No abstract

Objective We investigated the one-year pregnancy rates for emergency contraception (EC) users who selected the copper T380 IUD or oral levonorgestrel (LNG) for EC. Study Design This prospective study followed women for 1 year after choosing either the copper T380 IUD or oral LNG for EC. The study was powered to detect a 6% difference in pregnancy rates within the year after presenting for EC. Results Of the 542 women who presented for EC, agreed to participate in the trial, and meet inclusion criteria, 215 (40%) chose the copper IUD and 327 (60%) chose oral LNG. In the IUD group, 127 (59%) were nulligravid. IUD insertion failed in 42 women (19%). The 1-year follow-up rate was 443/542 (82%); 64% of IUD users contacted at 1 year still had their IUDs in place. The 1-year cumulative pregnancy rate in women choosing the IUD was 6.5% vs. 12.2% in those choosing oral LNG (HR= 0.53, 95% CI: 0.29–0.97, p=0.041). By type of EC method actually received, corresponding values were 5.2% for copper IUD users vs. 12.3% for oral LNG users, HR 0.42 (95% CI: 0.20–0.85, p= 0.017). A multivariable logistic regression model controlling for demographic variables demonstrates that women who chose the IUD for EC had fewer pregnancies in the following year than those who chose oral LNG (HR 0.50, 95% CI: 0.26–0.96, p=0.037). Conclusion One year after presenting for EC women choosing the copper IUD for EC were half as likely to have a pregnancy compared to those choosing oral LNG.

I.

Utah's extended waiting period showed a small reduction in the proportion of counseled women who returned for their abortion procedure statewide. Women who had abortions after the law was enacted reported several burdensome aspects of the law.

Background The data analysis was conducted to describe the rate of unsuccessful copper T380A intrauterine device (IUD) insertions among women using the IUD for emergency contraception (EC) at community family planning clinics in Utah. Methods These data were obtained from a prospective observational trial of women choosing the copper T380A IUD for EC. Insertions were performed by nurse practitioners at two family planning clinics in order to generalize findings to the type of service setting most likely to employ this intervention. Adjuvant measures to facilitate difficult IUD insertions (cervical anesthesia, dilation, pain medication, and use of ultrasound guidance) were not utilized. The effect of parity on IUD insertion success was determined using exact logistic regression models adjusted for individual practitioner failure rates. Results Six providers performed 197 IUD insertion attempts. These providers had a mean of 14.1 years of experience (range 1–27, S.D. ±12.5). Among nulliparous women, 27 of 138 (19.6%) IUD insertions were unsuccessful. In parous women, 8 of 59 IUD insertions were unsuccessful (13.6%). The adjusted odds ratio (aOR) showed that IUD insertion failure was more likely in nulliparous women compared to parous women (aOR=2.31, 95% CI 0.90–6.52, p=.09). Conclusion The high rate of unsuccessful IUD insertions reported here, particularly for nulliparous women, suggests that the true insertion failure rate of providers who are not employing additional tools for difficult insertions may be much higher than reported in clinical trials. Further investigation is necessary to determine if this is a common problem and, if so, to assess if the use of adjuvant measures will reduce the number of unsuccessful IUD insertions.