Contraceptive Choices Pre and Post Pregnancy in Adolescence

STUDY OBJECTIVE: The main aim of this study is to evaluate the impact of adolescent pregnancy in the future contraceptive choices. A secondary aim is to verify whether these choices differ from those made after an abortion. DESIGN: Retrospective study. SETTING:Adolescent Unit of a tertiary care center. PARTICIPANTS:212 pregnant teenagers. INTERVENTIONS: Medical records review. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES:Intended pregnancy rate and contraceptive methods used before and after pregnancy. For contraceptive choices after pregnancy we considered: Group 1 - teenagers who continued their pregnancy to delivery (n = 106) and Group 2 - the same number of adolescents who chose to terminate their pregnancy. RESULTS: The intended pregnancy rate was 14.2%. Prior to a pregnancy continued to delivery, the most widely used contraceptive method was the male condom (50.9%), followed by oral combined contraceptives (28.3%); 18.9% of adolescents were not using any contraceptive method. After pregnancy, contraceptive implant was chosen by 70.8% of subjects (P < .001) and the oral combined contraceptives remained the second most frequent option (17.9%, P = .058). Comparing these results with Group 2, we found that the outcome of the pregnancy was the main factor in the choices that were made. Thus, after a pregnancy continued to delivery, adolescents prefer the use of LARC [78.4% vs 40.5%, OR: 5,958 - 95% (2.914-12.181), P < .001)], especially contraceptive implants [70.8% vs 38.7%, OR: 4.371 - 95% (2.224-8.591), P < .001], to oral combined contraceptives [17.9% vs 57.5%, OR: 0.118 - 95% CI (0.054-0.258), P < .001]. CONCLUSION:Adolescent pregnancy and its outcome constitute a factor of change in future contraceptive choice.

Effects of Local Anesthetic on the Time Between Analgesic Boluses and the Duration of Labor in Patient-Controlled Epidural Analgesia: Prospective Study of Two Ultra-Low Dose Regimens of Ropivacaine and Sufentanil

BACKGROUND: Patient-controlled epidural analgesia with low concentrations of anesthetics is effective in reducing labor pain. The aim of this study was to assess and compare two ultra-low dose regimens of ropivacaine and sufentanil (0.1% ropivacaine plus 0.5 μg.ml-1 sufentanil vs. 0.06% ropivacaine plus 0.5 μg.ml-1 sufentanil) on the intervals between boluses and the duration of labor. MATERIAL AND METHODS: In this non-randomized prospective study, conducted between January and July 2010, two groups of parturients received patient-controlled epidural analgesia: Group I (n = 58; 1 mg.ml-1 ropivacaine + 0.5 μg.ml-1 sufentanil) and Group II (n = 57; 0.6 mg.ml-1 ropivacaine + 0.5 μg.ml-1 sufentanil). Rescue doses of ropivacaine at the concentration of the assigned group without sufentanil were administered as necessary. Pain, local anesthetic requirements, neuraxial blockade characteristics, labor and neonatal outcomes, and maternal satisfaction were recorded. RESULTS: The ropivacaine dose was greater in Group I (9.5 [7.7-12.7] mg.h-1 vs. 6.1 [5.1-9.8 mg.h-1], p < 0.001). A time increase between each bolus was observed in Group I (beta = 32.61 min, 95% CI [25.39; 39.82], p < 0.001), whereas a time decrease was observed in Group II (beta = -1.40 min, 95% CI [-2.44; -0.36], p = 0.009). The duration of the second stage of labor in Group I was significantly longer than that in Group II (78 min vs. 65 min, p < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Parturients receiving 0.06% ropivacaine exhibited less evidence of cumulative effects and exhibited faster second stage progression than those who received 0.1% ropivacaine.