MisoREST: Surgical versus expectant management in women with an incomplete evacuation of the uterus after misoprostol treatment for miscarriage: A cohort study

4Citations
Citations of this article
25Readers
Mendeley users who have this article in their library.

Abstract

Objective To assess the effectiveness of curettage versus expectant management in women with an incomplete evacuation of the uterus after misoprostol treatment for first trimester miscarriage. Study design We conducted a multicenter cohort study alongside a randomized clinical trial (RCT) between June 2012 until July 2014. 27 Dutch hospitals participated. Women with an incomplete evacuation after misoprostol treatment for first trimester miscarriage who declined to participate in the RCT, received treatment of their preference; curettage (n = 65) or expectant management (n = 132). A successful outcome was defined as an empty uterus on sonography at six weeks or uneventful clinical follow-up. We furthermore assessed complication rate and (re)intervention rate Results Of the 197 women who declined to participate in the RCT, 65 preferred curettage and 132 expectant management. A successful outcome was observed in 62/65 women (95%) in the surgical group versus 112/132 women (85%) in the expectant group (RR 1.1, 95% CI 1.03–1.2), with complication rates of 6.2% versus 2.3%, respectively (RR 2.7, 95% CI 0.6–12). Conclusion In women with an incomplete evacuation of the uterus after misoprostol treatment, expectant management is an effective and safe option. This finding could restrain the use of curettage in women that have used misoprostol in the treatment of first trimester miscarriage.

Cite

CITATION STYLE

APA

Lemmers, M., Verschoor, M. A. C., Oude Rengerink, K., Naaktgeboren, C., Bossuyt, P. M., Huirne, J. A. F., … Mol, B. W. J. (2017). MisoREST: Surgical versus expectant management in women with an incomplete evacuation of the uterus after misoprostol treatment for miscarriage: A cohort study. European Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology and Reproductive Biology, 211, 83–89. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejogrb.2017.01.019

Register to see more suggestions

Mendeley helps you to discover research relevant for your work.

Already have an account?

Save time finding and organizing research with Mendeley

Sign up for free