Sium Abraham Fessehaye, Prager Sarah, Reeves Matthew
Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, St. Paul's Hospital Millennium Medical College (SPHMMC), Addis Ababa, Ethiopia.
Division of Complex Family Planning, Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, University of Washington School of Medicine, Seattle, Washington, USA.
Eur J Contracept Reprod Health Care. 2025 Apr;30(2):119-122. doi: 10.1080/13625187.2024.2444237. Epub 2025 Jan 2.
To compare patient acceptability of inducing foetal demise procedures between intracardiac lidocaine and intra-amniotic digoxin administration prior to second trimester medical abortion.
We enrolled a prospective cohort of women who received either intra-cardiac lidocaine or intra-amniotic digoxin during second trimester medical abortion at later gestation (20-28 weeks) at our centre between April 2023 and March 2024. Data were collected prospectively using a structured questionnaire. For data analysis, Chi-squared test and Fisher's exact test were performed as appropriate. P-value less than 0.05 was used to present results significance.
A total of 151 women (101 who had intra-amniotic digoxin injection and 50 women who had foetal intracardiac lidocaine injection) were analysed. The groups had similar mean gestational age (22.42 weeks vs 22.65 weeks, in the digoxin vs lidocaine groups respectively, p-value = 0.50). More women from the digoxin group described the pain associated with foeticide administration as 'as expected' than in the intra-cardiac lidocaine group (48% vs 30%, p-value = 0.005). Similarly, more women in the digoxin group described their overall experience of foeticide administration as 'not bad' compared to those who received intra-cardiac lidocaine (59.4% vs 32%, p-value = 0.006). Likewise, more women in the digoxin group stated they would recommend the same procedure for friends or family members should they face the same problem than in the lidocaine group (43% vs 14%, p-value = 0.001).
Our study shows that intra-amniotic digoxin has superior patient acceptability than intracardiac lidocaine by women undergoing safe second trimester medical abortion at later gestion.
比较妊娠中期药物流产前心内注射利多卡因与羊膜腔内注射地高辛引产方法的患者可接受性。
我们纳入了一个前瞻性队列,该队列中的女性于2023年4月至2024年3月在我们中心接受妊娠中期(20 - 28周)晚期药物流产,期间接受心内注射利多卡因或羊膜腔内注射地高辛。使用结构化问卷前瞻性收集数据。数据分析时,酌情进行卡方检验和Fisher精确检验。P值小于0.05表示结果具有显著性。
共分析了151名女性(101名接受羊膜腔内注射地高辛,50名接受胎儿心内注射利多卡因)。两组的平均孕周相似(地高辛组与利多卡因组分别为22.42周和22.65周,p值 = 0.50)。与心内注射利多卡因组相比,地高辛组中更多女性将杀胎药物注射相关的疼痛描述为“如预期”(48%对30%,p值 = 0.005)。同样,与接受心内注射利多卡因的女性相比,地高辛组中更多女性将她们杀胎药物注射的总体体验描述为“还不错”(59.4%对32%,p值 = 0.006)。同样,与利多卡因组相比,地高辛组中更多女性表示,如果朋友或家人面临相同问题,她们会推荐相同的方法(43%对14%,p值 = 0.001)。
我们的研究表明,对于在妊娠晚期接受安全妊娠中期药物流产的女性,羊膜腔内注射地高辛比心内注射利多卡因具有更高的患者可接受性。