RESUMEN
OBJECTIVES: To determine how obstetrician-gynecologists categorize pregnancy-ending interventions in the setting of lethal fetal anomalies. STUDY DESIGN: We conducted a sequential explanatory mixed-methods study of U.S. obstetrician-gynecologists from May to July 2021. We distributed a cross-sectional online survey via email and social media and completed qualitative telephone interviews with a nested group of participants. We assessed institutional classification as induced abortion versus indicated delivery for six scenarios of ending a pregnancy with lethal anomalies after 24 weeks, comparing classification using McNemar chi-square tests with Benjamini-Hochberg correction for multiple comparisons with a false discovery rate of 0.05. We performed the thematic analysis of qualitative data and then performed a mixed-methods analysis. RESULTS: We included 205 respondents; most were female (84.4%), had provided abortion care (80.2%), and were general OB/GYNs (59.3%), with broad representation across pre-Dobbs state and institutional abortion policies. Twenty-one qualitative participants had similar characteristics to the whole sample. All scenarios were classified as induced abortion by the majority of respondents, ranging from 53.2% for 32-week induction for anencephaly, to 82.9% for feticidal injection with 24-week induction for anencephaly. Mixed-methods analysis revealed the relevance of gestational age (later interventions less likely to be considered induced abortion) and procedure method and setting (dilation and evacuation, feticidal injection, and freestanding facility all increasing classification as induced abortion). CONCLUSIONS: There is wide variation in the classification of pregnancy-ending interventions for lethal fetal anomalies, even among trained obstetrician-gynecologists. Method, timing, and location of ending a nonviable pregnancy influence classification, though the perinatal outcome is unchanged. IMPLICATIONS: The classification of pregnancy-ending interventions for lethal fetal anomalies after 24 weeks as indicated delivery versus induced abortion is reflective of sociopolitical regulatory factors as opposed to medical science. The regulatory requirement for classification negatively impacts access to care, especially in environments where induced abortion is legally restricted.
Asunto(s)
Aborto Inducido , Anomalías Congénitas , Humanos , Femenino , Embarazo , Aborto Inducido/métodos , Estudios Transversales , Adulto , Obstetricia , Estados Unidos , Masculino , Ginecología , Persona de Mediana Edad , Segundo Trimestre del Embarazo , Pautas de la Práctica en Medicina/estadística & datos numéricos , Encuestas y CuestionariosRESUMEN
OBJECTIVES: To explore how US obstetrician-gynecologists (OB/GYNs) classify periviable pregnancy-ending interventions for maternal life endangerment. STUDY DESIGN: From May to July 2021, we performed an explanatory sequential mixed methods study of US OB/GYNs, recruited through social media and professional listservs. We administered a cross-sectional survey requesting institutional classification of labor induction or surgical evacuation of a 22-week pregnancy affected by intrauterine infection, using chi-square tests and logistic regression to compare determinations by physician and institutional factors. We then conducted semistructured interviews in a diverse nested sample to explore decision-making, merging quantitative and qualitative data in a mixed methods analysis. RESULTS: We received 209 completed survey responses, with 101 (48.3%) current abortion providers and 48 (20.1%) never-providers, and completed 21 qualitative interviews. Fewer than half of respondents reported that pregnancy-ending intervention for 22-week intrauterine infection would be classified as induced abortion at their institution (induction: 21.1%, dilation & evacuation: 42.6%, p < 0.001). In addition to procedure method, decision-making factors for classification as abortion included personal experience with abortion (with more experienced participants more likely to identify care as abortion) and state and institutional abortion regulations ("I have to call it a medical [induction] I'm not allowed to use the word abortion"). CONCLUSIONS: Most OB/GYNs do not classify periviable pregnancy-ending interventions for life-threatening maternal complications as induced abortion, especially when physicians and institutions have less abortion expertise. Differential classification of pregnancy-ending care may lead to undercounting of later abortion procedures, masking the impact of abortion restrictions. IMPLICATIONS: Under unclear legal definitions, legislative interference, and administrative overreach, subjectivity in classification creates inconsistency in care for pregnancy complications. Failure to classify life-saving care as abortion contributes to stigma and facilitates restrictions, with increased danger and less autonomy for pregnant people.
Asunto(s)
Aborto Inducido , Embarazo , Femenino , Humanos , Estudios Transversales , Aborto Inducido/métodos , Atención Prenatal , Trabajo de Parto Inducido , Encuestas y CuestionariosRESUMEN
INTRODUCTION: We sought to assess the efficacy of transabdominal intrafetal lidocaine to achieve fetal demise before pregnancy termination. METHODS: This study was a retrospective cohort analysis of patients undergoing transabdominal intrafetal lidocaine injections prior to abortion procedures after 24 weeks from January 2018 to June 2020 at DuPont Clinic, an outpatient obstetrics and gynaecology clinic in Washington, DC, USA. We recorded data on maternal factors, gestational age, time of injection and fetal asystole, and injection dose and location. We defined successful intrafetal lidocaine injection as asystole achieved prior to the patient leaving the clinic. RESULTS: We performed injections in 338 fetuses in 335 patients, with a median gestational age of 27 weeks and 6 days (range 24-32 weeks). Lidocaine dose was 200-240 mg in 310 cases (91.7%) and 400-480 mg in 27 cases (8.0%) without difference in success (p>0.05). Lidocaine successfully induced fetal demise with one injection in 331 cases (97.9%). A second injection was required to induce demise for five fetuses (1.5%). Intracardiac injection was successful in 280 of 285 cases (98.3%), with asystole confirmed within 1 min in 75% of cases. Intrathoracic injection caused asystole in 45 of 47 cases (95.7%), with asystole confirmed within 2 min in 75% of cases. Success was not significantly associated with gestational age, body mass index or parity (p>0.05). One patient reported lidocaine-related side effects (0.3%). CONCLUSIONS: Intrafetal lidocaine is a safe and effective method of inducing fetal demise. Intracardiac injection achieves fetal asystole almost immediately. Intrathoracic injection is also highly effective.