A randomized comparison of intravenous sedation using a dosing algorithm compared to standard care during first-trimester surgical abortion.

Objective: The objective was to compare the safety and efficacy of an algorithm for abortion intravenous sedation dosing (AAID) to standard dosing during first-trimester surgical abortion.

Study Design: This was a randomized, single-blinded, controlled trial in which women undergoing first-trimester surgical abortion received fentanyl and midazolam dosed per either an algorithm or clinic standard. Patient-level factors including weight, airway risk, anxiety, and drug and alcohol use determined AAID doses. The primary outcome was pain with suction curettage measured immediately on a 21-point verbal numerical rating scale ranging from 0 to 100. Secondary outcomes included pain with cervical dilation and postprocedure, intraoperative pain as recalled postprocedure, need for additional doses of medication, oxygen saturation<93%, sedation level, adverse events, side effects and patient satisfaction.

Results: We enrolled 196 women and randomized 98 to the AAID and 98 to standard care. Baseline factors were similar between groups. Median intraoperative pain scores did not differ between groups when measured immediately (47.5 vs. 50, p=.81) or on recall (30 in both arms, p=.68). There were no significant differences in other secondary outcomes. Women with a body mass index (BMI) 30-35 trended toward improved pain control with the algorithm (60 vs. 27.5, p=.07).

Conclusions: Intravenous sedation determined by an algorithm did not produce differences in pain scores in a setting with highly experienced providers.

Implications: An intravenous sedation algorithm did not demonstrate significant benefit for the general population of surgical abortion patients. Providers with less experience titrating intravenous sedation might find it a helpful tool to guide sedation dosing. A possible benefit in obese patients warrants further study.