4.3 Article

Safety of intrauterine contraceptive device (copper T 200 B) in women with cardiac disease

Journal

CONTRACEPTION
Volume 78, Issue 4, Pages 315-318

Publisher

ELSEVIER SCIENCE INC
DOI: 10.1016/j.contraception.2008.05.006

Keywords

cardiac disease; rheumatic heart disease; congenital heart disease; IUD; contraception; copper T intrauterine contraceptive device

Funding

  1. Post-Graduate Institute of Medical Education and Research (PGI)

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Background: Women with cardiac disease have need for effective long-lasting reversible contraception. Women with cardiac disease are at increased risk for bacterial endocarditis. There is limited research regarding the use of intrauterine contraceptive devices (IUD) in women with cardiac disease. Study Design: In a prospective study, the IUD copper (Cu T200B) was inserted in 40 women with cardiac disease. Infective endocarditis prophylaxis was given 1 h before IUD insertion. The IUD was inserted Under aseptic conditions. Ten milliliters of venous blood was obtained for culture of aerobic and anerobic bacteria within 1 h of insertion of the copper T IUD. Women were contacted for follow-up at frequent intervals. Results: There was no incidence of uterine perforation, hemorrhage or spontaneous expulsion of the IUD. All blood cultures were sterile, There were no cases of infective endocarditis. Four women (10%) had menorrhagia at the 6-month follow-up which responded to medical management. One woman had PID for which antibiotics were given. Five women had mild cramps and five had spotting after insertion of the IUD. Patient adherence was excellent as none returned for removal for reasons other than desire for another pregnancy. Conclusion: The Cu T200B IUD is a reasonably safe and effective method of temporary contraception in women with cardiac disease who are not receiving anticoagulant therapy. (C) 2008 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.3
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available