Is there a difference in the clinical profile and outcome of women using levonorgestrel IUD for abnormal uterine bleeding and those using it for contraception?: A comparative cross-sectional study.
{"title":"Is there a difference in the clinical profile and outcome of women using levonorgestrel IUD for abnormal uterine bleeding and those using it for contraception?: A comparative cross-sectional study.","authors":"Maryam Al Shukri, Maryam Said, Asha Nair, Mariam Mathew, Vaidyanatahn Gowri","doi":"10.4274/tjod.galenos.2024.51460","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objective: </strong>The most common indications for Levonorgestrel intrauterine device (LNG-IUD) are contraception and management of abnormal uterine bleeding (AUB). This study was conducted with the aim of exploring the differences in the clinical profile and outcome of women using LNG-IUD for contraception and AUB.</p><p><strong>Materials and methods: </strong>This was a retrospective comparative cross-sectional study of women who underwent LNG-IUD (52 mg) between 2012 and 2017. Their electronic health records were reviewed until the last documented follow-up or until December 2021.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>A total of 235 women had LNG-IUD with an age range of 21 to 62 years and a mean of (37.98 years±6.76). Of these women, 153/235 (65.1%) had it for contraception and 82/235 (34.89%) had it for AUB. The follow-up was 1-94 months with (mean ± SEM) follow-up for the AUB group of (21.48±2.31) months and for contraception group was (20.74±1.76) months (p-value of 0.80). There was a significant difference between the two groups in the age and body mass index (BMI), where women who had LNG-IUD for AUB were older (mean of 42.54±6.49 years, p-value <0.001) and had higher BMI (31.88±7.52 kg/m<sup>2</sup>, p-value =0.011). All LNG-IUDs that were indicated for contraception were inserted in an outpatient setting. However, 68.3% in the AUB, the insertion was in the operating theater in conjunction with hysteroscopy. After combining both expulsion and removal of LNG-IUD during the follow-up period, there was no significant difference between the 2 groups in the overall retention rate during the follow-up (p-value =0.998).</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>this study shows that women using LNG-IUD for the management of AUB are older and have a higher BMI compared with those using it for contraception. AUB women experienced more expulsion compared with the contraception group, but there was no difference between the 2 groups in the overall survival/retention of LNG-IUD.</p>","PeriodicalId":45340,"journal":{"name":"Turkish Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology","volume":"21 1","pages":"7-14"},"PeriodicalIF":1.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-03-04","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10920973/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Turkish Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.4274/tjod.galenos.2024.51460","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"OBSTETRICS & GYNECOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
Objective: The most common indications for Levonorgestrel intrauterine device (LNG-IUD) are contraception and management of abnormal uterine bleeding (AUB). This study was conducted with the aim of exploring the differences in the clinical profile and outcome of women using LNG-IUD for contraception and AUB.
Materials and methods: This was a retrospective comparative cross-sectional study of women who underwent LNG-IUD (52 mg) between 2012 and 2017. Their electronic health records were reviewed until the last documented follow-up or until December 2021.
Results: A total of 235 women had LNG-IUD with an age range of 21 to 62 years and a mean of (37.98 years±6.76). Of these women, 153/235 (65.1%) had it for contraception and 82/235 (34.89%) had it for AUB. The follow-up was 1-94 months with (mean ± SEM) follow-up for the AUB group of (21.48±2.31) months and for contraception group was (20.74±1.76) months (p-value of 0.80). There was a significant difference between the two groups in the age and body mass index (BMI), where women who had LNG-IUD for AUB were older (mean of 42.54±6.49 years, p-value <0.001) and had higher BMI (31.88±7.52 kg/m2, p-value =0.011). All LNG-IUDs that were indicated for contraception were inserted in an outpatient setting. However, 68.3% in the AUB, the insertion was in the operating theater in conjunction with hysteroscopy. After combining both expulsion and removal of LNG-IUD during the follow-up period, there was no significant difference between the 2 groups in the overall retention rate during the follow-up (p-value =0.998).
Conclusion: this study shows that women using LNG-IUD for the management of AUB are older and have a higher BMI compared with those using it for contraception. AUB women experienced more expulsion compared with the contraception group, but there was no difference between the 2 groups in the overall survival/retention of LNG-IUD.