Search

Plain language summary: Over one‐quarter of women in the UK have a caesarean birth (CB). More than one in 20 of these births occurs near the end of labour, when the cervix is fully dilated (second stage). In these circumstances, and when labour has been prolonged, the baby's head can become lodged deep in the maternal pelvis making it challenging to deliver the baby. During the caesarean birth, difficulty in delivery of the baby's head may result – this emergency is known as impacted fetal head (IFH). These are technically challenging births that pose significant risks to both the woman and baby. Complications for the woman include tears in the womb, serious bleeding and longer hospital stay. Babies are at increased risk of injury including damage to the head and face, lack of oxygen to the brain, nerve damage, and in rare cases, the baby may die from these complications. Maternity staff are increasingly encountering IFH at CB, and reports of associated injuries have risen dramatically in recent years. The latest UK studies suggest that IFH may complicate as many as one in 10 unplanned CBs (1.5% of all births) and that two in 100 babies affected by IFH die or are seriously injured. Moreover, there has been a sharp increase in reports of babies having brain injuries when their birth was complicated by IFH. When an IFH occurs, the maternity team can use different approaches to help deliver the baby's head at CB. These include: an assistant (another obstetrician or midwife) pushing the head up from the vagina; delivering the baby feet first; using a specially designed inflatable balloon device to elevate the baby's head and/or giving the mother a medicine to relax the womb. However, there is currently no consensus for how best to manage these births. This has resulted in a lack of confidence among maternity staff, variable practice and potentially avoidable harm in some circumstances. This paper reviews the current evidence regarding the prediction, prevention and management of IFH at CB, integrating findings from a systematic review commissioned from the National Guideline Alliance. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Introduction: The safety and acceptability of medical abortion using mifepristone and misoprostol at home at ≤9+0 weeks' gestation is well established. However, the upper gestational limit at which the procedure remains safe and acceptable at home is not known. To inform a national guideline on abortion care we conducted a systematic review to determine what gestational limit for expulsion at home offers the best balance of benefits and harms for women who are having medical abortion. Material and methods: We searched Embase, MEDLINE, Cochrane Library, Cinahl Plus and Web‐of‐Science on 2 January 2020 for prospective and retrospective cohort studies with ≥50 women per gestational age group, published in English from 1995 onwards, that included women undergoing medical abortion and compared home expulsion of pregnancies of ≤9+0 weeks' gestational age with pregnancies of 9+1‐10+0 weeks or >10+1 weeks' gestational age, or compared the latter two gestational age groups. We assessed risk‐of‐bias using the Newcastle‐Ottowa scale. All outcomes were meta‐analyzed as risk ratios (RR) using the Mantel‐Haenszel method. The certainty of the evidence was assessed using GRADE. Results: Six studies (n = 3381) were included. The "need for emergency care/admission to hospital" (RR = 0.79, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.45‐1.4), "hemorrhage requiring transfusion/≥500 mL blood loss" (RR = 0.62, 95% CI 0.11‐3.55), patient satisfaction (RR = 0.99, 95% CI 0.95‐1.03), pain (RR = 0.91, 95% CI 0.82‐1.02), and "complete abortion without the need for surgical intervention" (RR = 1.03, 95% CI 1‐1.05) did not differ statistically significantly between the ≤9+0 and >9+0 weeks' gestation groups. The rates of vomiting (RR = 0.8, 95% CI 0.69‐0.93) and diarrhea (RR = 0.85, 95% CI 0.73‐0.99) were statistically significantly lower in the ≤9+0 weeks group but these differences were not considered clinically important. We found no studies comparing pregnancies of 9+1‐10+0 weeks' gestation with pregnancies of >10+0 weeks' gestation. The certainty of this evidence was predominantly low and mainly compromised by low event rates and loss to follow up. Conclusions: Women who are having a medical abortion and will be taking mifepristone up to and including 10+0 weeks' gestation should be offered the option of expulsion at home after they have taken the misoprostol. Further research needs to determine whether the gestational limit for home expulsion can be extended beyond 10+0 weeks. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Induced abortion is a common procedure. However, there is marked variation in accessibility of services across England. Accessing abortion services may be difficult, particularly for women who live in remote areas, are in the second trimester of pregnancy, have complex pre-existing conditions or have difficult social circumstances.Objective and Rationale: This article presents a two-part review undertaken for a new National Institute of Health and Care Excellence guideline on abortion care, and aiming to determine: the factors that help or hinder accessibility and sustainability of abortion services in England (qualitative review), and strategies that improve these factors, and/or other factors identified by stakeholders (quantitative review). Economic modelling was undertaken to estimate cost savings associated with reducing waiting times.Search Methods: Ovid Embase Classic and Embase, Ovid MEDLINE(R) Epub Ahead of Print, In-Process & Other Non-Indexed Citations, Ovid MEDLINE(R) Daily and Ovid MEDLINE(R), PsycINFO, Cochrane Library via Wiley Online, Cinahl Plus and Web of Science Core Collection were searched for articles published up to November 2018. Studies were included if they were published in English after 2001, conducted in Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) countries and were: qualitative studies reporting views of patients and/or staff on factors that help or hinder the accessibility and sustainability of a safe abortion service, or randomized or non-randomized studies that compared strategies to improve factors identified by the qualitative review and/or stakeholders. Studies were excluded if they were conducted in OECD countries where abortion is prohibited altogether or only performed to save the woman's life. One author assessed risk of bias of included studies using the following checklists: Critical Appraisal Skills Programme checklist for qualitative studies, Cochrane Collaboration quality checklist for randomized controlled trials, Newcastle-Ottawa scale for cohort studies, and Effective Practice and Organization of Care risk of bias tool for before-and-after studies.Qualitative evidence was combined using thematic analysis and overall quality of the evidence was assessed using Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluations (GRADE) Confidence in the Evidence from Reviews of Qualitative Research (CERQual). Quantitative evidence was analysed in Review Manager 5.3 and overall quality of evidence was assessed using GRADE.Outcomes: Eight themes (service level barriers; financial barriers; logistical barriers; personal barriers; legal and policy barriers; privacy and confidentiality concerns; training and education; community prescribing and telemedicine introduce greater flexibility) and 18 subthemes were identified from 23 papers (n = 1016) included in the qualitative review. The quality of evidence ranged from very low to high, with evidence for one theme and seven subthemes rated as high quality. Nine studies (n = 7061) were included in the quantitative review which showed that satisfaction was better (low to high quality evidence) and women were seen sooner (very low quality evidence) when care was led by nurses or midwives compared with physician-led services, women were seen sooner when they could self-refer (very low quality evidence), and clinicians were more likely to provide abortions if training used an opt-out model (very low quality evidence). Economic modelling showed that even small reductions in waiting times could result in large cost savings for services.Wider Implications: Self-referral, funding for travel and accommodation, reducing waiting times, remote assessment, community services, maximizing the role of nurses and midwives and including practical experience of performing abortion in core curriculums, unless the trainee opts out, should improve access to and sustainability of abortion services. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Long-acting reversible contraceptives (LARCs) are safe, effective and convenient post-abortal methods. However, there is concern that some LARCs may reduce the effectiveness of abortifacient drugs or result in other adverse outcomes.Objective and Rationale: We undertook two systematic reviews to examine the early administration of LARCs in women undergoing medical abortion with mifepristone and misoprostol. (i) For women who are having a medical abortion and who plan to use a progestogen-only contraceptive implant or injectable, does administration of the contraception at the same time as mifepristone influence the efficacy of the abortion? (Implant/injectable review). (ii) For women who have had a medical abortion, how soon after expulsion of the products of conception is it safe to insert an intrauterine contraceptive device/system? (LNG-IUS/Cu-IUD review).Search Methods: On 19 November 2018, we searched Embase Classic, Embase; Ovid MEDLINE(R) including Daily and Epub Ahead-of-Print, In-Process and Other Non-Indexed Citations; the Cochrane Library; Cinahl Plus; and Web of Science Core Collection. Eligible studies were randomised controlled trials (RCTs), in English from 1985 (Implant/injectable review) or 2007 (LNG-IUS/Cu-IUD review) onwards, conducted in women undergoing medical abortion with mifepristone and misoprostol and studying either (i) simultaneous administration of mifepristone and a progestogen-only contraceptive implant or injectable compared to administration >24 h after mifepristone, or (ii) immediate insertion of intrauterine contraception after expulsion of the products of conception compared to early insertion (≤7 days) or to delayed insertion (>7 days) or early compared to delayed insertion. One author assessed the risk of bias in the studies using the Cochrane Collaboration checklist for RCTs. All the outcomes were analysed as risk ratios and meta-analysed in Review Manager 5.3 using the Mantel-Haenszel statistical method and a fixed-effect model. The overall quality of the evidence was assessed using GRADE.Outcomes: Two RCTs (n = 1027) showed lower 'subsequent unintended pregnancy' rates and higher 'patient satisfaction' rates, and no other differences, after simultaneous administration of mifepristone and the implant compared to delayed administration. One RCT (n = 461) showed higher 'patient satisfaction' rates after simultaneous administration than after delayed administration of mifepristone and the injectable, but no other differences between these interventions. Three RCTs (n = 536) found no differences other than higher copper IUC uptake after early compared to delayed insertion at ≤9 weeks of gestation and higher rates of IUC expulsion, continuation and uptake after immediate compared to delayed insertion at 9+1-12+0 weeks of gestation and higher IUC continuation rates after immediate compared to delayed insertion at 12+1-20+0 weeks of gestation. The quality of this evidence ranged from very low to high and was mainly compromised by low event rates, high attrition and no blinding.Wider Implications: The contraceptive implant or injectable should be offered on the day of taking mifepristone. Intrauterine methods of contraception should be offered as soon as possible after expulsion of the pregnancy. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]