Reproductive outcome after early pregnancy loss treated with misoprostol versus surgical aspiration.

Research Question: Does long-term reproductive outcome after early pregnancy loss (EPL) differ between women who are treated with misoprostol and surgical aspiration.
Design: A historic cohort study of all women who were diagnosed with early pregnancy loss (≤12 weeks), in a single medical centre, between September 2016 and August 2017, was conducted. The women were treated with either misoprostol or surgical aspiration according to their own preferences. Women who were lost to follow-up or did not attempt to conceive again were excluded. The primary outcome measure was the cumulative pregnancy rate within 12 months from intervention.
Results: Baseline characteristics were comparable between women who received misoprostol (n = 163) and women who underwent surgical aspiration (n = 122). Women who received misoprostol had a higher rate of interventions for retained products of conception (11.0% versus 3.3%, respectively; P = 0.015). The misoprostol and the surgical aspiration groups did not differ in rate of repeated miscarriages (17.8% versus 21.3%, respectively; P = 0.45), or pregnancy rate within 6 months (58.3% versus 50.0%, respectively; P = 0.16), 12 months (78.5% versus 78.7%, respectively; P = 0.97) and 24 months (92.0% versus 91.8%, respectively; P = 0.94). Live birth rate within 24 months was comparable (62.0% versus 58.2%, respectively; P = 0.52), as well as gestational age at birth (38.5 versus 38.6 weeks, respectively; P = 0.81) and birthweight (3295 versus 3161 g, respectively; P = 0.07).
Conclusions: Long-term reproductive outcomes are comparable in women with EPL who are treated with either misoprostol or surgical aspiration. Our findings may help counselling patients facing EPL who have concerns about their future reproduction.
(Copyright © 2020 Reproductive Healthcare Ltd. Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)