24-Hour Compared With 12-Hour Mifepristone-Misoprostol Interval for Second-Trimester Abortion: A Randomized Controlled Trial.

OBJECTIVE: To compare 24-hour and 12-hour mifepristone-to-misoprostol intervals for second-trimester medication abortion. METHODS: We conducted a prospective randomized controlled trial. Participants were allocated to receive mifepristone either 24 hours or 12 hours before misoprostol administration. The primary outcome was the time from the first misoprostol administration to abortion (induction time). Secondary outcomes included the time from mifepristone to abortion (total abortion time); fetal expulsion percentages at 12, 24, and 48 hours after the first misoprostol dose; side effects proportion; and pain and satisfaction scores. A sample size of 40 per group (N=80) was planned to compare the 24- and 12-hour regimens. RESULTS: Eighty patients were enrolled between July 2020 and June 2023, with 40 patients per group. Baseline characteristics were comparable between groups. Median induction time was 9.5 hours (95% CI, 10.3-17.8 hours) and 12.5 hours (95% CI, 13.5-20.2 hours) in the 24- and 12-hour interval arms, respectively ( P =.028). Median total abortion time was 33.0 hours (95% CI, 34.2-41.9 hours) and 24.5 hours (95% CI, 25.7-32.4 hours) in the 24- and 12-hour interval groups, respectively ( P <.001). At 12 hours from misoprostol administration, 25 patients (62.5%) in the 24-hour arm and 18 patients (45.0%) in the 12-hour arm completed abortion ( P =.178). At 24 hours from misoprostol administration, 36 patients (90.0%) in the 24-hour arm and 30 patients (75.0%) in the 12-hour arm had complete abortion ( P =.139). The need for additional medication or surgical treatment for uterine evacuation, pain scores, side effects, and satisfaction levels were not different between groups. CONCLUSION: A 24-hour mifepristone-to-misoprostol regimen for medication abortion in the second trimester provides a median 3-hour shorter induction time compared with the 12-hour interval. However, the median total abortion time was 8.5-hours longer in the 24-hour interval regimen. These findings can aid in shared decision making before medication abortion in the second trimester. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT04160221.

Twin pregnancies: can sonographic measurements and changes in cervical length during pregnancy predict preterm birth?

OBJECTIVE: This study measured cervical length (CL) at 14-16 and 21-24 weeks of gestation and assessed whether the difference between measurements is predictive of preterm birth (PTB) among asymptomatic women with twin gestations. METHOD: This retrospective, cohort study included patients with two consecutive CL measurements with transvaginal sonography at 14-16 weeks of gestation (CL1) and 21-24 weeks (CL2). PTB was defined as delivery prior to 37 + 0 weeks of gestation. Electronic medical records were reviewed for demographic, medical and delivery data. CL1, CL2 and the change between scans were evaluated and correlated with the prediction of PTB. RESULTS: Among 103 women with twin gestations, 76 (73.7%) delivered at term and 27 (26.3%) had PTB. CL1 and CL2 were not good predictors of PTB (p = .32 and p = .38, respectively). The correlation between CL change and PTB was not significant (p = .08). The correlation between CL change and delivery after 38 weeks was not significant (p = .3). Baseline characteristics and perinatal outcomes between term and preterm deliveries were similar. CONCLUSIONS: The delta between routine cervical length measurements at 14-16 and 21-24 weeks of twin gestations cannot be used as a reliable predictor of PTB.

Can Social Support on Facebook Influence Fertility Outcomes?

Social support is known to reduce stress and increase quality of life among patients undergoing IVF. Increasing social media use introduces a social support mechanism, yet data regarding the effect of this support on IVF outcomes are scarce. This observational, retrospective cohort study included women undergoing their first IVF cycle at an academic tertiary medical center. Fertility outcomes were compared between 82 women who were active users of social media (posting on Facebook at least 3 times a week) and 83 women who did not use Facebook or any other social media platform (the control group). For the social media group, we coded all Facebook Feed activities (Posts, Comments, Likes) for each participant up to 8 weeks prior to beta hCG test. Social support was measured by average Likes and Comments per post, on fertility outcomes. The social media group included more single women than the control group (17% vs. 5%, respectively, p = 0.012) and had a shorter infertility duration (1.6 ± 0.9 years vs. 2.3 ± 1.4, respectively, p = 0.001(. We found a trend in fertilization rates between groups (social media group 58% vs. controls 50%, p = 0.07). No difference was found regarding pregnancy rate between groups (p = 0.587). The social media group had a lower miscarriage rate compared to the controls (6% vs. 25%, p = 0.042). These results were also validated in the multivariant regression analysis. Social support (via Facebook) may have a positive effect on IVF outcomes, especially regarding miscarriages rate, with minor effect regrading fertilization rate and no effect regarding pregnancy rate. Therefore, encouraging women to be active on Facebook during treatment, including OPU day, may impact treatment results.