >13 mm diameter) without ovulation. Seventeen participants ovulated, of whom 12 (23.5%) had a normal, and 5 (9.8%) an abnormal luteal phase. Persistent ovarian follicles were common among women who had ovarian activity without ovulation, 17 of 26 participants (65.4%) had a large follicle which persisted beyond 28 days.

Conclusion

During 28 days of exposure to a norgestrel 0.075 mg progestogen-only pill, most women had no evidence of ovulation.

Implications

Ovulation inhibition and follicle growth disturbance are important in the mechanism of action of a progestogen-only pill containing norgestrel 0.075 mg.

Objectives

To evaluate mifepristone impact on osmotic dilator placement and procedural outcomes when given 18 to 24 hours before dilator placement for dilation and evacuation (D&E) at 18 weeks 0 days to 23 weeks 6 days gestation.

Study design

We performed a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial from April 2019 through February 2021, enrolling participants undergoing osmotic dilator (Dilapan) placement for a planned, next-day D&E. Participants took mifepristone 200 mg or placebo orally 18 to 24 hours before dilator placement. We used a gestational age-based protocol for minimum number of dilators. Our primary outcome was the proportion of participants for whom 2 or more additional dilators could be placed compared to the minimum gestational age-based standard. We secondarily evaluated cervical dilation after dilator removal in the operating room, subjective procedure ease, and complication rates (cervical laceration, uterine perforation, blood transfusion, infection, hospitalization, or extramural delivery).

Results

Of the planned 66 participants, we enrolled 44 (stopped due to coronavirus disease 2019-related obstacles), and 41 (19 mifepristone; 22 placebo) completed the study. We placed 2 or more additional dilators compared to standard in 7 (36.8%) and 3 (13.6%) participants after mifepristone and placebo, respectively (p = 0.14). We measured greater median initial cervical dilation in the mifepristone (3.2 cm[2.6-3.6]) compared to placebo (2.6 cm[2.2-3.0]) group, p = 0.03. Surgeon's perception of procedure being "easy" (8/19[42.1] vs 9/22[40.9], respectively, p = 1.00) and complication rate (3/19[15.8%] vs 3/22[13.6], respectively, p = 1.00) did not differ.

Conclusion

Our underpowered study did not demonstrate a difference in cervical dilator placement, but mifepristone 18 to 24 hours prior to dilators increases cervical dilation without increasing complications.

Implications

Mifepristone 18 to 24 hours prior to cervical dilator placement may be a useful adjunct to cervical dilators based on increased cervical dilation at time of procedure; however, logistical barriers, such as an additional visit, may preclude routine adoption without definite clinical benefit.