@article{9e2a236d288b42589ce6006f813d55e6,
title = "Comparison of procedure time between manual and electric vacuum aspiration for pregnancy termination between 10-14 weeks: A randomized trial",
abstract = "Objective: To measure the difference in procedure time between manual vacuum aspiration (MVA) and electric vacuum aspiration (EVA) during abortion procedures between 10 0/7 and 13 6/7 weeks gestation. Study Design: We conducted a 1:1 randomized trial of individuals undergoing an abortion procedure between 10 0/7 and 13 6/7 weeks to MVA or EVA. Procedure time was the primary outcome. We performed an intention-to-treat analysis. A total of 132 patients (66 per arm) were needed to identify a 2-minute difference in time with 90% power and an alpha of 0.05. Given the non-parametric distribution of procedure times, we used Mann-Whitney U test to assess for differences in median procedure times. Results: We randomized 146 participants; 74 to MVA and 72 to EVA. Median procedure times were similar between the 2 groups; EVA 2.4 minutes (range 0.9–6.9 min) and MVA 2.6 minutes (range 1.1–9.0 min, p = 0.12). When stratified by gestational age, EVA between 12 0/7 and 13 6/7 weeks had a shorter median procedure time compared to MVA (2.5 min, range 1.4–6.9 min vs. 3.5 min range 1.7–9.0), respectively (p = 0.005). One conversion occurred from MVA to EVA at 13 weeks. Conclusion: We found no difference in procedure time between MVA and EVA between 10 0/7 and 13 6/7 weeks gestation. MVA does take 1 minute longer than EVA when performed between 12 0/7-13 6/7 weeks; however, this difference is not likely be clinically significant. Implications: Procedure times are similar for manual and electric vacuum aspiration for uterine evacuation between 10 and 14 weeks and the rate of conversion is low.",
keywords = "Abortion, EVA, MVA, RCT, Vacuum aspiration",
author = "Jaclyn Grentzer and Colleen McNicholas and Eisenberg, {David L.} and Peipert, {Jeffrey F.} and Rachel Paul and Tessa Madden",
note = "Funding Information: ✰ Declaration of Competing Interest: Dr. McNicholas receives research support from Merck and serves on the Merck Global Advisory Board for Contraception. Dr. Eisenberg receives research funding and serves as a consultant to Medicines360 and Evofem Biosciences, is a trainer for Organon's contraceptive implant, receives research funding from Merck, and is a consultant for Femasys and ACI Clinical on behalf of Sebela Pharmaceuticals. Dr. Peipert receives research funding from Bayer Healthcare Pharmaceuticals, CooperSurgical/TEVA, and Merck & Co, Inc. and serves on an advisory board for OCON and has served on advisory boards for Bayer and CooperSurgical. Dr. Madden serves on a data safety monitoring board for phase 4 safety studies of Bayer contraceptive products. The other authors do not have any potential conflicts of interest to report.✰✰ Funding: This research was supported by a grant from the Society of Family Planning Research Fund (SFPRF 15-16). This funding source had no role in collection, analysis and interpretation of data; writing of the report; or the decision to submit the article for publication. The contents are solely the responsibility of the authors and do not necessarily represent the official view of SFPRF. Funding Information: Funding: This research was supported by a grant from the Society of Family Planning Research Fund (SFPRF 15-16). This funding source had no role in collection, analysis and interpretation of data; writing of the report; or the decision to submit the article for publication. The contents are solely the responsibility of the authors and do not necessarily represent the official view of SFPRF. Publisher Copyright: {\textcopyright} 2022",
year = "2022",
month = sep,
doi = "10.1016/j.contraception.2022.03.025",
language = "English",
volume = "113",
pages = "108--112",
journal = "Contraception",
issn = "0010-7824",
}