Add like
Add dislike
Add to saved papers

Bleeding pattern difference between levonorgestrel intrauterine system and copper intrauterine devices inserted immediately post-abortion: a multicenter, prospective, observational cohort study in Chinese women.

BACKGROUND: To describe the bleeding pattern (primary outcome), side effects, treatment satisfaction and 6 month continuity rates associated with the 52 mg levonorgestrel intrauterine system (LNG-IUS) and the copper intrauterine device (Cu-IUD) inserted immediately after abortion.

METHODS: This multicenter, prospective, observational cohort study enrolled healthy women (aged ≥18 years) inserted with LNG-IUS or Cu-IUD immediately after first-trimester surgical abortion and followed up to 6 months. Bleeding pattern was obtained through daily patient bleeding diaries.

RESULTS: From 2013 to 2014, we enrolled 512 women (LNG-IUS = 312 [median age: 32.0 years] and Cu-IUD = 200 [median age: 30.0 years]) from nine Chinese centers. LNG-IUS resulted in a significantly lower number of bleeding/spotting days in the second 90 day reference period compared with Cu-IUD (median 14.5 vs. 18.0 days, p < .0001). Amenorrhea rate (no bleeding/spotting day in the second 90 day reference period) and no menstrual bleeding rate (absence of bleeding days in the second 90 day reference period) were significantly higher in LNG-IUS compared to Cu-IUD (13.9% vs. 0% and 39.5% vs. 0%; p < .001 for all). No dysmenorrhea was higher at the last follow-up in LNG-IUS users than Cu-IUD users (81.2% vs. 76%; p = .0047). Both treatments had a high satisfaction rate among women at both the follow-up visits, and the majority of them continued with the treatment. The rates of adverse events (e.g. oligomenorrhea, amenorrhea) in the LNG-IUS and Cu-IUD groups were 77.2% and 44.5% (p < .0001), respectively.

CONCLUSION: LNG-IUS post-abortion shows better bleeding patterns, and reduced dysmenorrhea and bleeding amount, but with a similar safety profile compared with Cu-IUD. ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT01958684.

Full text links

We have located links that may give you full text access.
Can't access the paper?
Try logging in through your university/institutional subscription. For a smoother one-click institutional access experience, please use our mobile app.

Related Resources

For the best experience, use the Read mobile app

Mobile app image

Get seemless 1-tap access through your institution/university

For the best experience, use the Read mobile app

All material on this website is protected by copyright, Copyright © 1994-2024 by WebMD LLC.
This website also contains material copyrighted by 3rd parties.

By using this service, you agree to our terms of use and privacy policy.

Your Privacy Choices Toggle icon

You can now claim free CME credits for this literature searchClaim now

Get seemless 1-tap access through your institution/university

For the best experience, use the Read mobile app