Risks of Uterine Perforation and Expulsion Associated With Intrauterine Devices.
Journal
Obstetrics and gynecology
ISSN: 1873-233X
Titre abrégé: Obstet Gynecol
Pays: United States
ID NLM: 0401101
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
01 09 2023
01 09 2023
Historique:
received:
04
04
2023
accepted:
08
06
2023
medline:
21
8
2023
pubmed:
3
8
2023
entrez:
3
8
2023
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
The APEX-IUD (Association of Perforation and Expulsion of Intrauterine Devices) study evaluated the association of postpartum timing of intrauterine device (IUD) insertion, breastfeeding, heavy menstrual bleeding, and IUD type (levonorgestrel-releasing vs copper) with risks of uterine perforation and IUD expulsion in usual clinical practice. We summarize the clinically important findings to inform counseling and shared decision making. APEX-IUD was a real-world (using U.S. health care data) retrospective cohort study of individuals aged 50 years and younger with IUD insertions between 2001 and 2018 and with electronic health record data. Cumulative incidences of uterine perforation and IUD expulsion were calculated. Adjusted hazard ratios (aHRs) and 95% CIs were estimated from proportional hazards models with control of confounding. Among the study population of 326,658, absolute risk of uterine perforation was low overall (cumulative incidence, 0.21% [95% CI 0.19-0.23%] at 1 year and 0.61% [95% CI 0.56-0.66% at 5 years]) but was elevated for IUDs inserted during time intervals within 1 year postpartum, particularly among those between 4 days and 6 weeks postpartum (aHR 6.71, 95% CI 4.80-9.38), relative to nonpostpartum insertions. Among postpartum insertions, IUD expulsion risk was greatest for insertions in the immediate postpartum period (0-3 days after delivery) compared with nonpostpartum (aHR 5.34, 95% CI 4.47-6.39). Postpartum individuals who were breastfeeding had a slightly elevated risk of perforation and lowered risk of expulsion than those not breastfeeding. Among nonpostpartum individuals, those with a heavy menstrual bleeding diagnosis were at greater risk of expulsion than those without (aHR 2.84, 95% CI 2.66-3.03); heavy menstrual bleeding also was associated with a slightly elevated perforation risk. There was a slightly elevated perforation risk and slightly lower expulsion risk associated with levonorgestrel-releasing IUDs compared with copper IUDs. Absolute risk of adverse outcomes with IUD insertion is low. Clinicians should be aware of the differences in risks of uterine perforation and expulsion associated with IUD insertion during specific postpartum time periods and with a heavy menstrual bleeding diagnosis. This information should be incorporated into counseling and decision making for patients considering IUD insertion. Bayer AG. EU PAS register, EUPAS33461.
Identifiants
pubmed: 37535968
doi: 10.1097/AOG.0000000000005299
pii: 00006250-990000000-00840
pmc: PMC10424817
doi:
Substances chimiques
Levonorgestrel
5W7SIA7YZW
Types de publication
Journal Article
Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
641-651Informations de copyright
Copyright © 2023 The Author(s). Published by Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc.
Déclaration de conflit d'intérêts
Financial Disclosure Susan Reed has received funding from the National Institutes of Health (NIH) and Bayer, as well as royalties from UpToDate on chapters related to endometrial hyperplasia. Jeffrey F. Peipert receives research support from Bayer, Merck, and CooperSurgical, and has served on advisory boards for Bayer, CooperSurgical, and OCON. Darios Getahun receives research support from NIH, NIEH, DHHS, NICHD, Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute, Garfield Memorial Fund, Bayer AG, and HOLOGIC, Inc. Jennifer Gatz disclosed money was paid to her institution from Cook, Lily, and Janssen. Michael J. Fassett receives research support from Garfield Memorial Fund, Bayer AG, and HOLOGIC, Inc. Federica Pisa, Juliane Schoendorf, and Yesmean Wahdan are employees of Bayer, the marketing authorization holder for 3 IUD brands, among others, that were included in this study. Jinyi Wang and Mary S. Anthony are employed at RTI Health Solutions, and Mary E. Ritchey was employed at RTI Health Solutions at the time the analysis was conducted. This organization worked under contract with Bayer to conduct the analyses. No payment or support of any kind was received for drafting or review of this manuscript. Tina Raine-Bennett, an employee of KPNC during the conduct of the study, is currently an employee of Medicines360, a marketing authorization holder for one of the IUD brands included in this study. The other authors did not report any potential conflicts of interest.
Références
Winner B, Peipert JF, Zhao Q, Buckel C, Madden T, Allsworth JE, et al. Effectiveness of long-acting reversible contraception. N Engl J Med 2012;366:1998–2007. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa1110855
doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa1110855
Buhling KJ, Zite NB, Lotke P, Black K. INTRA Writing Group. Worldwide use of intrauterine contraception: a review. Contraception 2014;89:162–73. doi: 10.1016/j.contraception.2013.11.011
doi: 10.1016/j.contraception.2013.11.011
Hubacher D, Kavanaugh M. Historical record-setting trends in IUD use in the United States. Contraception 2018;98:467–70. doi: 10.1016/j.contraception.2018.05.016
doi: 10.1016/j.contraception.2018.05.016
Heinemann K, Reed S, Moehner S, Do Minh T. Risk of uterine perforation with levonorgestrel-releasing and copper intrauterine devices in the European Active Surveillance Study on Intrauterine Devices. Contraception 2015;91:274–9. doi: 10.1016/j.contraception.2015.01.007
doi: 10.1016/j.contraception.2015.01.007
Barnett C, Moehner S, Do Minh T, Heinemann K. Perforation risk and intra-uterine devices: results of the EURAS-IUD 5-year extension study. Eur J Contraception Reprod Health Care 2017;22:424–8. doi: 10.1080/13625187.2017.1412427
doi: 10.1080/13625187.2017.1412427
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. The 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 Device 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, 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
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
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. e1–599.e18. doi: 10.1016/j.ajog.2021.01.003
doi: 10.1016/j.ajog.2021.01.003
Anthony MS, Zhou X, Schoendorf J, Reed SD, Getahun D, Armstrong MA, et al. Demographic, reproductive, and medical risk factors for intrauterine device expulsion. Obstet Gynecol 2022;140:1017–30. doi: 10.1097/AOG.0000000000005000
doi: 10.1097/AOG.0000000000005000
Li F, Morgan KL, Zaslavsky AM. Balancing covariates via propensity score weighting. J Am Stat Assoc 2018;113:390–400. doi: 10.1080/01621459.2016.1260466.
doi: 10.1080/01621459.2016.1260466
Stumpf PG, Lenker RM. Insertion technique, not design, affects expulsion rates of postpartum intrauterine device. Contraception 1984;30:327–30. doi: 10.1016/s0010-7824(84)80024-4
doi: 10.1016/s0010-7824(84)80024-4
Andersen PK, Geskus RB, De Witte T, Putter H. Competing risks in epidemiology: possibilities and pitfalls. Int J Epidemiol 2012;41:861–70. doi: 10.1093/ije/dyr213
doi: 10.1093/ije/dyr213
Austin PC, Lee DS, Fine JP. Introduction to the analysis of survival data in the presence of competing risks. Circulation 2016;133:601–9. doi: 10.1161/CIRCULATIONAHA.115.017719
doi: 10.1161/CIRCULATIONAHA.115.017719