A Cochrane review [Abstract] 5 included 24 trials involving a total of 55 77 women with gestational age less than 13 weeks. Three trials involving 335 women compared misoprostol treatment (all vaginally administered) with expectant care. There was no difference in complete miscarriage (average risk ratio (RR) 1.23, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.72 to 2.10; 2 studies, 150 women, random-effects; very low-quality evidence), or in the need for surgical evacuation (average RR 0.62, 95% CI 0.17 to 2.26; 2 studies, 308 women, random-effects; low-quality evidence). There were few data on 'deaths or serious complications'. For unplanned surgical intervention, we did not identify any difference between misoprostol and expectant care (average RR 0.62, 95% CI 0.17 to 2.26; 2 studies, 308 women, random-effects; low-quality evidence).
Sixteen trials involving 4044 women addressed the comparison of misoprostol (7 studies used oral administration, 6 studies used vaginal, 2 studies sublingual, 1 study combined vaginal + oral) with surgical evacuation. There was a slightly lower incidence of complete miscarriage with misoprostol (average RR 0.96, 95% CI 0.94 to 0.98; 15 studies, 3862 women, random-effects; very low-quality evidence) but with success rate high for both methods. Overall, there were fewer surgical evacuations with misoprostol (average RR 0.05, 95% CI 0.02 to 0.11; 13 studies, 3070 women, random-effects; very low-quality evidence) but more unplanned procedures (average RR 5.03, 95% CI 2.71 to 9.35; 11 studies, 2690 women, random-effects; low-quality evidence). There were few data on 'deaths or serious complications'. Nausea was more common with misoprostol (average RR 2.50, 95% CI 1.53 to 4.09; 11 studies, 3015 women, random-effects; low-quality evidence). No difference in women's satisfaction between misoprostol and surgery was identified (average RR 1.00, 95% CI 0.99 to 1.00; 9 studies, 3349 women, random-effects; moderate-quality evidence). More women had vomiting and diarrhoea with misoprostol compared with surgery (vomiting: average RR 1.97, 95% CI 1.36 to 2.85; 10 studies, 2977 women, random-effects; moderate-quality evidence; diarrhoea: average RR 4.82, 95% CI 1.09 to 21.32; 4 studies, 757 women, random-effects; moderate-quality evidence).
Five trials compared different routes of administration, or doses, or both, of misoprostol. There was no clear evidence of one regimen being superior to another.
Another Cochrane review [Abstract] 2 included 7 trials involving a total of 1521 women.The expectant-care group was more likely to have an incomplete miscarriage by 2 weeks (RR 3.98; 95% CI 2.94 to 5.38; 4 trials, n=1263) or by 6 to 8 weeks (RR 2.56; 95% CI 1.15 to 5.69; 3 trials, n=430). The need for unplanned surgical treatment was greater for the expectant-care group (RR 7.35; 95% CI 5.04 to 10.72; 5 trials, n=1454). The mean percentage needing surgical management in the expectant-care group was 28%, while 4% of the surgical-treatment group needed additional surgery. The expectant-care group had more self-reported days of bleeding. Further, more of the expectant-care group needed transfusion (RR 6.45; 95% CI 1.21 to 34.42; 3 trials, n=1205). The mean percentage needing blood transfusion was 1.4% for expectant care compared with none for surgical management. Results were mixed for pain. Diagnosis of infection was similar for the two groups (RR 0.63; 95% CI 0.36 to 1.12), as were results for various psychological outcomes. Pregnancy data were limited. Costs were lower for the expectant-care group (MD -499.10; 95% CI -613.04 to -385.16; in UK pounds sterling).
A network meta-analysis 6 included 78 randomised trials involving 17 795 women. In the incomplete miscarriage subgroup, there were only 1 study comparing expectant management with dilatation and curettage, 7 trials with aspiration and 10 trials with misoprostol. The evidence was very low to moderate. Anyhow, surgical methods were more effective than expectant management or medical treatment.
Comment: The quality of evidence is downgraded by imprecise results (limited study size for each comparison in the first review, and in the second one, by study limitations (Gynecologists accustomed to routine surgical evacuation may have readily recommended an operation when none was medically necessary. The blinding of the outcome assessors unclear).
Primary/Secondary Keywords