Single- versus double-layer closure of the caesarean (uterine) scar in the prevention of gynaecological symptoms in relation to niche development - the 2Close study: a multicentre randomised controlled trial

BACKGROUND

Double-layer compared to single-layer closure of the uterus after a caesarean section (CS) leads to a thicker myometrial layer at the site of the CS scar, also called residual myometrium thickness (RMT). It possibly decreases the development of a niche, which is an interruption of the myometrium at the site of the uterine scar. Thin RMT and a niche are associated with gynaecological symptoms, obstetric complications in a subsequent pregnancy and delivery and possibly with subfertility.

METHODS

Women undergoing a first CS regardless of the gestational age will be asked to participate in this multicentre, double blinded randomised controlled trial (RCT). They will be randomised to single-layer closure or double-layer closure of the uterine incision. Single-layer closure (control group) is performed with a continuous running, unlocked suture, with or without endometrial saving technique. Double-layer closure (intervention group) is performed with the first layer in a continuous unlocked suture including the endometrial layer and the second layer is also continuous unlocked and imbricates the first. The primary outcome is the reported number of days with postmenstrual spotting during one menstrual cycle nine months after CS. Secondary outcomes include surgical data, ultrasound evaluation at three months, menstrual pattern, dysmenorrhea, quality of life, and sexual function at nine months. Structured transvaginal ultrasound (TVUS) evaluation is performed to assess the uterine scar and if necessary saline infusion sonohysterography (SIS) or gel instillation sonohysterography (GIS) will be added to the examination. Women and ultrasound examiners will be blinded for allocation. Reproductive outcomes at three years follow-up including fertility, mode of delivery and complications in subsequent deliveries will be studied as well. Analyses will be performed by intention to treat. 2290 women have to be randomised to show a reduction of 15% in the mean number of spotting days. Additionally, a cost-effectiveness analysis will be performed from a societal perspective.

DISCUSSION

This RCT will provide insight in the outcomes of single- compared to double-layer closure technique after CS, including postmenstrual spotting and subfertility in relation to niche development measured by ultrasound.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

Dutch Trial Register ( NTR5480 ). Registered 29 October 2015.

Different effects of oral contraceptives containing different progestogens on protein S and tissue factor pathway inhibitor

BACKGROUND

Oral contraceptives (OC) containing different types of progestogens induce different sensitivities to activated protein C (APC) measured with the thrombin generation-based APC-resistance test. These differences in APC resistance may be the biological explanation for the differences in thrombotic risk of the various pills. The mechanistic basis of APC resistance observed in OC users is unknown. Our objective was to study the effect of OC on the two main determinants of the APC-resistance test, free protein S and free tissue factor pathway inhibitor (TFPI).

PATIENTS/METHODS

We measured free protein S and free TFPI in 156 users of various types of OC.

RESULTS

Users of desogestrel-containing OC, known to double the risk of thrombosis compared with levonorgestrel-containing OC, had lower free protein S (24 vs. 33 U dL(-1)) and TFPI free antigen (2.9 vs. 3.6 ng mL(-1)) levels than users of OC containing levonorgestrel. Women using cyproterone acetate-containing OC, known to confer a high thrombotic risk, had the lowest free protein S (19 U dL(-1)) and free TPFI antigen (2.5 ng mL(-1)) levels. Users of OC containing drospirenone had lower free protein S (23 U dL(-1)) and TFPI antigen levels (3.2 ng mL(-1)) than users of levonorgestrel-containing OC. Low free protein S and low free TFPI antigen levels were associated with an increased resistance to APC, an established risk factor for thrombosis.

CONCLUSIONS

This study observed that the differences in APC resistance induced by OC containing different progestogens can at least in part be explained by different effects of OC on free protein S and TFPI.

Different effects of oral contraceptives containing different progestogens on protein S and tissue factor pathway inhibitor

BACKGROUND

Oral contraceptives (OC) containing different types of progestogens induce different sensitivities to activated protein C (APC) measured with the thrombin generation-based APC-resistance test. These differences in APC resistance may be the biological explanation for the differences in thrombotic risk of the various pills. The mechanistic basis of APC resistance observed in OC users is unknown. Our objective was to study the effect of OC on the two main determinants of the APC-resistance test, free protein S and free tissue factor pathway inhibitor (TFPI).

PATIENTS/METHODS

We measured free protein S and free TFPI in 156 users of various types of OC.

RESULTS

Users of desogestrel-containing OC, known to double the risk of thrombosis compared with levonorgestrel-containing OC, had lower free protein S (24 vs. 33 U dL(-1)) and TFPI free antigen (2.9 vs. 3.6 ng mL(-1)) levels than users of OC containing levonorgestrel. Women using cyproterone acetate-containing OC, known to confer a high thrombotic risk, had the lowest free protein S (19 U dL(-1)) and free TPFI antigen (2.5 ng mL(-1)) levels. Users of OC containing drospirenone had lower free protein S (23 U dL(-1)) and TFPI antigen levels (3.2 ng mL(-1)) than users of levonorgestrel-containing OC. Low free protein S and low free TFPI antigen levels were associated with an increased resistance to APC, an established risk factor for thrombosis.

CONCLUSIONS

This study observed that the differences in APC resistance induced by OC containing different progestogens can at least in part be explained by different effects of OC on free protein S and TFPI.

Triphasic versus monophasic oral contraceptives for contraception

BACKGROUND

Side effects of oral contraceptive pills (OCs) discourage adherence to and continuation of OC regimens. Strategies to decrease adverse effects led to the introduction of the triphasic OC in the 1980s. Whether triphasic OCs have higher accidental pregnancy rates than monophasic pills is unknown. Nor is it known if triphasic pills give better cycle control and fewer side effects than the monophasic pills.

OBJECTIVES

To compare triphasic OCs with monophasic OCs in terms of efficacy, cycle control, and discontinuation due to side effects.

SEARCH STRATEGY

We searched the computerized databases of MEDLINE, EMBASE, POPLINE, LILACS and CENTRAL. Additionally, we searched the reference lists of relevant articles and book chapters. We also contacted researchers and pharmaceutical companies in Europe and the U.S. to identify other trials not found in our search.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing any triphasic OC with any monophasic pill used to prevent pregnancy. Interventions had to include at least three treatment cycles.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We assessed the studies found in the literature searches for possible inclusion and for their methodological quality. We contacted the authors of all included studies and of possibly randomized trials for supplemental information about the methods and outcomes studied. We entered the data into RevMan 4.2 and calculated odds ratios for the outcome measures of efficacy, breakthrough bleeding, spotting, withdrawal bleeding and discontinuation.

MAIN RESULTS

Of 21 trials included, 18 examined contraceptive effectiveness: the triphasic and monophasic preparations did not differ significantly. Several trials reported favorable bleeding patterns, i.e. less spotting, breakthrough bleeding or amenorrhea, in triphasic versus monophasic OC users. However, meta-analysis was generally not possible due to differences in measuring and reporting the cycle disturbance data as well as differences in progestogen type and hormone dosages. No significant differences were found in the numbers of women who discontinued due to medical reasons, cycle disturbances, intermenstrual bleeding or adverse events.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

The available evidence is insufficient to determine whether triphasic OCs differ from monophasic OCs in effectiveness, bleeding patterns or discontinuation rates. Therefore, we recommend monophasic pills as a first choice for women starting OC use. Large, high-quality RCTs that compare triphasic and monophasic OCs with identical progestogens are needed to determine whether triphasic pills differ from monophasic OCs. Future studies should follow the WHO recommendations on recording menstrual bleeding patterns and the CONSORT reporting guidelines.