Operative Hysteroscopy vs Vacuum Aspiration for Incomplete Spontaneous Abortion: A Randomized Clinical Trial.
Journal
JAMA
ISSN: 1538-3598
Titre abrégé: JAMA
Pays: United States
ID NLM: 7501160
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
11 04 2023
11 04 2023
Historique:
medline:
13
4
2023
entrez:
11
4
2023
pubmed:
12
4
2023
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
Vacuum aspiration is commonly used to remove retained products of conception in patients with incomplete spontaneous abortion. Scarring of the uterine cavity may occur, potentially impairing future fertility. A procedural alternative, operative hysteroscopy, has gained popularity with a presumption of better future fertility. To assess the superiority of hysteroscopy to vacuum aspiration for subsequent pregnancy in patients with incomplete spontaneous abortion who intend to have future pregnancy. The HY-PER randomized, controlled, single-blind trial included 574 patients between November 6, 2014, and May 3, 2017, with a 2-year duration of follow-up. This multicenter trial recruited patients in 15 French hospitals. Individuals aged 18 to 44 years and planned for surgery for an incomplete spontaneous abortion with plans to subsequently conceive were randomized in a 1:1 ratio. Surgical treatment by hysteroscopy (n = 288) or vacuum aspiration (n = 286). The primary outcome was a pregnancy of at least 22 weeks' duration during 2-year follow-up. The intention-to-treat analyses included 563 women (mean [SD] age, 32.6 [5.4] years). All aspiration procedures were completed. The hysteroscopic procedure could not be completed for 19 patients (7%), 18 of which were converted to vacuum aspiration (8 with inability to completely resect, 7 with insufficient visualization, 2 with anesthetic complications that required a shortened procedure, 1 with equipment failure). One hysteroscopy failed due to a false passage during cervical dilatation. During the 2-year follow-up, 177 patients (62.8%) in the hysteroscopy group and 190 (67.6%) in the vacuum aspiration (control) group achieved the primary outcome (difference, -4.8% [95% CI, -13% to 3.0%]; P = .23). The time-to-event analyses showed no statistically significant difference between groups for the primary outcome (hazard ratio, 0.87 [95% CI, 0.71 to 1.07]). Duration of surgery and hospitalization were significantly longer for hysteroscopy. Rates of new miscarriages, ectopic pregnancies, Clavien-Dindo surgical complications of grade 3 or above (requiring surgical, endoscopic, or radiological intervention or life-threatening event or death), and reinterventions to remove remaining products of conception did not differ between groups. Surgical management by hysteroscopy of incomplete spontaneous abortions in patients intending to conceive again was not associated with more subsequent births or a better safety profile than vacuum aspiration. Moreover, operative hysteroscopy was not feasible in all cases. ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT02201732.
Identifiants
pubmed: 37039805
pii: 2803517
doi: 10.1001/jama.2023.3415
pmc: PMC10091175
doi:
Banques de données
ClinicalTrials.gov
['NCT02201732']
Types de publication
Journal Article
Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't
Comment
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
1197-1205Commentaires et corrections
Type : CommentOn
Type : ErratumIn
Références
Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol. 2009 Apr;143(2):116-20
pubmed: 19203825
BMJ. 2009 Oct 08;339:b3827
pubmed: 19815581
Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol. 2017 Apr;211:98-102
pubmed: 28214435
Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol. 2014 Feb;173:19-22
pubmed: 24332096
Biometrics. 1978 Sep;34(3):483-6
pubmed: 719125
Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol. 2016 Jun;201:18-26
pubmed: 27039249
BMJ. 1998 Dec 5;317(7172):1572
pubmed: 9836663
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2021 Jun 1;6:CD012602
pubmed: 34061352
Fertil Steril. 2016 Jan;105(1):156-64.e1-2
pubmed: 26453977
Obstet Gynecol. 2020 Nov;136(5):912-921
pubmed: 33030878
Int J Gynaecol Obstet. 2014 Oct;127(1):86-9
pubmed: 24997472
Dialogues Clin Neurosci. 2011;13(2):217-24
pubmed: 21842619
J Minim Invasive Gynecol. 2009 Jul-Aug;16(4):487-90
pubmed: 19573826
N Engl J Med. 2018 Nov 15;379(20):1895-1904
pubmed: 30380365
Fertil Steril. 2017 May;107(5):1223-1231.e3
pubmed: 28390688
Lancet. 2002 Feb 23;359(9307):696-700
pubmed: 11879884
J Am Assoc Gynecol Laparosc. 2001 May;8(2):199-202
pubmed: 11342724
J Minim Invasive Gynecol. 2011 Nov-Dec;18(6):774-8
pubmed: 22024264
BMJ. 2001 Jun 2;322(7298):1343-6
pubmed: 11387184
Ann Surg. 2009 Aug;250(2):187-96
pubmed: 19638912
BMJ. 2019 Nov 13;367:l6283
pubmed: 31722871
J Minim Invasive Gynecol. 2021 Feb;28(2):204-217
pubmed: 33166659
J Minim Invasive Gynecol. 2011 Jan-Feb;18(1):100-3
pubmed: 21195960
Lancet. 2021 May 1;397(10285):1658-1667
pubmed: 33915094
Trials. 2015 Aug 19;16:363
pubmed: 26282937