Article

Effects of the etonogestrel-releasing contraceptive implant inserted immediately postpartum on maternal hemostasis: a randomized controlled trial.

Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Ribeirao Preto School of Medicine, University of São Paulo, Ribeirao Preto, SP, Brazil.
Thrombosis Research (Impact Factor: 2.43). 04/2012; 130(3):355-60. DOI: 10.1016/j.thromres.2012.03.029
Source: PubMed

ABSTRACT The puerperium is the period of highest risk for thrombosis during a woman's reproductive life and it is an important time for initiating an effective contraceptive method in order to increase intergestational interval. Thus, the objective of the present study was to evaluated the effects of the etonogestrel (ENG)-releasing contraceptive implant inserted immediately postpartum on maternal hemostasis markers during the first six weeks of delivery.
Forty healthy women aged 18 to 35 years-old were randomized to receive either the ENG-releasing implant 24-48 h after delivery (implant group; n=20) or nothing (control group) until the sixth postpartum week. Blood samples were collected at 24-48 h and at 6 weeks after delivery, and hemostatic variables, including fibrinogen, coagulation factors, protein C, free protein S, antithrombin, α2-antiplasmin, plasminogen activator inhibitor 1, thrombin-antithrombin complex (TAT), prothrombin fragment (PF)1+2, and D-dimers, as well as normalized activated protein C sensitivity ratio (nAPCsr), thrombin time, activated partial thromboplastin time, and prothrombin time were evaluated.
Insertion of the ENG-releasing contraceptive implant did not change the physiological reduction in overall coagulation (TAT and PF1+2) and fibrinolysis (D-dimer) markers, or nAPCsr. Reductions in factors II, VII, X and fibrinogen and increases in factor V were greater in the control than in the implant group. Clotting factors remained within normal limits throughout the study.
The ENG-releasing contraceptive implant inserted immediately postpartum did not have negative effects on physiological variations of the hemostatic system during the first 6 weeks postpartum.

0 Bookmarks
 · 
88 Views
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: This paper examines the association between birth intervals and infant and child mortality and nutritional status. Repeated analysis of retrospective survey data from the Demographic and Health Surveys (DHS) program from 17 developing countries collected between 1990 and 1997 were used to examine these relationships. The key independent variable is the length of the preceding birth interval measured as the number of months between the birth of the child under study (index child) and the immediately preceding birth to the mother, if any. Both bivariate and multivariate designs were employed. Several child and mother-specific variables were used in the multivariate analyses in order to control for potential bias from confounding factors. Adjusted odds ratios were calculated to estimate relative risk. For neonatal mortality and infant mortality, the risk of dying decreases with increasing birth interval lengths up to 36 months, at which point the risk plateaus. For child mortality, the analysis indicates that the longer the birth interval, the lower the risk, even for intervals of 48 months or more. The relationship between chronic malnutrition and birth spacing is statistically significant in 6 of the 14 surveys with anthropometric data and between general malnutrition and birth spacing in 5 surveys. However, there is a clear pattern of increasing chronic and general undernutrition as the birth interval is shorter, as indicated by the averages of the adjusted odds ratios for all 14 countries. Considering both the increased risk of mortality and undernutrition for a birth earlier than 36 months and the great number of births that occur with such short intervals, the author recommends that mothers space births at least 36 months. However, the tendency for increased risk of neonatal mortality for births with intervals of 60 or more months leads the author to conclude that the optimal birth interval is between 36 and 59 months. This information can be used by health care providers to counsel women on the benefits of birth spacing.
    International Journal of Gynecology & Obstetrics 05/2005; 89 Suppl 1:S7-24. · 1.56 Impact Factor
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Our purpose was to study low birth weight and preterm birth after short interpregnancy intervals. Follow-up of a cohort of a register-based random sample of women who had at least two live births in Denmark between 1980 and 1992. Frequency of preterm birth (gestational age <37 weeks) and low birth weight (<2500 gm) were studied as a function of the interpregnancy interval in 10,187 women. Short interpregnancy intervals (< or =8 months) were associated with preterm birth but not with low birth weight. The adjusted odds ratios for preterm birth were 3.60 (95% confidence interval 2.04 to 6.35) for intervals up to 4.00 months and 2.28 (1.49 to 3.48) for intervals between 4.01 and 8.00 months compared with deliveries after 24 to 36 months, in which the risk of preterm birth was 3.5%. Risks were higher in women with a previous pregnancy at term. Social status, age, and parity were adjusted for. Short interpregnancy intervals were associated with an increased risk of premature delivery. This risk should be taken into account when planning a new pregnancy.
    American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology 02/1998; 178(2):259-63. · 3.97 Impact Factor
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Contraception for women who are breastfeeding is a public health issue of global importance. Each year over 100 million women make decisions about beginning or resuming contraception after childbirth. These decisions include both the choice of contraceptive method and the time at which its use begins, both of which continue to be debated by experts. Choices of contraception may be limited for lactating women due to concerns about hormonal effects on quality and quantity of milk, passage of hormones to the infant, and infant growth. Ideally, the contraceptive method chosen should not interfere with lactation. Additionally, because the return of menstruation and ovulation can be unpredictable in breastfeeding women, the timing of contraception initiation is important. To determine the effect of combined oral contraceptives and progestin-only contraceptives on lactation. The a priori hypothesis is that combined oral contraception impairs lactation, making it less appropriate than progestin-only or nonhormonal contraception for breastfeeding women. We used PUBMED, POPLINE, EMBASE, LILACS, and Cochrane Controlled Trials Register computer searches, supplemented by review articles and contact with investigators. We sought all randomized controlled trials, reported in any language, that included any form of hormonal contraception compared with another form of hormonal contraception, nonhormonal contraception, or placebo during lactation. Hormonal contraception could include combined oral or injectable contraceptives, progestin-only oral or injectable contraceptives, hormonal implants, or hormonal intrauterine devices. Study participants included breastfeeding women of any age or parity who desired contraception. We evaluated the methodological quality of each report and sought to identify duplicate reporting of data from multicenter trials. We abstracted data onto data collection forms. Principal outcome measures included quantity of milk; biochemical analysis of milk composition; initiation, maintenance and duration of lactation; infant growth; efficacy of contraceptive method while breastfeeding; and timing of contraception initiation and its effects on lactation. Because the trials did not have uniform interventions, often lacked quantifiable outcomes, and had poor methodological quality, we could not aggregate the data in a meta-analyses. Seven reports from five randomized controlled trials met our inclusion criteria. Most of the five trials did not specify their method used to generate a random sequence, method of allocation concealment, blinding of treatments, or use of an intention-to-treat analysis. Additionally, high loss to follow-up rates invalidated at least two studies. The findings from two reports comparing oral contraceptives to placebo during lactation were conflicting. Another trial found no inhibitory effects on lactation from progestin-only contraceptives. Finally, the WHO trial found no effect of progestin-only contraceptives on lactation but a decline in breast milk volume from combination contraceptives during lactation. High loss to follow-up rates, however, undermine the credibility of the WHO trial. No significant differences in infant growth or weight appeared in any of the included trials as a result of the use of hormonal contraception during lactation. Evidence from randomized controlled trials on the effect of hormonal contraceptives during lactation is limited and of poor quality; results should be interpreted with caution. The existing randomized controlled trials are insufficient to establish an effect of hormonal contraception, if any, on milk quality and quantity. Evidence is inadequate to make recommendations regarding hormonal contraceptive use for lactating women. At least one properly conducted randomized controlled trial of adequate size is urgently needed to address this question.
    Cochrane database of systematic reviews (Online) 02/2003; · 5.94 Impact Factor