TDNet Discover

Background: Emergency contraception (EC) is indicated in situations where contraceptive measures were not used or failed. The copper intrauterine device (Cu-IUD) is the most effective form of EC for women. Though effective, many barriers exist, including a required clinic visit, pain with insertion, and cost. Another popular option is oral levonorgestrel, which does not require a prescription and is minimally invasive. Levonorgestrel is a hormone that also comes as an intrauterine device (IUD). A significant benefit of IUD use as EC is its ability to remain in place to continue serving as a long-term birth control method after the need for EC has passed. The levonorgestrel IUD (LNG-IUD) has gained a solid reputation as a long-term birth control method, but there is little data or recognition of its use as EC. Purpose: This research intended to discover the efficacy, safety, cost, and long-term impact of the use of LNG-IUDs when used as an EC treatment as compared to that of Cu-IUDs and oral levonorgestrel. Methods: Three researchers investigated multiple databases to discover articles containing data that pertained to the research purpose. The articles were vetted and ranked in order of quality, which was determined by a quality assessment tool. Only articles achieving a rating of “good” quality were selected for use. Next, 3 articles that provided the necessary data to investigate the efficacy and other outcomes of LNG-IUDs used as EC were chosen. Using a data extraction tool, information was pulled from each chosen article and organized for use in this study. Results: The articles included in this study consisted of a systematic review/meta-analysis and 2 systematic reviews. The data included in this study had women aged 18 and older who had used oral levonorgestrel, a Cu-IUD, or LNG-IUD. Outcomes investigated were rates of pregnancy, expulsion, infection, perforation, bleeding, cramping, patient satisfaction, and need for removal. v A comparison of each outcome in each type of EC found no significant differences between the LNG-IUD and other types of EC. Conclusion: The results of this study support the potential use of an LNG-IUD for EC purposes. However, limited research is available on the cost, accessibility, and satisfaction of patients who use this method. Due to limited data availability, the first-line EC options remain the Cu-IUD and oral levonorgestrel. Further research on this subject, including patients with PCOS, other comorbidities, or contraindications to specific types of EC, would provide women with an additional option for EC that adds value as a long-term birth control method.