Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Options for Early Therapeutic Abortion

A Comparative Review

  • Review Article
  • Published:
Drugs Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Vacuum aspiration, either manual or electric, has for many years been the most commonly used method for termination of an early pregnancy. More recently, new medical methods have been developed which for many women are attractive alternatives to the surgical procedure. The compounds mainly used are prostaglandin analogues, methotrexate, and mifepristone in combination with a suitable prostaglandin analogue. However, only the last method has been registered for routine clinical use. The treatment schedule mainly used is mifepristone 200 to 600mg followed 36 to 48 hours later by oral misoprostol 0.4 to 0.6mg in pregnancies up to 49 days and vaginal gemeprost 1.0mg or misoprostol 0.8mg if the treatment period is extended to 63 days of amenorrhoea.

The ability to compare medical and surgical methods is limited by the fact that there are few randomised studies and the definitions of successful outcome (complete abortion), adverse effects and complications vary from one study to the other. Experience with the method used is also important for the outcome. However, it seems adequate to state that the medical method is equally, or almost equally, as effective as vacuum aspiration. Duration of bleeding and amount of blood loss is greater following medical abortion. Also the frequency of uterine pain, vomiting and diarrhoea is higher following medical abortion than following vacuum aspiration. On the other hand, the frequency of major complications such as excessive bleeding, blood transfusion and pelvic infection does not seem to differ between the two procedures. Surgical complications, for example, uterine perforation and cervical tears, are obviously not a risk associated with medical abortion.

Both methods are equally well accepted provided the woman is allowed to choose. It is not possible to state which method is best. Medical termination of early pregnancy will not replace, but is an alternative to, vacuum aspiration and ideally both methods should be available to give the woman a choice.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Table I
Table II
Table III
Table IV
Table V

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Grimes DA, Cates Jr W. Complications from legally induced abortion: a review. Obstet Gynecol Surv 1979; 34: 177–91

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  2. Hart G, Macharper T. Clinical aspects of induced abortion in South Australia from 1970–1984. Aust N Z J Obstet Gynaecol 1986; 26: 219–24

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  3. Ashok PW, Kidd A, Flett SMM, et al. A randomized comparison of medical abortion and surgical vacuum aspiration at 10–13 weeks gestation. Hum Reprod 2002; 17: 92–8

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Philibert D. RU 38486: an original multifaceted antihormone in vivo. In: Agarwall MK, editor. Adrenal Steroid Antagonism. Berlin: Gruyter, 1984: 70–101

    Google Scholar 

  5. Bygdeman M, Swahn ML. Progesterone receptor blockage. Effect on uterine contractility in early pregnancy. Contraception 1985; 32: 45–51

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  6. Swahn ML, Bygdeman M. The effect of the antiprogestin RU 486 on uterine contractility and sensitivity to prostaglandin and oxytocin. Br J Obstet Gynaecol 1988; 95: 126–34

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  7. Baird DT. Mode of action of medical methods of abortion. JAMWA 2000; 55 (3 Suppl.): 121–6

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  8. Zieman M, Fong SK, Benowitz NL, et al. Absorption kinetics of misoprostol with oral or vaginal administration. Obstet Gynecol 1997; 90: 88–92

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  9. Gemzell Danielsson K, Marions L, Rodriguez A, et al. Comparison between oral and vaginal administration of misoprostol on uterine contractility. Obstet Gynecol 1999; 93: 275–80

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Dimov V, Green K, Bygdeman M, et al. Gas chromatographic-mass spectrometric quantitation of 16,16-dimethyl-trans-Δ2-PGE1. Prostaglandins 1983; 25: 225–35

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  11. DeLoia JA, Stewart-Akers AM, Creinin MD. Effect of methotrexate on trophoblast proliferation and local immune response. Hum Reprod 1998; 12: 1063–9

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Swahn ML, Bygdeman M. Medical methods to terminate early pregnancy. In: Bygdeman M, editor. Medical induction of abortion. Bailliere Tindall, 1990; 4(2): 293–306

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  13. World Health Organisation Task Force on Post-ovulatory Methods of Fertility Regulation. Menstrual regulation by intramuscular injections of 16-phenoxy-tetranor PGE2 methyl sulfonyl amide or vacuum aspiration. A randomized multi-centre study. Br J Obstet Gynaecol 1987; 94: 949–56

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Cameron IT, Baird DT. Early pregnancy termination: a comparison between vacuum aspiration and medical abortion using prostaglandin (16.16 dimethyl-trans-2-PGE1 methyl ester) or the antiprogestogen RU 486. Br J Obstet Gynaecol 1988; 95: 271–7

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  15. Norman JE, Joo Thong K, Baird DT. Uterine contractility and induction of abortion in early pregnancy by misoprostol and mifepristone. Lancet 1991 Nov 16; 338: 1233–6

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  16. Carbonell JLL, Varela L, Velasco A. Early abortion with 800 μg of misoprostol by the vaginal route. Contraception 1999; 59: 219–25

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Ngai SW, Tang OS, Chan YM, et al. Vaginal misoprostole alone for medical abortion up to 9 weeks of gestation; efficacy and acceptability. Hum Reprod 2000; 15(5): 1159–62

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  18. Creinin MD, Pymar HC. Medical abortion alternative to mifepristone. JAMWA 2000; 55(3): 127–32

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  19. Carbonell JLL, Varela L, Velasco A, et al. Oral methotrexate and vaginal misoprostol for early abortion. Contraception 1998; 57: 83–8

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  20. Herrmann W, Wysss R, Riondel A, et al. Effet d un steroide anti-progestine chez la femme: interruption du cycle et de la grossesse au debut. CR Acad Sci (Paris) 1982; 294: 933–8

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  21. Van Look PFA, Bygdeman M. Antiprogestational steroids: a new dimension in human fertility regulation. In: Milligan SR, editor. Oxford reviews of reproductive biology. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1989; 11: 1–60

    Google Scholar 

  22. Couzinet B, LeStrat N, Ulmann A, et al. Termination of early pregnancy by the progesterone antagonist RU 486 (mifepristone) N Engl J Med 1986; 315: 1565–70

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  23. Von Hertzen H. Research on regimens for early medical abortion. JAMWA 2000; 55(3): 133–6

    Google Scholar 

  24. Heikinheimo O. Clinical pharmacokinetics of mifepristone. Clin Pharmacokinet 1997; 33(1): 7–17

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  25. World Health Organisation Task Force on Post-ovulatory Methods of Fertlity Regulation. Termination of pregnancy with reduced doses of mifepristone. BMJ 1993; 307: 532–7

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. World Health Organisation Task Force on Post-ovulatory Methods of Fertility Regulation. Lowering the dose of mifepristone and gemeprost for early abortion: a randomized controlled trial. Br J Obstet Gynaecol 2001; 108: 738–42

    Google Scholar 

  27. Ulmann A, Silvestre L, Chemama L, et al. Medical termination of early pregnancy with mifepristone (RU 486) followed by a prostaglandin analogue. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand 1992; 71: 278–83

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  28. UK Multicentre trial. The efficacy and tolerance of mifepristone and prostaglandin in first trimester trmination of pregnancy. Br J Obstet Gynaecol 1990; 97: 480–6

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. World Health Organisation Task Force on Post-ovulatory Methods of Fertility Regulation. Menstrual regulation by mifepristone plus prostaglandin: results from a multicentre trial. Hum Reprod 1995; 10: 308–14

    Google Scholar 

  30. Ashok PW, Penny GC, Flett GMM, et al. An effective regimen for early medical abortion: a report of 2000 consecutive cases. Hum Reprod 1998; 13: 2962–5

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  31. McKinley C, JooThong K, Baird DT. The effect of dose of mifepristone and gestation on the efficacy of medical abortion with mifepristone and misoprostol. Hum Reprod 1993; 8: 1502–5

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  32. Peyron R, Auberny E, Targosz V, et al. Early termination of pregnancy with mifepristone and the orally active prostaglandin misoprostol. N Engl J Med 1993; 328: 1509–13

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  33. Baird DT, Sukcharoen N, JooThong K. Randomized trial of misoprostol and cervagem in combination with a reduced dose of mifepristone for induction of abortion. Hum Reprod 1995; 10: 1521–7

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  34. Spitz I, Bardin W, Benton L, et al. Early pregnancy termination with mifepristone and misoprostol in the United States. N Engl J Med 1998; 338: 1241–7

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  35. Bartley J, Brown A, Elton R, et al. Double-blind randomozed trial of mifepristone with vaginal gemeprost or misoprostol for induction of abortion up ro 63 days of gestation. Hum Reprod 2001; 16: 2098–102

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  36. Lawson HW, Frye A, Atrash HK, et al. Abortion mortality, United States, 1972 through 1987. Am J Obstet Gynecol 1994; 171: 1365–72

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  37. MacIsaac L, Darney O. Early surgical abortion: An alternative to and backup for medical abortion. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2000; 183: S76–83

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  38. Cates W, Grimes DA. Morbidity and mortality of abortion in the United States. In: Hodgson JE, editor. Abortion and sterilization: medical and social aspects. London: Academic Press; 1981: 155–80

    Google Scholar 

  39. Freedman MA, Jillson DA, Coffin RR, et al. Comparison of complication rates in first trimester abortions performed by physician assistants and physicians. Am J Public Health 1986; 76(5): 550–4

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  40. Laufe LE. The menstrual regulation procedure. Stud Farn Plann 1977; 8: 253–6

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  41. Winikoff B, Sivin I, Coyaji KJ, et al. Safety, efficacy and acceptability of medical abortion in China, Cuba and India; A comparative trial of mifepristone-misoprostol versus vacuum aspiration. Am J Obstet Gynecol 1997; 176: 431–9

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  42. Child TJ, Thomas J, Rees M, et al. Morbidity of first trimester aspiration termination and the seniority of the surgeon. Hum Reprod 2001; 16: 875–8

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  43. Henshaw RC, Naji SA, Russel IT, et al. A comparison of medical abortion (using mifepristoen and gemeprost) with surgical vacuum aspiration: efficacy and early medical sequele. Hum Reprod 1994; 9: 2167–72

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  44. Child TJ, Thomas J, Rees M, et al. A comparative study of surgical and medical procedures: 932 pregnancy terminations up to 63 days gestation. Hum Reprod 2001; 16: 67–71

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  45. Löfgren M, Eriksson L, Ildgruben A, et al. Medical abortion as good as surgical. Lakartidningen 1997; 94: 3257–60

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  46. El-Refaey H, Rajasekar D, Abdalla M, et al. Induction of abortion with mifepristone (RU 486) and oral or vaginal misoprostol. N Engl J Med 1995; 332: 983–7

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  47. Schaff EA, Fielding SL, Westhoff C, et al. Vaginal misoprostol administration 1, 2 or 3 days after mifepristone for early medical abortion. JAMA 2000; 284: 1948–52

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  48. Sitruk-Ware R, Davey A, Sakiz E. Fetal malformation and failed medical termination of pregnancy [letter]. Lancet 1998 Jul 25; 352: 323

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  49. Henshaw RC, Naji SA, Russel IT, et al. Comparison of medical abortion with surgical vacuum aspiration: womens preferences and acceptability of treatment. BMJ 1993; 307: 714–7

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  50. Holmgren K. Women s evaluation of three early abortion methods. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand 1992; 71: 616–23

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

The studies from the Karolinska Hospital referred to in this article were supported by the UNDP/UNFPA/WHO/ World Bank Special Programme of Research, Development and Research Training in Human Reproduction, WHO, Geneva; the Swedish Medical Research Council (no. 05696, 05170 and 0855); the Knut and Alice Wallenberg Foundation; and the Karolinska Institute Research Funds. The authors have no conflicts of interest directly relevant to the content of this review.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Karolinska Hospital, 17176, Stockholm, Sweden

    Marc Bygdeman & Kristina G. Danielsson

Authors
  1. Marc Bygdeman
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Kristina G. Danielsson
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Marc Bygdeman.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Bygdeman, M., Danielsson, K.G. Options for Early Therapeutic Abortion. Drugs 62, 2459–2470 (2002). https://doi.org/10.2165/00003495-200262170-00005

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.2165/00003495-200262170-00005

Keywords

Search

Navigation