Search

Objective:  To assess the efficacy, safety, and acceptability of misoprostol in the treatment of incomplete miscarriage., Data Sources: The PubMed, Scopus, Embase, Web of Science, Cochrane Library, and Clinical Trials databases (clinicaltrials.gov) were searched for the relevant articles, and search strategies were developed using a combination of thematic Medical Subject Headings terms and text words. The last search was conducted on July 4, 2022. No language restrictions were applied., Selection of Studies:  Randomized clinical trials with patients of gestational age up to 6/7 weeks with a diagnosis of incomplete abortion and who were managed with at least 1 of the 3 types of treatment studied were included. A total of 8,087 studies were screened., Data Collection:  Data were synthesized using the statistical package Review Manager V.5.1 (The Cochrane Collaboration, Oxford, United Kingdom). For dichotomous outcomes, the odds ratio (OR) and 95% confidence interval (CI) were derived for each study. Heterogeneity between the trial results was evaluated using the standard test, I 2 statistic., Data Synthesis:  When comparing misoprostol with medical vacuum aspiration (MVA), the rate of complete abortion was higher in the MVA group (OR = 0.16; 95%CI = 0.07-0.36). Hemorrhage or heavy bleeding was more common in the misoprostol group (OR = 3.00; 95%CI = 1.96-4.59), but pain after treatment was more common in patients treated with MVA (OR = 0.65; 95%CI = 0.52-0.80). No statistically significant differences were observed in the general acceptability of the treatments., Conclusion:  Misoprostol has been determined as a safe option with good acceptance by patients., Competing Interests: The authors have no conflict of interests to declare., (Federação Brasileira de Ginecologia e Obstetrícia. This is an open access article published by Thieme under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, permitting unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction so long as the original work is properly cited. (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).)

Background: Pregnant patients are potentially vulnerable to COVID-19., Objectives: To clarify the clinical features of COVID-19 and analyze maternal/fetal morbidity and mortality and the obstetric and neonatal outcomes of pregnant patients., Search Strategy: Embase, PubMed, Web of Science, CINAHAL, LILACS, Google Scholar, and Scopus., Selection Criteria: Articles published from December 2019 to February 2021., Data Collection and Analysis: The reviewers extracted relevant data from the full-text. Data synthesis was performed using the R-4.1.0 Project for Statistical Computing for Windows. The meta-analysis of the included studies was carried out using the random-effects model (DerSimonian and Laird). Heterogeneity was measured using I 2 analysis., Results: A total of 70 studies included 10 047 pregnant women with COVID-19, of whom 71.6% were in their third trimester. The most common symptoms were fever, cough, chest pain, dyspnea, and fatigue. Most newborns were delivered preterm (24%, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.17-0.34, I 2  = 93%) and via cesarean delivery (42%, 95% CI 0.38-0.47, I 2  = 92%). There were 108 maternal mortalities (2%, 95% CI 0.01-0.03, I 2  = 54%) and 50 abortions (5%, 95% CI 0.03-0.09, I 2  = 73%). The neonatal outcomes included fetal distress (11%, 95% CI 0.06-0.19, I 2  = 91%), birth weight (15%, 95% CI 0.10-0.21, I 2  = 76%), APGAR <7 (19%, 95% CI 0.12-0.28, I 2  = 43%), admission to the neonatal intensive care unit (28%, 95% CI 0.17-0.43, I 2  = 90%), and fetal mortality (2%, 95% CI 0.01-0.03, I 2  = 46%)., Conclusion:  There was no evidence of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus-2 in the placenta, breast milk, umbilical cord, and amniotic fluid of pregnant patients. PROSPERO registration number: CRD42020181519., (© 2021 International Federation of Gynecology and Obstetrics.)