Neilson James P, Gyte Gillian Ml, Hickey Martha, Vazquez Juan C, Dou Lixia
School of Reproductive and Developmental Medicine, Division of Perinatal and Reproductive Medicine, The University of Liverpool, First Floor, Liverpool Women's NHS Foundation Trust, Crown Street, Liverpool, UK, L8 7SS.
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2010 Jan 20(1):CD007223. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD007223.pub2.
Miscarriage occurs in 10% to 15% of pregnancies. The traditional treatment, after miscarriage, has been to perform surgery to remove any remaining pregnancy tissues in the uterus. However, it has been suggested that drug-based medical treatments, or expectant care (no treatment), may also be effective, safe and acceptable.
To assess the effectiveness, safety and acceptability of any medical treatment for early incomplete miscarriage (before 24 weeks).
We searched the Cochrane Pregnancy and Childbirth Group's Trials Register (September 2009).
Randomised controlled trials comparing medical treatment with expectant care or surgery. Quasi-randomised trials were excluded.
Two authors independently assessed the studies for inclusion, assessed risk of bias and carried out data extraction. Data entry was checked.
Fifteen studies (2750 women) were included, there were no studies on women over 13 weeks' gestation. Studies addressed a number of comparisons and data are therefore limited.Three trials compared misoprostol treatment (all vaginally administered) with expectant care. There was no significant difference in complete miscarriage (average risk ratio (RR) 1.23, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.72 to 2.10; two studies, 150 women), or in the need for surgical evacuation (average RR 0.62, 95% CI 0.17 to 2.26; two studies, 308 women). There were few data on 'deaths or serious complications'.Nine studies involving 1766 women addressed the comparison of misoprostol (four oral, four vaginal, one vaginal + oral) with surgical evacuation. There was no statistically significant difference in complete miscarriage (average RR 0.96, 95% CI 0.92 to 1.00, eight studies, 1377 women) with success rate high for both methods. Overall, there were fewer surgical evacuations with misoprostol (average RR 0.07, 95% CI 0.03 to 0.18; eight studies, 1538 women) but more unplanned procedures (average RR 6.32, 95% CI 2.90 to 13.77; six studies, 1158 women). There were few data on 'deaths or serious complications'. Limited evidence suggests that women generally seem satisfied with their care. Long-term follow up from one included study identified no difference in subsequent fertility between the three approaches.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: The available evidence suggests that medical treatment, with misoprostol, and expectant care are both acceptable alternatives to routine surgical evacuation given the availability of health service resources to support all three approaches. Women experiencing miscarriage at less than 13 weeks should be offered an informed choice.
10%至15%的妊娠会发生流产。传统的流产后治疗方法是进行手术以清除子宫内残留的妊娠组织。然而,有人提出基于药物的医学治疗或期待疗法(不治疗)也可能有效、安全且可接受。
评估早期不完全流产(24周前)的任何医学治疗的有效性、安全性和可接受性。
我们检索了Cochrane妊娠与分娩组试验注册库(2009年9月)。
比较医学治疗与期待疗法或手术的随机对照试验。排除半随机试验。
两位作者独立评估纳入研究,评估偏倚风险并进行数据提取。检查数据录入情况。
纳入了15项研究(2750名女性),没有关于妊娠13周以上女性的研究。研究涉及多项比较,因此数据有限。三项试验比较了米索前列醇治疗(均经阴道给药)与期待疗法。完全流产方面无显著差异(平均风险比(RR)1.23,95%置信区间(CI)0.72至2.10;两项研究,150名女性),手术清宫需求方面也无显著差异(平均RR 0.62,95%CI 0.17至2.26;两项研究,308名女性)。关于“死亡或严重并发症”的数据很少。九项涉及1766名女性的研究比较了米索前列醇(四项口服、四项阴道给药、一项阴道 + 口服)与手术清宫。完全流产方面无统计学显著差异(平均RR 0.96,95%CI 0.92至1.00,八项研究,1377名女性),两种方法成功率都很高。总体而言,米索前列醇组手术清宫较少(平均RR 0.07,95%CI 0.03至0.18;八项研究,1538名女性),但计划外手术较多(平均RR 6.32,95%CI 2.90至13.77;六项研究,1158名女性)。关于“死亡或严重并发症”的数据很少。有限的证据表明女性总体上似乎对其治疗感到满意。一项纳入研究的长期随访发现三种方法在后续生育能力方面无差异。
现有证据表明,鉴于有卫生服务资源支持所有三种方法,米索前列醇药物治疗和期待疗法都是常规手术清宫的可接受替代方案。妊娠13周以下流产的女性应获得充分信息后进行选择。