4.5 Article

Complications of second-trimester medical termination of pregnancy for fetal anomalies compared with intrauterine fetal demise

期刊

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1002/ijgo.14302

关键词

complications; intrauterine fetal demise; second-trimester induction of labor

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This study compared the complication rates of medical termination for fetal anomalies with medical termination for intrauterine fetal demise in the second trimester. The results showed that both groups had similar complication rates.
Objective To assess complication rates of patients undergoing a second-trimester medical termination for intrauterine fetal demise compared with fetal anomalies. Methods We performed a retrospective cohort study comparing patients undergoing medical termination for a fetal anomaly versus medical termination for intrauterine fetal demise (IUFD) before 24 weeks of gestation. Data were collected from two urban academic medical centers from 2009 to 2019. Institutional review board approval was obtained from both institutions and patient consent was not required. We included singleton gestations between 14.0 weeks and 23.6 weeks undergoing induction with mifepristone and misoprostol or misoprostol alone. Groups were matched based on gestational age with a 1:1 ratio. The primary outcome was composite complication rate (retained placenta requiring dilation and curettage, suspected infection, hemorrhage, failed induction requiring dilation and evacuation, intensive care unit admission, and readmission). Results Ninety-five patients were in each group. The groups differed in patient mean age (fetal anomaly 34 years versus 31 years for IUFD, P = 0.005) and mifepristone pretreatment (fetal anomaly 55% versus IUFD 5%, P < 0.001). Composite complication rate was similar (fetal anomaly 14% versus IUFD 17%), and specific complications did not differ. Conclusion Second-trimester medical termination for IUFDs have similar complication rates as those undergoing induction terminations for fetal anomalies.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.5
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据