Intrauterine contraception in nulliparous women: a prospective survey

Alexandra M Hall, Beth A Kutler, Alexandra M Hall, Beth A Kutler

Abstract

Background: Intrauterine contraception is a first-line option for young women, yet relatively few prospective studies have been performed in nulliparous women using currently available devices, and many providers are still reluctant to provide this option.

Methods: Between January 2012 and June 2014, 109 nulliparous women, aged 18-30 years, who had an intrauterine device (IUD) placed at a student health clinic [88 levonorgestrel-intrauterine system (LNG-IUS) users and 21 Cu T 380A (IUD) users] were surveyed at 1, 6, 12 and 18 months after insertion.

Results: Overall satisfaction was high; at follow-up survey 83% of 100 women (mean use 13.4 months) were 'happy' or 'very happy' with their IUD, and there were no differences in satisfaction between the two IUD types. Some 75% of participants stated that the insertion procedure went 'very well', despite 78% rating insertion pain as moderate to severe, and 46% experiencing vasovagal symptoms. The 12-month continuation rate was 89%, with discontinuations for expulsion (3%), side effects (6%), lack of anticipated benefit (1%) and pregnancy (1%). Users of the Cu T 380A were more likely to have heavy menses (74% vs 2%; p<0.0001) or moderate to severe cramping (68% vs 20%; p=0.0002) compared with LNG-IUS users. There were no uterine perforations or diagnoses of pelvic inflammatory disease. The rate of failed insertions during the study period was 6.2%.

Conclusions: Despite significant symptoms with insertion, intrauterine contraception is safe, effective and ultimately well tolerated in nulliparous women and should be provided to this population in both university and community health settings.

Keywords: intrauterine devices; intrauterine systems; long-acting reversible contraception.

Published by the BMJ Publishing Group Limited. For permission to use (where not already granted under a licence) please go to http://www.bmj.com/company/products-services/rights-and-licensing/

Figures

Figure 1
Figure 1
Menstrual symptoms by intrauterine device type. Percentage of women reporting symptoms at 6 months of 64 levonorgestrel intrauterine system (LNG-IUS) users and 19 Cu T 380A intrauterine device users. *p<0.05 for difference between LNG-IUS and Cu T 380A.

References

    1. Committee on Adolescent Health Care Long-Acting Reversible Contraception Working Group, The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists. Committee opinion no. 539: adolescents and long-acting reversible contraception: implants and intrauterine devices. Obstet Gynecol 2012;120:983–988. 10.1097/AOG.0b013e3182723b7d
    1. Guttmacher Institute. Fact Sheet: Contraceptive use in the United States. June 2014. [accessed 9 July 2014].
    1. Fleming K, Sokoloff A, Raine T. Attitudes and beliefs about the intrauterine device among teenagers and young women. Contraception 2010;82:178–182. 10.1016/j.contraception.2010.02.020
    1. Whitaker A, Johnson L, Harwood B, et al. . Adolescent and young adult women's knowledge of and attitudes toward the intrauterine device. Contraception 2008;78:211–217. 10.1016/j.contraception.2008.04.119
    1. Luchowski A, Anderson B, Poer M, et al. . Obstetrician-gynecologists and contraception: practice and opinions about the use of IUDs in nulliparous women, adolescents and other patient populations. Contraception 2014;89:572–577. 10.1016/j.contraception.2014.02.008
    1. Armitage C, Mitchell C, Wigan C, et al. . Uptake and continuation rates of the intrauterine system in a university student general practice population in the UK. J Fam Plann Reprod Health Care 2013;39:186–189. 10.1136/jfprhc-2012-100392
    1. Marions L, Lövkvist L, Taube A, et al. . Use of the levonorgestrel releasing-intrauterine system in nulliparous women – a non-interventional study in Sweden. Eur J Contracept Reprod Health Care 2011;16:126–134. 10.3109/13625187.2011.558222
    1. Brockmeyer A, Kishen M, Webb A. Experience of IUD/IUS insertions and clinical performance in nulliparous women – a pilot study. Eur J Contracept Reprod Health Care 2008;13:248–254. 10.1080/02699200802253706
    1. Suhonen S, Haukkama M, Jakobsson T, et al. . Clinical performance of a levonorgestrel-releasing intrauterine system and oral contraceptives in young nulliparous women: a comparative study. Contraception 2004;69:407–412. 10.1016/j.contraception.2003.11.008
    1. Otero-Flores J, Guerrero-Carreño L, Vázquez-Estrada L. A comparative randomized study of three different IUDs in nulliparous Mexican women. Contraception 2003;67:273–276. 10.1016/S0010-7824(02)00519-X
    1. Peipert J, Zhao Q, Allsworth J, et al. . Continuation and satisfaction of reversible contraception. Obstet Gynecol 2011;117:1105–1113. 10.1097/AOG.0b013e31821188ad
    1. Shelton J, Taylor R. The Pearl Pregnancy Index reexamined: still useful for clinical trials of contraceptives. Am J Obstet Gynecol 1981;139:592–596.
    1. Centres for Disease Control. US Medical Eligibility Criteria for Contraceptive Use 2010. MMWR Recomm Rep 2010;59:1–86.
    1. Allen R, Carey M, Raker C, et al. . A prospective cohort study of pain with intrauterine device insertion among women with and without vaginal deliveries. J Obstet Gynaecol 2014;34:263–267. 10.3109/01443615.2013.868424
    1. Brown W, Trouton K. Intrauterine device insertions: which variables matter? J Fam Plann Reprod Health Care 2014;40:117–121. 10.1136/jfprhc-2012-100383
    1. Espey E, Singh R, Leeman L, et al. . Misoprostol for intrauterine device insertion in nulliparous women: a randomized controlled trial. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2014;210:208.e1–208.e5. 10.1016/j.ajog.2013.11.018
    1. Dijkhuizen K, Dekkers O, Holleboom C, et al. . Vaginal misoprostol prior to insertion of an intrauterine device: an RCT. Hum Reprod 2011;26:323–329. 10.1093/humrep/deq348
    1. Sääv I, Aronsson A, Marions L, et al. . Cervical priming with sublingual misoprostol prior to insertion of an intrauterine device in nulliparous women: a randomized controlled trial. Hum Reprod 2007;22:2647–2652. 10.1093/humrep/dem244
    1. Hubacher D, Reyes V, Lillo S, et al. . Pain from copper intrauterine device insertion: randomized trial of prophylactic ibuprofen. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2006;195: 1272–1277. 10.1016/j.ajog.2006.08.022
    1. Ward K, Jacobson J, Turok D, et al. . A survey of provider experience with misoprostol to facilitate intrauterine device insertion in nulliparous women. Contraception 2011;84:594–599. 10.1016/j.contraception.2011.03.011
    1. Allen R, Raker C, Goyal V. Higher dose cervical 2% lidocaine gel for IUD insertion: a randomized controlled trial. Contraception 2013;88:730–736. 10.1016/j.contraception.2013.07.009
    1. Nelson A, Fong J. Intrauterine infusion of lidocaine does not reduce pain scores during IUD insertion. Contraception 2013;88:37–40. 10.1016/j.contraception.2012.12.009
    1. Bayer L, Jensen J, Li H, et al. . Adolescent experience with intrauterine device insertion and use: a retrospective cohort study. Contraception 2012;86:443–451. 10.1016/j.contraception.2012.03.014
    1. Berger G, Edelman D, Regenie S. Patients’ responses to IUD insertion. Int J Gynaecol Obstet 1976;14:147–152.
    1. Lathrop E, Haddad L, McWhorter C, et al. . Self-administration of misoprostol prior to intrauterine device insertion among nulliparous women: a randomized controlled trial. Contraception 2013;88:725–729. 10.1016/j.contraception.2013.07.011
    1. Gemzell-Danielsson K, Schellschmidt I, Apter D. A randomized, phase II study describing the efficacy, bleeding profile, and safety of two low-dose levonorgestrel-releasing intrauterine contraceptive systems and Mirena. Fertil Steril 2012;97:616–622. 10.1016/j.fertnstert.2011.12.003
    1. Winner B, Peipert J, Zhao Q, et al. . effectiveness of long-acting reversible contraception. N Engl J Med 2012;366:1998–2007. 10.1056/NEJMoa1110855
    1. Aoun J, Dines V, Stovall D, et al. . Effects of age, parity, and device type on complications and discontinuation of intrauterine devices. Obstet Gynecol 2014;123:585–592. 10.1097/AOG.0000000000000144
    1. Berenson A, Tan A, Hirth J, et al. . Complications and continuation of intrauterine device use among commercially insured teenagers. Obstet Gynecol 2013;121:951–958. 10.1097/AOG.0b013e31828b63a0
    1. Veldhuis H, Vos A, Lagro-Janssen A. Complications of the intrauterine device in nulliparous and parous women. Eur J Gen Pract 2004;10:82–87. 10.3109/13814780409044540
    1. Farmer M, Webb A. Intrauterine device insertion-related complications: can they be predicted? J Fam Plann Reprod Health Care 2003;29:227–231. 10.1783/147118903101197854
    1. Godfrey E, Memmel L, Neustadt A, et al. . Intrauterine contraception for adolescents aged 14–18 years: a multicenter randomized pilot study of levonorgestrel-releasing intrauterine system compared to the Copper T 380A. Contraception 2010;81:123–127. 10.1016/j.contraception.2009.09.004
    1. Lara-Torre E, Spotswood L, Correia N, et al. . Intrauterine contraception in adolescents and young women: a descriptive study of use, side effects, and compliance. J Pediatr Adolesc Gynecol 2011;24:39–41. 10.1016/j.jpag.2010.07.001
    1. Worcester S. Data support same-day IUD placement in women seeking contraceptive services. Ob.Gyn.News. 3 June 2014. [accessed 9 July 2014].

Source: PubMed

Sponsorzy i współpracownicy

Warunki medyczne

Interwencje lekowe

3
Subskrybuj