Practical training of health care providers in insertion of contraceptive implants: findings from two Brazilian centres.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: Lack of information and myths or inadequate training of health care providers in the guidance and management of contraceptives could negatively affect choice and eventually continuation rates. Our objectives were to evaluate the impact of clinical and theoretical training of health care professionals on insertion and removal of etonogestrel (ENG)-implant regarding this contraceptive, including pre- and post-training knowledge about insertion and removal techniques, clinical characteristics, side effects and outcomes. MATERIAL AND METHODS: We conducted a cross-sectional study in which a questionnaire was sent to health care providers after they received clinical training in the management of ENG-implant. RESULTS: After training, 78.2% of the 139 participants initiated to offer and inserted up to 5 implants/month and 17.6% between 6 to 10/month. None of the interviewees reported having difficulty with insertions after training, and 87.9% reported feeling very confident for removal. CONCLUSION: Theoretical and practical training appeared important to prepare health care professionals, clarify doubts and promote higher rates of use of contraceptive implants in Brazil, contributing to reduce the rates of unintended pregnancies.

Intracervical block for levonorgestrel-releasing intrauterine system placement among nulligravid women: a randomized double-blind controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Fear of pain during the insertion of intrauterine contraceptives is a barrier to using these methods, especially for nulligravidas. An intracervical block may be easier and more reproducible than a paracervical block; however, this intervention has not been evaluated in nulligravid women to reduce pain with intrauterine contraceptive insertion. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate whether a 3.6-mL 2% lidocaine intracervical block reduces pain at tenaculum placement and levonorgestrel-releasing intrauterine system insertion among nulligravidas; and, in addition, to assess whether the intracervical block has any effect on the ease of device insertion and on the overall experience with the procedure. MATERIALS AND METHODS: In this randomized double-blind controlled trial, nulligravidas were block-randomized to 1 of 3 arms prior to 52-mg levonorgestrel-releasing intrauterine system insertion: 3.6-mL 2%-lidocaine intracervical block, sham injection (intracervical dry-needling), or no intervention. The primary outcome was pain at levonorgestrel-releasing intrauterine system insertion. Secondary outcomes were pain at tenaculum placement, ease of insertion (assessed by healthcare providers), and the overall experience with the procedure (pain with levonorgestrel-releasing intrauterine system insertion compared with expectations, discomfort level, wish to undergo another device insertion in the future, and recommendation of the procedure to others). Participants' pain was measured with a 10-cm visual analogue scale and a 5-point Faces Pain Scale. Pain was summarized into categories (none, mild, moderate, severe) and also analyzed as a continuous variable (mean and 95% confidence interval). Our sample size had 80% power (α = 0.05) to detect a 15% difference in pain score measured by visual analogue scale (mean [standard deviation] visual analogue scale score = 5.9 [2.0] cm) and an absolute difference of 20% in the proportion of women reporting severe pain at levonorgestrel-releasing intrauterine system insertion among groups. We used a χ2 test and a mixed-effects linear regression model. We calculated the number needed to treat for the intracervical block to avert severe pain at tenaculum placement and levonorgestrel-releasing intrauterine system insertion. RESULTS: A total of 302 women were randomized (99 to the intracervical block, 101 to the intracervical sham, and 102 to no intervention), and 300 had a successful device insertion. The intracervical block group had fewer women reporting severe pain than the other groups, both at tenaculum placement (intracervical block: 2% vs sham: 30.2% vs no intervention: 15.2%, P < .0001) and at levonorgestrel-releasing intrauterine system insertion (intracervical block: 26.5% vs sham: 59.4% vs no intervention: 50.5%, P < .0001). The mean (95% confidence interval) pain score reported at levonorgestrel-releasing intrauterine system insertion was lower in the intracervical block group than in the other groups (intracervical block: 4.3 [3.8-4.9] vs sham: 6.6 [6.2-7.0], P < .0001; intracervical block: 4.3 [3.8-4.9] vs no intervention: 5.8 [5.3-6.4], P < .0001). Women from the intracervical block group reported less pain than expected (P < .0001), rated the insertion as less uncomfortable (P < .0001), and were more willing to undergo another device insertion in the future (P < .01) than women in the other groups. The ease of insertion were similar among groups. The number needed to treat for the intracervical block to avert severe pain at tenaculum placement and levonorgestrel-releasing intrauterine system insertion was 2 and 4, respectively. CONCLUSION: A 3.6-mL 2% lidocaine intracervical block decreased pain at tenaculum placement and levonorgestrel-releasing intrauterine system insertion among nulligravidas. It also provided a better overall experience during the procedure.

Effects of two contraceptives containing drospirenone on blood pressure in normotensive women: a randomized-controlled trial.

OBJECTIVE: Drospirenone (DRSP) is a progestogen derived from spironolactone with antimineralocorticoid action that seems to exert a favorable effect on blood pressure (BP); however, when associated with ethinylestradiol (EE), this effect does not seem to occur. This study aimed to assess possible differences in BP associated with the use of combined oral contraceptives containing DRSP with different doses of EE. MATERIALS AND METHODS: This open-label parallel-group randomized clinical trial involved women randomized to use either 30 mcg of EE+DRSP (n=22) or 20 mcg of EE+DRSP (n=22). Daytime, nighttime, and 24-h BP were evaluated by ambulatory blood pressure monitoring at the beginning of the trial and 6 months after drug therapy. RESULTS: The groups were similar in terms of demographic characteristics. The mean 24-h systolic blood pressure and diastolic blood pressure (DBP) were similar between the groups before and after treatment (P>0.05). With respect to day and nighttime systolic blood pressure and DBP, no statistically significant difference was observed in BP values between the two groups either before or after treatment, except for the daytime DBP in the 30EE+DRSP group. In this group, a decrease of 2 mmHg (3%) in daytime DBP was observed after 6 months of drug therapy (P=0.04). CONCLUSION: There was no difference in BP associated with the use of combined oral contraceptives containing DRSP irrespective of the EE dose used.