4.5 Article

Incidence of pregnancy after expectant, medical, or surgical management of spontaneous first trimester miscarriage: long term follow-up of miscarriage treatment (MIST) randomised controlled trial

Journal

BMJ-BRITISH MEDICAL JOURNAL
Volume 339, Issue -, Pages -

Publisher

BMJ PUBLISHING GROUP
DOI: 10.1136/bmj.b3827

Keywords

-

Funding

  1. BMA Claire Wand Fund

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Objectives To compare fertility rates after the three methods of managing early miscarriage in women recruited to the MIST (miscarriage treatment) randomised controlled trial. Setting Early pregnancy clinics of acute hospitals in the south west region of England. Participants 1199 women who had had an early miscarriage (<13 weeks) confirmed by scan. Intervention Expectant, medical, or surgical management. Main outcome measures Self reported pregnancy rates and live birth rates. Results Of 1199 women recruited to the trial, 1128 consented to follow-up. Of these, 762 women replied giving pregnancy details (68% response rate). Respondents were representative of the trial participants. The live birth rate five years after the index miscarriage was similar in the three management groups: 177/224 (79%, 95% confidence interval 73% to 84%) in the expectant management group, 181/230 ( 79%, 73% to 84%) in the medical group, and 192/235 (82%, 76% to 86%) in the surgical group. There was also no significant difference according to previous birth history. Older women and those with previous miscarriages were significantly less likely to subsequently give birth. Conclusion Method of miscarriage management does not affect subsequent pregnancy rates with around four in five women giving birth within five years of the index miscarriage. Women can be reassured that long term fertility concerns need not affect their choice of miscarriage management. Trial registration National Research Register N0467011677/N0467073587.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.5
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available