Termination counseling among US perinatal genetic counselors in the setting of second trimester fetal anomalies.

Many pregnant people learn of fetal anomalies in the second trimester and subsequently present to prenatal genetic counselors (PGCs) for counseling, including but not limited to a nuanced discussion about whether to continue or terminate pregnancy. In those who choose to terminate, the decision between dilation and evacuation (D&E) or induction is often one of patient preference and as such, is heavily influenced by the quality of counseling received. PGCs are expertly trained to provide values-based counseling, yet little is known about their termination counseling practices, referral practice patterns, and perceived responsibilities in caring for this group of pregnant people. To gain this knowledge, we surveyed a national sample of PGCs in early 2022 and received 70 completed responses. The survey contained open- and closed-ended questions. Data were analyzed using descriptive statistics, and free response data were analyzed using inductive content analysis. Eighty percent (n = 56) of respondents reported that <50% of their patients had previously received termination options counseling. Most strikingly, 15% of respondents provided termination counseling that was beyond their self-identified comfort level. Scenario-based questions assessed respondents' counseling practice patterns in seven real-world situations, presented in order of decreasing severity for the fetus. Respondents were 50% less likely to provide termination options counseling to patients between the most lethal to the least lethal proposed fetal anomaly. The scenario-based analysis revealed two distinct termination counseling approaches: (1) all options counseling with an explicit discussion of options to continue or terminate and (2) discretionary options counseling focused on identifying patient preferences to guide counseling and not explicitly stating all available options. This study highlights the need to ensure PGCs feel well-trained to discuss the general features of second trimester pregnancy termination and, if unable to do so, to practice in systems with timely referral to providers well-versed in the counseling about all methods of termination.

Society of Family Planning Clinical Recommendation: Medication abortion between 14 0/7 and 27 6/7 weeks of gestation.

OBJECTIVE: The objective of this Clinical Recommendation is to review relevant literature and provide evidence-based recommendations for medication abortion between 14 0/7-27 6/7 weeks of gestation, with focus on mifepristone-misoprostol and misoprostol-only regimens. METHODS: We systematically reviewed PubMed articles published between 2008 and 2022 and reviewed reference lists of included articles to identify additional publications. See Search Strategy for more details. RESULTS/CONCLUSIONS: Several randomized trials of medication abortion between 14 0/7-27 6/7 weeks of gestation demonstrate that mifepristone 200 mg orally before misoprostol increases effectiveness (complete abortion at 24 or 48 hours) compared to misoprostol only. Studies continue to evaluate different doses, routes, and dosing intervals for misoprostol. If mifepristone is unavailable, several misoprostol regimens with individual doses of at least 200 mcg or more are effective. Adjunctive osmotic dilators are of limited benefit. It is important to individualize care, with consideration to reducing misoprostol dose in low resources settings or at 24 0/7 weeks of gestation or later (or equivalent uterine size). Misoprostol in the setting of two or more previous cesarean sections is associated with increased risk of uterine rupture compared to one or none, but risk remains low. Most contraceptives can be started during or immediately following abortion. Appropriately trained and credentialed advanced practice clinicians can provide medication abortion between 14 0/7-27 6/7 weeks of gestation with appropriate backup within the confines of local regulations and licensure.

Society of Family Planning Clinical Recommendation: Medication abortion between 14 0/7 and 27 6/7 weeks of gestation: Jointly developed with the Society for Maternal-Fetal Medicine.

The objective of this Clinical Recommendation is to review relevant literature and provide evidence-based recommendations for medication abortion between 14 0/7 and 27 6/7 weeks of gestation, with a focus on mifepristone-misoprostol and misoprostol-only regimens. We systematically reviewed PubMed articles published between 2008 and 2022 and reviewed reference lists of included articles to identify additional publications. See Search Strategy for more details. Several randomized trials of medication abortion between 14 0/7 and 27 6/7 weeks of gestation demonstrate that mifepristone 200 mg orally before misoprostol increases effectiveness (complete abortion at 24 or 48 hours) compared to misoprostol only. Studies continue to evaluate different doses, routes, and dosing intervals for misoprostol. If mifepristone is unavailable, several misoprostol regimens with individual doses of at least 200 mcg or more are effective. Adjunctive osmotic dilators are of limited benefit. It is important to individualize care, with consideration to reducing misoprostol dose in low-resource settings or at 24 0/7 weeks of gestation or later (or equivalent uterine size). Misoprostol in the setting of two or more previous cesarean sections is associated with increased risk of uterine rupture compared to one or none, but risk remains low. Most contraceptives can be started during or immediately following abortion. Appropriately trained and credentialed advanced practice clinicians can provide medication abortion between 14 0/7 and 27 6/7 weeks of gestation with appropriate backup within the confines of local regulations and licensure.

Society of Family Planning Clinical Recommendation: Medication abortion between 14 0/7 and 27 6/7 weeks of gestation: Jointly developed with the Society for Maternal-Fetal Medicine.

The objective of this Clinical Recommendation is to review relevant literature and provide evidence-based recommendations for medication abortion between 14 0/7 and 27 6/7 weeks of gestation, with a focus on mifepristone-misoprostol and misoprostol-only regimens. We systematically reviewed PubMed articles published between 2008 and 2022 and reviewed reference lists of included articles to identify additional publications. See Search Strategy for more details. Several randomized trials of medication abortion between 14 0/7 and 27 6/7 weeks of gestation demonstrate that mifepristone 200 mg orally before misoprostol increases effectiveness (complete abortion at 24 or 48 hours) compared to misoprostol only. Studies continue to evaluate different doses, routes, and dosing intervals for misoprostol. If mifepristone is unavailable, several misoprostol regimens with individual doses of at least 200 mcg or more are effective. Adjunctive osmotic dilators are of limited benefit. It is important to individualize care, with consideration to reducing misoprostol dose in low-resource settings or at 24 0/7 weeks of gestation or later (or equivalent uterine size). Misoprostol in the setting of two or more previous cesarean sections is associated with increased risk of uterine rupture compared to one or none, but risk remains low. Most contraceptives can be started during or immediately following abortion. Appropriately trained and credentialed advanced practice clinicians can provide medication abortion between 14 0/7 and 27 6/7 weeks of gestation with appropriate backup within the confines of local regulations and licensure.

Same-day mifepristone prior to second-trimester induction termination with misoprostol: A retrospective cohort study.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate whether same-day administration of mifepristone and misoprostol, compared with misoprostol alone, reduces the duration of second-trimester induction of labor for termination of pregnancy or increases the rate of fetal expulsion within 24 hours. STUDY DESIGN: We conducted a retrospective analysis of patients undergoing induction of labor for pregnancy termination in the second trimester between 2009 and 2018. We compared patients who received mifepristone on the same day as the first dose of misoprostol to those who received misoprostol alone. The primary outcome was expulsion within 24 hours after the first dose of misoprostol. RESULTS: Two hundred ninety-eight patients met criteria for inclusion, of whom 94 (31.5%) received same-day mifepristone. Expulsion within 24 hours occurred in 93.6% of the mifepristone-plus-misoprostol group and 79.9% of the misoprostol-only group (RR 1.17, 95%CI 1.07-1.28). Expulsion within 12 hours occurred in 56.4% of the mifepristone-plus-misoprostol group and 34.0% of the misoprostol-only group (RR 1.66, 95%CI 1.28-2.16). After adjusting for demographic and clinical characteristics, the rate of expulsion within 24 hours was similar between groups (RR 1.07, 95%CI 0.92-1.26), while the rate of expulsion within 12 hours remained different (RR 1.69, 95%CI 1.01-2.83). Median time to expulsion was shorter in the mifepristone-plus-misoprostol group than the misoprostol-only group (689 minutes vs 901 minutes, p < 0.001). CONCLUSION(S): Patients who received mifepristone on the same day as misoprostol had a shorter duration of induction termination and higher rate of success within 12 hours.

"It's a horrible assignment": A qualitative study of labor and delivery nurses' experience caring for patients undergoing labor induction for fetal anomalies or fetal demise.

OBJECTIVES: This study sought to explore labor and delivery (L&D) nurses' experiences caring for women undergoing induction for intrauterine fetal demise (IUFD) or termination for fetal anomalies, and to characterize reluctance towards participation in abortion care or - conversely - the commitment to provide services. STUDY DESIGN: Researchers conducted a qualitative study that consisted of open-ended, semistructured interviews with 15 registered nurses who care for women on L&D at a large metropolitan hospital. We analyzed these data for content and themes. RESULTS: Labor and delivery nurses struggle emotionally, logistically, and morally with bereavement care, whether their patients are experiencing an IUFD or termination for fetal anomalies. The analysis generated the following themes: the emotionally intense work of perinatal loss, feelings of incompetence in bereavement care, ethical conflicts, and judgment of both termination and IUFD patients. In addition, nurses who chose to provide care for patients undergoing induction termination for fetal anomalies described a duty to care for all patients despite the increased logistic and emotional burden. CONCLUSIONS: Much of the discomfort L&D nurses reported caring for patients undergoing induction termination stems from the emotional toll, lack of skills, and bureaucratic burden of bereavement care rather than a moral objection to abortion. Instituting interventions to improve staffing, simplify paperwork, augment bereavement training, and improve support for the emotional burden of caring for these patients may therefore increase access to competent and compassionate abortion care. IMPLICATIONS: Labor and delivery nurses struggle with bereavement care whether their patients are experiencing an IUFD or termination for fetal anomalies. Instituting interventions - like interdisciplinary simulation - to support nurses in bereavement care may increase the number willing to participate in abortion care, thereby improving patient access.

Evaluation of shorter mifepristone to misoprostol intervals for second trimester medical abortion: a retrospective cohort study.

OBJECTIVES: To assess shorter mifepristone-misoprostol intervals compared to current guidelines for second trimester medical abortion on total abortion time (mifepristone to fetal expulsion) and induction time (first misoprostol to fetal expulsion). METHODS: This retrospective cohort study included women who elected for a second trimester medical abortion with mifepristone and misoprostol at an academic tertiary medical center in the United States from January 2008 to June 2018. We abstracted times of mifepristone administration, first dose of misoprostol, and fetal expulsion from the medical record. We assessed outcomes based on the shorter intervals <12 h and 12 to 24 h compared to the guideline mifepristone-misoprostol interval (24-48 h). RESULTS: The study population included eighty-nine women, 47, 28, and 14 women in the <12 h, 12 24 h, guideline (24-48 h) groups, respectively. The cohort had a median gestational age of 220/7 weeks (range: 150/7-270/7) and parity of 1 (range: 0-5) with no differences observed between groups. Total abortion times were 20.7 h (range: 3.7-46.9), 30.6 h (16.7-48.0), and 42.8 h (32.7-62.6), respectively (p < 0.001). Induction times were 12.9 h (range: 1.2-36.6), 11.7 h (2.0-35.2), and 9.3 h (5.3-16.5), respectively. Fetal expulsion within 12 h of first misoprostol dose occurred in 22 (47%), 14 (50%), and 9 (64%), respectively (p = 0.52). CONCLUSIONS: Shorter mifepristone-misoprostol intervals (less than 24 h) significantly decrease the total abortion time while maintaining a clinically similar induction time. IMPLICATIONS: Shortening the mifepristone-misoprostol interval in second trimester medical abortion significantly decreases the total abortion time which may be preferable to some women or health systems.

Complication rates of dilation and evacuation and labor induction in second-trimester abortion for fetal indications: A retrospective cohort study.

OBJECTIVE: To compare complication rates of dilation and evacuation (D&E) to mifepristone and misoprostol labor induction for second trimester abortion for fetal indications. STUDY DESIGN: We performed a retrospective cohort study comparing complication rates with D&E and labor induction abortion for fetal indications at 14 weeks 0 days through 23 weeks and 6 days gestation between January 1, 2009, and August 31, 2017. We extracted demographic, procedural, and outcome data, focusing specifically on complications of maternal hemorrhage, infection, emergency department visit, hospital readmission, retained tissue requiring dilation and curettage (D&C), manual placental removal, or thromboembolism. We compared complication rates between the D&E and induction groups using univariate and multivariate analyses. RESULTS: We included outcomes from 75 (48%) D&E and 81 (52%) labor induction abortions. We identified any complication in 1 (1%) and 7 (7%) of patients, respectively (p = 0.12). The only complication in the D&E group was hemorrhage with an estimated blood loss of 1000 mL not requiring transfusion. Labor induction complications included retained tissue requiring manual removal (n = 2) or D&C (n = 1) and hemorrhage (n = 2). CONCLUSION: There was no difference in complication rates between the D&E group and the labor induction group. IMPLICATIONS: This study compared outcomes between D&E and labor induction using mifepristone and misoprostol for second trimester abortion. Our complication rate for labor induction using mifepristone and misoprostol, and particularly our rate of retained placenta requiring D&C, was lower than what has been previously reported for second trimester labor induction termination using other methods. This study suggests there is a benefit for the routine use of mifepristone with misoprostol for second trimester labor induction. Additionally, the low rate of major complications in this study for both D&E and labor induction further validates the safety of both procedures for second trimester abortion.

Second-trimester abortion attitudes and practices among maternal-fetal medicine and family planning subspecialists.

BACKGROUND: Patients deciding to undergo dilation and evacuation (D&E) or induction abortion for fetal anomalies or complications may be greatly influenced by the counseling they receive. We sought to compare maternal-fetal medicine (MFM) and family planning (FP) physicians' attitudes and practice patterns around second-trimester abortion for abnormal pregnancies. METHODS: We surveyed members of the Society for Maternal-Fetal Medicine and Family Planning subspecialists in 2010-2011 regarding provider recommendations between D&E or induction termination for various case scenarios. We assessed provider beliefs about patient preferences and method safety regarding D&E or induction for various indications. We compared responses by specialty using descriptive statistics and conducted unadjusted and adjusted analyses of factors associated with recommending a D&E. RESULTS: Seven hundred ninety-four (35%) physicians completed the survey (689 MFMs, 105 FPs). We found that FPs had 3.9 to 5.5 times higher odds of recommending D&E for all case scenarios (e.g. 80% of FPs and 41% of MFMs recommended D&E for trisomy 21). MFMs with exposure to family planning had greater odds of recommending D&E for all case scenarios (p < 0.01 for all). MFMs were less likely than FPs to believe that patients prefer D&E and less likely to feel that D&E was a safer method for different indications. CONCLUSION: Recommendations for D&E or induction vary significantly depending on the type of physician providing the counseling. The decision to undergo D&E or induction is one of clinical equipoise, and physicians should provide unbiased counseling. Further work is needed to understand optimal approaches to shared decision making for this clinical decision.