Search

Purpose: To compare outcomes of early medical abortion with mifepristone and misoprostol in a family medicine setting and specialized reproductive health clinics. Methods: This study used data collected from a prospective, open-label, randomized trial of oral versus buccal misoprostol efficacy. A secondary analysis was performed, evaluating efficacy, acceptability, and interventions after medication at the family medicine site compared with the 6 specialized reproductive health sites. Results: Comparing data from patients in the family medicine setting (n = 116) to specialized reproductive health sites (n = 731) revealed no difference in overall efficacy (95.7% vs 93.4%; P = .351). The family medicine site used a second dose of misoprostol more frequently than the other sites (6.9% vs 2.5%; P = .018). In addition, uterine aspiration after medical abortion at the family medicine site was not used for “medically necessary” reasons whereas reproductive health clinics used it 2.6% of the time (marginally significant; P = .094). Patient satisfaction at family medicine sites was comparable to the other sites (91.2% vs 92.0%; P = .792). Conclusion: Medical abortion has similar efficacy and patient satisfaction when offered in a family medicine practice or at a reproductive health specialty clinic. These findings should reassure family physicians that medical abortion can be offered safely in their practices.

The objective of this study was to determine whether propofol and methohexital differ in their efficacy, acceptability, cost and side effects when used as the single anesthetic agent for inducing general anesthesia in first-trimester vacuum abortion. We randomized 400 unpremedicated American Society of Anesthesiologists grade I-II women to receive 1% propofol or 1% methohexital by intravenous bolus infusion during abortion. No ancillary anesthetic or adjunctive drugs were used. Visual analogue scale scores were used to grade preoperative patient anxiety and the quality of the anesthetic experience. All personnel outside the operating suites, except the data analyst, were blinded. Chi2, median, analysis of variance and Student's t-tests were used, as appropriate. There were no statistically significant differences in age, gravidity, parity, spontaneous and induced abortion, body mass index or gestational age. Mean total operating time and total drug dose were similar. Propofol use resulted in a significant reduction in the incidence of postoperative nausea (11.5% vs. 17.5%) or vomiting (3.5% vs. 7.0%) with a combined p (mean difference) = 0.002 (95% confidence interval of the mean difference 1.8%, 17.2%). Both the nursing and patient appraisals of the quality of the anesthetic experience favored propofol, but only the nursing scores reached statistical significance (p0.001). The cost differential was more than twofold greater for propofol patients, 9.51 dollars vs. 4.42 dollars. In our population of midwestern patients in a major urban area, propofol use had modest advantages over methohexital when used as single agents as judged by first recovery charge nurses, but patients found them equally acceptable.