Intrauterine device-related uterine perforation incidence and risk (APEX-IUD): a large multisite cohort study
- PMID: 35658995
- DOI: 10.1016/S0140-6736(22)00015-0
Intrauterine device-related uterine perforation incidence and risk (APEX-IUD): a large multisite cohort study
Erratum in
-
Department of Error.Lancet. 2022 Sep 3;400(10354):732. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(22)01645-2. Lancet. 2022. PMID: 36058221 No abstract available.
Abstract
Background: Reports of perforation risk related to intrauterine devices (IUDs) inserted immediately post partum and among non-post-partum individuals are scarce, and previous studies with only 12-month follow-ups underestimate the risk. Breastfeeding at IUD insertion and insertion within 36 weeks post partum have been associated with increased risk of uterine perforation. The aim of these analyses was to compare the incidence and risks of IUD-related uterine perforations by non-post-partum and post-partum intervals at IUD insertion, and among post-partum individuals, to assess the impact of breastfeeding on these outcomes.
Methods: We did a multisite cohort study in the USA, using electronic health records (EHR). Study sites were three health-care systems and a site that used data from a health-care information exchange. The study population included individuals who were aged 50 years or younger and had an IUD insertion between Jan 1, 2001, and April 30, 2018. Individuals were excluded if they had not been in the health-care system for at least 12 months before IUD insertion. The primary outcome for this analysis was any IUD-related uterine perforation diagnosis for the first IUD insertion in this time period. Both complete and partial IUD-related perforations were identified. Chart abstraction was done to validate EHR-based algorithms or confirm perforations. The crude rate and cumulative incidence of uterine perforation were evaluated by non-post-partum and post-partum intervals at IUD insertion in the full cohort, and by breastfeeding status in a subcohort of post-partum individuals. Cox models estimated crude and adjusted hazard ratios (aHRs).
Findings: Data from 326 658 individuals in the full cohort and 94 817 individuals in the post-partum subcohort were analysed. In the full cohort, we identified 1008 uterine perforations (51·2% complete), with the 5-year cumulative incidence being the lowest in the non-post-partum group (0·29%, 95% CI 0·26-0·34). The aHR for the post-partum interval relative to non-post partum ranged from 2·73 (95% CI 1·33-5·63; 0 to 3 days post partum) to 6·71 (4·80-9·38; 4 days to ≤6 weeks post partum). The post-partum subcohort of individuals with breastfeeding information had 673 uterine perforations (62% complete), with a 5-year cumulative incidence of 1·37% (95% CI 1·24-1·52) and an increased risk with breastfeeding (aHR 1·37, 95% CI 1·12-1·66).
Interpretation: Although the risk for uterine perforation with IUD insertion 4 days to 6 weeks or less post partum is nearly seven times that of insertion non-post partum, perforation remains an incredibly rare event for all clinical time points. Despite a slight increased risk of perforation with breastfeeding at IUD insertion, the benefits of breastfeeding and effective contraception generally outweigh risks and should have little clinical impact. Therefore, IUD insertion timing should be based on individual desire for IUD contraception and patient convenience to assure an IUD insertion can occur. Careful follow-up of individuals at higher risk of uterine perforation is warranted.
Funding: Bayer AG.
Copyright © 2022 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
Conflict of interest statement
Declaration of interests SDR received research funding from Bayer during the conduct of the study and has received royalties from UpToDate. LI received research funding from Bayer during the conduct of the study. XZ, KJR, CWS, SH, JW, and MSA are employees and MER was an employee of RTI-HS, which received research funding from Bayer during the conduct of the study. DG, MJF, JMS, FX, VYC, TMI, and HST are employees of KPSC, which received research funding from Bayer during conduct of the study. JLG is an employee of RI, which received research funding from Bayer during the conduct of the study. JFP has received research funding from CooperSurgical, Bayer Healthcare Pharmaceutical, and Merck & Co. MAA, MM, ALA, and GC are employees of and TR-B and DAP were employees of KPNC, which received research funding from Bayer during the conduct of the study. AA, FP, and JS are employees of Bayer, the marketing authorisation holder for three IUD brands, among others, that were included in this study.
Comment in
-
Incidence of perforation with intrauterine devices.Lancet. 2022 Jun 4;399(10341):2076-2077. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(22)00627-4. Lancet. 2022. PMID: 35658981 No abstract available.
-
Excerpts from the World Medical Literature.J Obstet Gynaecol Can. 2022 Dec;44(12):1244-1246. doi: 10.1016/j.jogc.2022.09.008. J Obstet Gynaecol Can. 2022. PMID: 36567091 No abstract available.
-
[La littérature médicale mondiale].J Obstet Gynaecol Can. 2022 Dec;44(12):1247-1250. doi: 10.1016/j.jogc.2022.10.004. J Obstet Gynaecol Can. 2022. PMID: 36567092 French. No abstract available.
Similar articles
-
Association of the Timing of Postpartum Intrauterine Device Insertion and Breastfeeding With Risks of Intrauterine Device Expulsion.JAMA Netw Open. 2022 Feb 1;5(2):e2148474. doi: 10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2021.48474. JAMA Netw Open. 2022. PMID: 35226086 Free PMC article.
-
Design of the Association of Uterine Perforation and Expulsion of Intrauterine Device study: a multisite retrospective cohort study.Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2021 Jun;224(6):599.e1-599.e18. doi: 10.1016/j.ajog.2021.01.003. Epub 2021 Jan 15. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2021. PMID: 33460585
-
Risks of Uterine Perforation and Expulsion Associated With Intrauterine Devices.Obstet Gynecol. 2023 Sep 1;142(3):641-651. doi: 10.1097/AOG.0000000000005299. Epub 2023 Aug 3. Obstet Gynecol. 2023. PMID: 37535968 Free PMC article.
-
Complete and partial uterine perforation and embedding following insertion of intrauterine devices. I. Classification, complications, mechanism, incidence, and missing string.Obstet Gynecol Surv. 1981 Jul;36(7):335-53. doi: 10.1097/00006254-198107000-00001. Obstet Gynecol Surv. 1981. PMID: 7029368 Review.
-
Complete and partial uterine perforation and embedding following insertion of intrauterine devices. II. Diagnostic methods, prevention, and management.Obstet Gynecol Surv. 1981 Aug;36(8):401-17. doi: 10.1097/00006254-198108000-00001. Obstet Gynecol Surv. 1981. PMID: 6455610 Review.
Cited by
-
A Displaced Intrauterine Device Eroding Into the Sigmoid Colon.Cureus. 2024 Jun 12;16(6):e62238. doi: 10.7759/cureus.62238. eCollection 2024 Jun. Cureus. 2024. PMID: 39006635 Free PMC article.
-
Laparoscopic management of bowel perforation secondary to levonorgestrel-releasing intrauterine device migration: a case report and review of literature.J Surg Case Rep. 2024 Aug 30;2024(8):rjae522. doi: 10.1093/jscr/rjae522. eCollection 2024 Aug. J Surg Case Rep. 2024. PMID: 39220169 Free PMC article.
-
Efficacy and safety of intrauterine device placement during a planned cesarean section.Heliyon. 2022 Dec 15;8(12):e12318. doi: 10.1016/j.heliyon.2022.e12318. eCollection 2022 Dec. Heliyon. 2022. PMID: 36582683 Free PMC article.
-
Immediate and delayed placement of the intrauterine device after abortion: a systematic review and meta-analysis.Sci Rep. 2024 May 18;14(1):11385. doi: 10.1038/s41598-024-62327-1. Sci Rep. 2024. PMID: 38762680 Free PMC article.
-
Case Report: Strangulated intestinal obstruction due to chronic migration of an intrauterine device (IUD): a 30-year latent complication.Front Med (Lausanne). 2025 Jul 7;12:1613116. doi: 10.3389/fmed.2025.1613116. eCollection 2025. Front Med (Lausanne). 2025. PMID: 40692957 Free PMC article.
MeSH terms
LinkOut - more resources
Full Text Sources
Miscellaneous