Gynuity Health Projects, New York, NY, United States.
Gynuity Health Projects, New York, NY, United States.
Contraception. 2021 Dec;104(6):659-665. doi: 10.1016/j.contraception.2021.07.108. Epub 2021 Jul 28.
To compare outcomes among patients who did or did not have pre-abortion ultrasound or pelvic exam before obtaining medication abortion (MA) via direct-to-patient telemedicine and mail.
We analyzed data from participants screened for enrollment into the TelAbortion study at five sites from March 25 to September 15, 2020. We compared participants who had preabortion ultrasound or pelvic exam ("test-MA") to those who did not ("no-test MA"). Outcomes were: abortion not complete with pills alone (i.e., had procedure intervention or ongoing pregnancy), ongoing pregnancy separately, ectopic pregnancy, hospitalization and/or blood transfusion, and unplanned clinical encounters. We used propensity score weighting and multivariable logistic regression to adjust for baseline characteristics.
Our analysis included 287 participants who had no-test MA and 125 who had test-MA. Abortion was not complete with pills alone in 16of 287 (5.6%) no-test MA patients compared to 2of 123 (1.9%) test-MA patients (adjusted risk difference [aRD] = 4.3%, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.4%-7.1%). No ectopic pregnancies were detected. Groups did not differ regarding hospitalization and/or blood transfusion (p = 0.76) or ongoing pregnancy diagnosis (p = 0.59). Unplanned clinical encounters were more common in no-test MA patients (35of 287, 12.5%) than test-MA patients (10of 125, 8.0%, aRD = 6.7%, 95% CI: 0.5%-13.1%).
Compared to patients who had pre-abortion ultrasound, patients who had no-test MA via telemedicine were more likely to have abortions that were not complete with pills alone and/or unplanned clinical encounters. However, both no-test and test-MA patients had similar and very low rates of ongoing pregnancy and hospitalization or blood transfusion.
Omitting pre-abortion ultrasound before provision of medication abortion via telemedicine does not appear to compromise safety or result in more ongoing pregnancies. However, compared to patients who have preabortion ultrasound, patients who do not have pre-abortion tests may be more likely to seek post-treatment care and have procedural interventions.
比较通过直接向患者提供远程医疗和邮寄方式进行药物流产(MA)之前进行流产前超声或盆腔检查的患者与未进行检查的患者的结局。
我们分析了 2020 年 3 月 25 日至 9 月 15 日在五个地点参加 TelAbortion 研究筛查的参与者的数据。我们将接受流产前超声或盆腔检查的参与者(“试验 MA”)与未接受检查的参与者(“非试验 MA”)进行比较。结局包括:单独用药流产不完全(即需要手术干预或持续妊娠)、单独持续妊娠、异位妊娠、住院和/或输血以及计划外临床就诊。我们使用倾向评分加权和多变量逻辑回归来调整基线特征。
我们的分析包括 287 名未进行试验 MA 的患者和 125 名进行试验 MA 的患者。在未进行试验 MA 的 287 名患者中,有 16 名(5.6%)流产不完全,而在进行试验 MA 的 123 名患者中,有 2 名(1.9%)流产不完全(调整风险差异[aRD]为 4.3%,95%置信区间[CI]:1.4%-7.1%)。未发现异位妊娠。两组在住院和/或输血(p=0.76)或持续妊娠诊断(p=0.59)方面无差异。未进行试验 MA 的患者更常见计划外临床就诊(287 名中的 35 名,12.5%),而进行试验 MA 的患者(125 名中的 10 名,8.0%,aRD=6.7%,95%CI:0.5%-13.1%)。
与进行流产前超声的患者相比,通过远程医疗进行无试验 MA 的患者更有可能出现单独药物流产不完全和/或计划外临床就诊的情况。然而,无试验 MA 和试验 MA 患者的持续妊娠、住院和/或输血的发生率均非常低且相似。
在通过远程医疗提供药物流产之前省略流产前超声似乎不会影响安全性或导致更多的持续妊娠。然而,与进行流产前超声的患者相比,不进行流产前检查的患者更有可能寻求治疗后护理和进行手术干预。