Demographic, Reproductive, and Medical Risk Factors for Intrauterine Device Expulsion.

Female Humans Pregnancy Cohort Studies Demography Dysmenorrhea / etiology Intrauterine Device Expulsion Intrauterine Devices / adverse effects Intrauterine Devices, Copper / adverse effects Intrauterine Devices, Medicated / adverse effects Levonorgestrel / adverse effects Menorrhagia / etiology Risk Factors

Journal

Obstetrics and gynecology

ISSN: 1873-233X

Titre abrégé: Obstet Gynecol

Pays: United States

ID NLM: 0401101

Informations de publication

Date de publication:
01 12 2022

Historique:

received: 07 06 2022

accepted: 04 08 2022

pubmed: 12 11 2022

medline: 1 12 2022

entrez: 11 11 2022

Statut: ppublish

Résumé

To explore to what extent intrauterine device (IUD) expulsion is associated with demographic and clinical risk factors. The APEX-IUD (Association of Perforation and Expulsion of IntraUterine Devices) study was a U.S. cohort study using electronic health records from three integrated health care systems (Kaiser Permanente Northern California, Southern California, and Washington) and a health care information exchange (Regenstrief Institute). These analyses included individuals aged 50 years or younger with IUD insertions from 2001 to 2018. Intrauterine device expulsion cumulative incidence and incidence rates were estimated. Using Cox regression models, hazard ratios with 95% CIs were estimated before and after adjustment for risk factors of interest (age, race and ethnicity, parity, body mass index [BMI], heavy menstrual bleeding, and dysmenorrhea) and potential confounders. In total, 228,834 individuals with IUD insertion and no delivery in the previous 52 weeks were identified (184,733 [80.7%] with levonorgestrel-releasing intrauterine system). Diagnosis of heavy menstrual bleeding-particularly a diagnosis in both recent and past periods-was the strongest risk factor for IUD expulsion. Categories with the highest risk of IUD expulsion within each risk factor included individuals diagnosed with overweight, obesity, and morbid obesity; those in younger age groups, especially among those aged 24 years or younger; and in those with parity of four or more. Non-Hispanic White individuals had the lowest incidence and risk, and after adjustment, Asian or Pacific Islander individuals had the highest risk. Dysmenorrhea was not independently associated with expulsion risk when adjusting for heavy menstrual bleeding. Most risk factors for expulsion identified in this study appear consistent with known physiologic factors that affect uterine anatomy and physiology (age, BMI, heavy menstrual bleeding, parity). The increased risk of IUD expulsion among individuals of color warrants further investigation. Intrauterine devices are an effective long-term contraceptive; expulsion is uncommon, but patients should be counseled accordingly. Bayer AG. EU PAS register, EUPAS33461.

Identifiants

DOI: 10.1097/AOG.0000000000005000 PMID: 36357958 PMC: PMC9665953

pubmed: 36357958

doi: 10.1097/AOG.0000000000005000

pii: 00006250-990000000-00606

pmc: PMC9665953

doi:

Substances chimiques

Levonorgestrel 5W7SIA7YZW

Types de publication

Clinical Trial Journal Article Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't

Langues

eng

Sous-ensembles de citation

Pagination

1017-1030

Informations de copyright

Références

Youm J, Lee HJ, Kim SK, Kim H, Jee BC. Factors affecting the spontaneous expulsion of the levonorgestrel-releasing intrauterine system. Int J Gynaecol Obstet 2014;126:165–9. doi: 10.1016/j.ijgo.2014.02.017

doi: 10.1016/j.ijgo.2014.02.017

Kaunitz AM, Inki P. The levonorgestrel-releasing intrauterine system in heavy menstrual bleeding: a benefit-risk review. Drugs 2012;72:193–215. doi: 10.2165/11598960-000000000-00000

doi: 10.2165/11598960-000000000-00000

Madden T, McNicholas C, Zhao Q, Secura GM, Eisenberg DL, Peipert JF. Association of age and parity with intrauterine device expulsion. Obstet Gynecol 2014;124:718–26. doi: 10.1097/AOG.0000000000000475

doi: 10.1097/AOG.0000000000000475

Jatlaoui TC, Whiteman MK, Jeng G, Tepper NK, Berry-Bibee E, Jamieson DJ, et al. Intrauterine device expulsion after postpartum placement: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Obstet Gynecol 2018;132:895–905. doi: 10.1097/AOG.0000000000002822

doi: 10.1097/AOG.0000000000002822

Hubacher D. Copper intrauterine device use by nulliparous women: review of side effects. Contraception 2007;75:S8–11. doi: 10.1016/j.contraception.2006.12.005

doi: 10.1016/j.contraception.2006.12.005

Gilliam ML, Jensen JT, Eisenberg DL, Thomas MA, Olariu A, Creinin MD. Relationship of parity and prior cesarean delivery to levonorgestrel 52 mg intrauterine system expulsion over 6 years. Contraception 2021;103:444–9. doi: 10.1016/j.contraception.2021.02.013

doi: 10.1016/j.contraception.2021.02.013

Jatlaoui TC, Riley HE, Curtis KM. The safety of intrauterine devices among young women: a systematic review. Contraception 2017;95:17–39. doi: 10.1016/j.contraception.2016.10.006

doi: 10.1016/j.contraception.2016.10.006

Steenland MW, Tepper NK, Curtis KM, Kapp N. Intrauterine contraceptive insertion postabortion: a systematic review. Contraception 2011;84:447–64. doi: 10.1016/j.contraception.2011.03.007

doi: 10.1016/j.contraception.2011.03.007

Okusanya BO, Oduwole O, Effa EE. Immediate postabortal insertion of intrauterine devices. The Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews 2014. Art. No.: CD001777. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD001777.pub4

doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD001777.pub4

Schmidt-Hansen M, Hawkins JE, Lord J, Williams K, Lohr PA, Hasler E, et al. Long-acting reversible contraception immediately after medical abortion: systematic review with meta-analyses. Hum Reprod Update 2020;26:141–60. doi: 10.1093/humupd/dmz040

doi: 10.1093/humupd/dmz040

Chui-Shan Y, Kar-Hung S, Hon-Cheung L. Expulsion of a levonorgestrel-releasing intrauterine system: a retrospective analysis. Hong Kong J Gynaecol Obstet Midwifery 2018;18:98–103.

Armstrong MA, Raine-Bennett T, Reed SD, Gatz J, Getahun D, Schoendorf J, et al. Association of the timing of postpartum intrauterine device insertion and breastfeeding with risks of intrauterine device expulsion. JAMA Netw Open 2022;5:e2148474. doi: 10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2021.48474

doi: 10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2021.48474

Reed SD, Zhou X, Ichikawa L, Gatz JL, Peipert JF, Armstrong MA, et al. Intrauterine device-related uterine perforation incidence and risk (APEX-IUD): a large multisite cohort study. Lancet 2022;399:2103–12. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(22)00015-0

doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(22)00015-0

Getahun D, Fassett MJ, Gatz J, Armstrong MA, Peipert JF, Raine-Bennett T, et al. Association between menorrhagia and risk of intrauterine device-related uterine perforation and device expulsion: results from the Association of Uterine Perforation and Expulsion of Intrauterine Device study. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2022;227:59.e1–9. doi: 10.1016/j.ajog.2022.03.025

doi: 10.1016/j.ajog.2022.03.025

Gatz JL, Armstrong MA, Postlethwaite D, Raine-Bennett T, Chillemi G, Alabaster A, et al. Association between intrauterine device type and risk of perforation and device expulsion: results from the Association of Perforation and Expulsion of Intrauterine Devices study. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2022;227:57.e1–13. doi: 10.1016/j.ajog.2022.03.062

doi: 10.1016/j.ajog.2022.03.062

Anthony MS, Reed SD, Armstrong MA, Getahun D, Gatz JL, Saltus CW, et al. Design of the association of uterine perforation and expulsion of intrauterine device study: a multisite retrospective cohort study. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2021;224:599.e1–18. doi: 10.1016/j.ajog.2021.01.003

doi: 10.1016/j.ajog.2021.01.003

Anthony MS, Armstrong MA, Getahun D, Scholes D, Gatz J, Schulze-Rath R, et al. Identification and validation of uterine perforation, intrauterine device expulsion, and breastfeeding in four health care systems with electronic health records. Clin Epidemiol 2019;11:635–43. doi: 10.2147/CLEP.S201044

doi: 10.2147/CLEP.S201044

Berry-Bibee EN, Tepper NK, Jatlaoui TC, Whiteman MK, Jamieson DJ, Curtis KM. The safety of intrauterine devices in breastfeeding women: a systematic review. Contraception 2016;94:725–38. doi: 10.1016/j.contraception.2016.07.006

doi: 10.1016/j.contraception.2016.07.006

Dobson AJ, Kuulasmaa K, Eberle E, Scherer J. Confidence intervals for weighted sums of Poisson parameters. Stat Med 1991;10:457–62. doi: 10.1002/sim.4780100317

doi: 10.1002/sim.4780100317

Lash MM, Armstrong A. Impact of obesity on women's health. Fertil Steril 2009;91:1712–6. doi: 10.1016/j.fertnstert.2008.02.141

doi: 10.1016/j.fertnstert.2008.02.141

Yu O, Scholes D, Schulze-Rath R, Grafton J, Hansen K, Reed SD. A US population-based study of uterine fibroid diagnosis incidence, trends, and prevalence: 2005 through 2014. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2018;219:591.e1–8. doi: 10.1016/j.ajog.2018.09.039

doi: 10.1016/j.ajog.2018.09.039

Yu O, Schulze-Rath R, Grafton J, Hansen K, Scholes D, Reed SD. Adenomyosis incidence, prevalence and treatment: United States population-based study 2006-2015. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2020;223:94.e1–10. doi: 10.1016/j.ajog.2020.01.016

doi: 10.1016/j.ajog.2020.01.016

Murji A, Bedaiwy M, Singh SS, Bougie O. Influence of ethnicity on clinical presentation and quality of life in women with uterine fibroids: results from a prospective observational registry. J Obstet Gynaecol Can 2020;42:726–33.e1. doi: 10.1016/j.jogc.2019.10.031

doi: 10.1016/j.jogc.2019.10.031

Zhai J, Vannuccini S, Petraglia F, Giudice LC. Adenomyosis: mechanisms and pathogenesis. Semin Reprod Med 2020;38:129–43. doi: 10.1055/s-0040-1716687

doi: 10.1055/s-0040-1716687