Relias Media - Continuing Medical Education Publishing

The trusted source for

healthcare information and

CONTINUING EDUCATION.

  • Sign In
  • Sign Out
  • MyAHC
    • Home
      • Home
      • Newsletters
      • Blogs
      • Archives
      • CME/CE Map
      • Shop
    • Emergency
      • All Products
      • Publications
      • Study Guides
      • Webinars
      • Group Sales
    • Hospital
      • All Products
      • Publications
      • Study Guides
      • Webinars
      • Group Sales
    • Clinical
      • All Products
      • Publications
      • Study Guides
      • Webinars
      • Group Sales
    • All Access
      • Subscribe Now
      • My Subscription
    • My Account
      • My Subscriptions
      • My Content
      • My Orders
      • My CME/CE
      • My Transcript
    Home » Can We Liberalize Intrauterine Device Insertion Protocols?
    ABSTRACT & COMMENTARY

    Can We Liberalize Intrauterine Device Insertion Protocols?

    April 1, 2020
    No Comments
    Reprints
    Facebook Twitter Linkedin Share Share

    Related Articles

    Intrauterine Device String Checks: Are They Necessary?

    Management of Pain Associated With Intrauterine Device Placement

    Mirena obtains approval on new insertion device

    Related Products

    Intrauterine device and implant are effective beyond use approved by the FDA

    Options expand for women: FDA approves a new intrauterine device

    Immediate Postpartum IUD Insertion: Ready for Prime Time?

    Keywords

    Contraception

    pregnancy

    contraceptive

    intrauterine

    luteal

    By Rebecca H. Allen, MD, MPH

    Associate Professor, Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Warren Alpert Medical School of Brown University, Women and Infants Hospital, Providence, RI

    Dr. Allen reports she receives grant/research support from Bayer, and is a consultant for Bayer, Mylan, and Merck.

    SYNOPSIS: In this retrospective cohort study, the rate of luteal phase pregnancy was 0.4% among 239 women who did not meet pregnancy checklist criteria for intrauterine device insertion.

    SOURCE: Castaño PM, Westhoff CL. Experience with same-day placement of the 52 mg levonorgestrel-releasing intrauterine system. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2020; Jan. 13. [Online ahead of print].

    This is a retrospective cohort study of all women receiving a 52-mg levonorgestrel intrauterine system (LNG-IUS) at Columbia University from July 2009 to April 2012. Women of any age obtaining the device for contraceptive purposes at gynecologic visits or immediately postabortion were included. Exclusion criteria included women undergoing removal and reinsertion the same day and subsequent replacement for women who had experienced an LNG-IUS expulsion. The insertion was performed after a negative urine pregnancy test. Women also could receive emergency contraception (levonorgestrel 1.5 mg orally) if the provider determined them to be at risk of pregnancy from unprotected intercourse. Data were collected at the time of placement and up to 12 months post-insertion to identify failed placements, perforations, luteal phase pregnancies detected after placement, expulsions, and removals. Subjects were evaluated to identify whether they met any of the following pregnancy checklist criteria to be reasonably sure the patients were not pregnant:

    • It has been seven days or less since the start of normal menses for the patient.

    • The patient has not had sexual intercourse since the start of the last normal menses.

    • The patient has correctly and consistently been using a reliable contraception method.

    • It has been seven days or less since spontaneous or induced abortion.

    • The patient is within four weeks postpartum.

    • The patient is fully or nearly fully breastfeeding (exclusively breastfeeding or the vast majority [≥ 85%] of feeds are breastfeeds), amenorrheic, and less than six months postpartum.1

    The authors identified 886 LNG-IUS placements. Of these, 646 women (73%) met at least one pregnancy checklist criterion (33% within seven days after abortion, 30% correctly and consistently using a reliable method of contraception, 13% within seven days of the start of normal menses, 7% had not had intercourse since the beginning of last normal menses, 2% within four weeks postpartum, and 0% fulfilling criteria for lactational amenorrhea), leaving 239 women who did not meet any of the checklist criteria. A total of 14 women (2%) received emergency contraception prior to LNG-IUS insertion. There only was one placement failure because of uterine fibroids. There was one luteal phase pregnancy (0.4%) that occurred in a woman who did not meet checklist criteria, had irregular menstrual cycles, and had unprotected intercourse two days before LNG-IUS placement. She had a negative pregnancy test, and took emergency contraception prior to placement. She was instructed to repeat a pregnancy test and the pregnancy was detected four weeks after placement. She opted to undergo IUS removal and termination of the pregnancy. There were 28 expulsions, 78 removals, and no perforations identified in the 12 months following insertion, with a 74% rate of at least one follow-up encounter documented in the electronic medical record.

    COMMENTARY

    According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), a healthcare provider can be reasonably certain that a woman is not pregnant if she has no symptoms or signs of pregnancy and meets any one of the pregnancy checklist criteria.1 The goal of this checklist is to be reasonably sure a patient is not pregnant, so that contraception can be initiated.

    According to the CDC, for methods other than intrauterine devices (IUDs), even if the provider is uncertain about pregnancy status, the benefits of starting a contraceptive likely outweigh the risks since hormonal contraceptives do not cause birth defects.1 Before initiating contraception, the provider also can consider checking a urine pregnancy test in certain situations, as well as offering emergency contraception if the patient has had unprotected intercourse in the past five days. Usually, this “quick-start” protocol requires a follow-up pregnancy test in two to four weeks. However, with IUDs there is a concern that a higher risk exists for ectopic pregnancy, spontaneous abortion, septic abortion, preterm delivery, and chorioamnionitis if the IUD is placed when the patient may have a luteal phase pregnancy or early pregnancy. Therefore, the CDC recommends that the provider be reasonably sure that the individual is not pregnant before inserting an IUD.

    The authors of this study wanted to evaluate the utility of this pregnancy checklist in a population of patients seeking same-day LNG-IUS insertion. In their practice, a routine urine pregnancy test was performed prior to IUD insertion. Their hypothesis was that the pregnancy checklist was too restrictive and would exclude patients from accessing same-day LNG-IUS insertion.2 The advantages of same-day LNG-IUS insertion include patient convenience and decreased risk of pregnancy while waiting to come back for another IUD insertion appointment, although bridging contraception could be prescribed. The authors found that a good proportion of patients failed to meet at least one of the pregnancy checklist criteria. These patients had a negative urine pregnancy test and were offered LNG-IUS insertion anyway (with emergency contraception if indicated) and were counseled that they may have a small risk of a luteal phase pregnancy and should repeat a pregnancy test in two to four weeks. Only one woman (0.4%) was found to have a luteal phase pregnancy.

    Although these data are reassuring, there are some limitations in that there was no follow-up information for 26% of the sample. In addition, there was no information on the number of women who may have been steered toward using a copper IUD for both emergency and ongoing contraception. Finally, this study protocol requires universal urine pregnancy testing on the day of IUD insertion. Nevertheless, the authors thought their practice style was justified. I would agree, as long as there is shared decision-making with the patient. Patients should be thoroughly counseled on the potential, small risk of an undetected luteal phase pregnancy and the consequences to that pregnancy if an IUD is placed. Some women may not want to take that risk, depending on their values. The authors are to be commended for researching this issue and adding evidence to the literature. It is possible that in the subsequent update to the CDC’s Selected Practice Recommendations for Contraceptive Use, changes to the pregnancy checklist requirement will be made.

    REFERENCES

    1. Curtis KM, Jatlaoui TC, Tepper NK, et al. U.S. selected practice recommendations for contraceptive use, 2016. MMWR Recomm Rep 2016;65:1-66.
    2. Morroni C, Findley M, Westhoff C. Does using the “pregnancy checklist” delay safe initiation of contraception? Contraception 2017;95:331-334.

    Post a comment to this article

    Report Abusive Comment

    www.reliasmedia.com

    OB/GYN Clinical Alert

    View PDF
    OB/GYN Clinical Alert (Vol. 36, No. 12) – April 2020
    April 1, 2020

    Table Of Contents

    Early Loss of Ovarian Function May Increase Risk for Cardiovascular Disease

    Can We Liberalize Intrauterine Device Insertion Protocols?

    Vaginal Dryness: The Keystone Symptom of Postmenopausal Sexual Dysfunction?

    17P to Prevent Recurrent PTB in Singleton Gestations: The PROLONG Study

    Begin Test

    Buy this Issue/Course

    Financial Disclosure: OB/GYN Clinical Alert’s Editor Jeffrey T. Jensen, MD, MPH, reports that he is a consultant for Bayer, Sebela, TherapeuticsMD, and CooperSurgical; and he receives grant/research support from AbbVie, Bayer Healthcare, Merck, Estetra SPRL, Medicines360, and Daré Bioscience. Peer Reviewer Catherine Leclair, MD; Nurse Planner Andrea OʼDonnell, FNP; Editorial Group Manager Leslie Coplin; Editor Jason Schneider; and Executive Editor Shelly Mark report no financial relationships relevant to this field of study.

    Shop Now: Search Products

    • Subscription Publications
    • Books & Study Guides
    • Webinars
    • Group & Site
      Licenses
    • State CME/CE
      Requirements

    Webinars And Events

    View All Events
    • Home
      • Home
      • Newsletters
      • Blogs
      • Archives
      • CME/CE Map
      • Shop
    • Emergency
      • All Products
      • Publications
      • Study Guides
      • Webinars
      • Group Sales
    • Hospital
      • All Products
      • Publications
      • Study Guides
      • Webinars
      • Group Sales
    • Clinical
      • All Products
      • Publications
      • Study Guides
      • Webinars
      • Group Sales
    • All Access
      • Subscribe Now
      • My Subscription
    • My Account
      • My Subscriptions
      • My Content
      • My Orders
      • My CME/CE
      • My Transcript
    • Help
    • Search
    • About Us
    • Sign In
    • Register
    Relias Media - Continuing Medical Education Publishing

    The trusted source for

    healthcare information and

    CONTINUING EDUCATION.

    Customer Service

    customerservice@reliasmedia.com

    U.S. and Canada: 1-800-688-2421

    International +1-404-262-5476

    Accounts Receivable

    1-800-370-9210
    ReliasMedia_AR@reliasmedia.com

    Mailing Address

    • 1010 Sync St., Suite 100
      Morrisville, NC 27560-5468
      USA

    © 2020 Relias. All rights reserved.

    Do Not Sell My Personal Information  Privacy Policy  Terms of Use  Contact Us  Reprints  Group Sales

    For DSR inquiries or complaints, please reach out to Wes Vaux, Data Privacy Officer, DPO@relias.com

    Design, CMS, Hosting & Web Development :: ePublishing