Copper intrauterine device placement 6–14 days after unprotected sex

I. Thompson, Jessica N. Sanders, E. Bimla Schwarz, Christy Boraas, David K. Turok

Research output: Contribution to journalArticlepeer-review

1 Scopus citations

Abstract

Objective: To evaluate pregnancy risk following copper (CuT380A) intrauterine device (IUD) placement 6–14 days after unprotected intercourse. Study design: We used a combined dataset from four protocols in which participants had received a CuT380A IUD regardless of recent unprotected intercourse. At entry, participants had negative point of care urine pregnancy testing and reported all acts of unprotected intercourse in the two weeks prior to IUD placement. We identified a subset of women who had placement 6–14 days after unprotected intercourse and provided follow-up information on pregnancy status 2–4 weeks after IUD insertion. This follow-up within the four protocols included self -administered home urine pregnancy test (UPT) results 2–4 weeks after IUD placement or continued contact for up to 6 months. Results: We identified 134 women who had a CuT380A IUD placed 6–14 days after unprotected intercourse and provided follow-up information on pregnancy status. Ninety-five (71%) participants reported UPT results 2–4 weeks after placement and the other 39 women were followed for 6 months after IUD placement to assess pregnancy status. Zero (97.5% CI 0–2.7%) participants reported a pregnancy within four weeks of CuT380A IUD placement. Conclusion: In these collected data, no women with recent unprotected intercourse became pregnant within 1 month of CuT380A IUD placement. Implication: These data indicate a low likelihood of pregnancy among women who reported unprotected intercourse 6–14 days preceding IUD insertion. For many women and their providers, these data may be sufficient to support same-day placement of a copper IUD rather than delaying IUD placement until the next menses.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)219-221
Number of pages3
JournalContraception
Volume100
Issue number3
DOIs
StatePublished - Sep 2019

Bibliographical note

Funding Information:
Special thanks to Kathy Burke, Penny Davies, and the staff at Planned Parenthood Association of Utah and Planned Parenthood of Minnesota.? Funding: This work was supported by the Society of Family Planning Research Fund Grant # SFPRF15-2 and the William and Flora Hewlett Foundation. We collected and managed study data using REDCap (Research Electronic Data Capture) software hosted at the University of Utah; this service is supported by Center for Clinical and Translational Sciences grant 8UL1TR000105 (formerly UL1RR025764, NCATS/NIH). All authors played a crucial role in the combined effort of researching and writing this paper. Team members receive support from the Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health & Human Development and the Office of Research on Women's Health of the National Institute of Health, JNS via Award Number K12HD085852 and DKT via K24HD087436 and 1R01HD083340. The content is solely the responsibility of the authors and does not necessarily represent the official view of any of the funding agencies or participating institutions, including the National Institutes of Health, the University of Utah or Planned Parenthood Federation of America, Inc. ?? Conflict of Interest: The University of Utah Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology Program in Family Planning receives research funding from Bayer Women's Health Care, Merck & Co. Inc., Cooper Surgical, Bioceptive, Sebela Pharmaceuticals, and Medicines 360. The other authors have no conflicts of interest to report.

Funding Information:
Funding: This work was supported by the Society of Family Planning Research Fund Grant # SFPRF15-2 and the William and Flora Hewlett Foundation. We collected and managed study data using REDCap (Research Electronic Data Capture) software hosted at the University of Utah; this service is supported by Center for Clinical and Translational Sciences grant 8UL1TR000105 (formerly UL1RR025764, NCATS/NIH). All authors played a crucial role in the combined effort of researching and writing this paper. Team members receive support from the Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health & Human Development and the Office of Research on Women's Health of the National Institute of Health, JNS via Award Number K12HD085852 and DKT via K24HD087436 and 1R01HD083340. The content is solely the responsibility of the authors and does not necessarily represent the official view of any of the funding agencies or participating institutions, including the National Institutes of Health, the University of Utah or Planned Parenthood Federation of America, Inc.

Funding Information:
Conflict of Interest: The University of Utah Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology Program in Family Planning receives research funding from Bayer Women's Health Care, Merck & Co. Inc., Cooper Surgical, Bioceptive, Sebela Pharmaceuticals, and Medicines 360. The other authors have no conflicts of interest to report.

Publisher Copyright:
© 2019 Elsevier Inc.

Keywords

  • Copper IUD
  • Pregnancy
  • Pregnancy rate
  • Unprotected intercourse

Fingerprint

Dive into the research topics of 'Copper intrauterine device placement 6–14 days after unprotected sex'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

Cite this