Copper IUD
Template:Short description Template:About Template:Cs1 config Template:Infobox birth control A copper intrauterine device (IUD), also known as an intrauterine coil, copper coil, or non-hormonal IUD, is a form of long-acting reversible contraception and one of the most effective forms of birth control available.<ref name="Winner2012" /><ref name="WHO2008" /> It can also be used for emergency contraception within five days of unprotected sex.<ref name="WHO2008">Template:Cite book</ref> The device is placed in the uterus and lasts up to twelve years, depending on the amount of copper present in the device.<ref name=WHO2008 /><ref name="Good2010">Template:Cite book</ref> It may be used for contraception regardless of age or previous pregnancy, and may be placed immediately after a vaginal delivery, cesarean delivery, or surgical abortion.<ref name=":8">Template:Cite journal</ref><ref name="BNF69">Template:Cite book</ref> Following its removal, fertility quickly returns.<ref name=Good2010 />
Common side effects include heavy menstrual periods and increased menstrual cramps (dysmenorrhea). Rarely, the device may come out or perforate the uterine wall.<ref name=WHO2008 /><ref name=Good2010 />
The copper IUD was initially developed in Germany in the early 1900s, but came into widespread medical use in the 1970s.<ref name=Good2010 /> It is on the World Health Organization's List of Essential Medicines.<ref name="WHO21st">Template:Cite book</ref><ref>Template:Cite book</ref>
Medical usesEdit
Copper IUDs are a form of long-acting reversible contraception and are one of the most effective forms of birth control available.<ref name="Winner2012">Template:Cite journal</ref><ref>Template:Cite journal</ref> The type of frame and amount of copper in the device can affect the effectiveness of different copper IUD models.<ref name =Kulier2008 />
The copper IUD is effective as contraception as soon as it is inserted, and loses efficacy when removed or if it becomes malpositioned.<ref name=":2">{{#invoke:citation/CS1|citation |CitationClass=web }}</ref> The effectiveness of the copper IUD (failure rate of 0.8%) is comparable to tubal sterilization (failure rate of 0.5%) for the first year.<ref name="Guttmacher2012">{{#invoke:citation/CS1|citation |CitationClass=web }}</ref><ref>Template:Cite journal</ref><ref name=":2" /> The failure rates for different models vary between 0.1 and 2.2% after one year of use. The T-shaped models with a surface area of 380 mm2 of copper have the lowest failure rates. The TCuTemplate:Nbsp380A (Paragard) has a one-year failure rate of 0.8% and a cumulative 12-year failure rate of 2.2%.<ref name="Kulier2008" /> Over 12 years of use, the models with less surface area of copper have higher failure rates. The TCuTemplate:Nbsp220A has a 12-year failure rate of 5.8%. The frameless GyneFix has a failure rate of less than 1% per year.<ref name=":9">Template:Cite journal</ref> A 2008 review of the available T-shaped copper IUDs recommended that the TCuTemplate:Nbsp380A and the TCuTemplate:Nbsp280S be used as the first choice for copper IUDs because those two models have the lowest failure rates and the longest lifespans.<ref name="Kulier2008" /> Worldwide, older IUD models with lower effectiveness rates are no longer produced.<ref name="Treiman 1995">Template:Cite journal</ref>
Though only approved by regulatory agencies for a maximum of 12 years, some devices may be effective with continuous use for up to 20 years.<ref name=":3" />
Because it does not contain hormones, the copper IUD does not disrupt the timing of an individual's menstrual cycle, nor does it prevent ovulation.<ref name="Winner2012" />
Emergency contraceptionEdit
It was first discovered in 1976 that the copper IUD could be used as a form of emergency contraception (EC).<ref>Template:Cite journal</ref> The copper IUD is the most effective form of emergency contraception, more effective than oral hormonal emergency contraception, including mifepristone, ulipristal acetate, and levonorgestrel.<ref>Template:Cite journal</ref><ref>Template:Cite journal</ref> Efficacy is not affected by user weight.<ref name=":2" /> The pregnancy rate among those using the copper IUD for emergency contraception is 0.09%. It can be used for emergency contraception up to five days after unprotected sex, and does not decrease in effectiveness during the five days.<ref name="Cleland2012">Template:Cite journal</ref> An additional advantage of using the copper IUD for emergency contraception is that it can then be used as a form of birth control for 10–12 years after insertion.<ref name=Cleland2012 />
Removal and return to fertilityEdit
Removal of the copper IUD should be performed by a qualified medical practitioner. Fertility has been shown to return to previous levels quickly after removal of the device.<ref name="Dean 2011">Template:Cite book</ref>
Side effects and complicationsEdit
ComplicationsEdit
The most common complications related to the copper IUD are expulsion, perforation, and infection. Infertility after discontinuation and difficulty breastfeeding during use are not associated with the copper IUD.<ref name=":2" /><ref name="Dean 2011" />
Expulsion rates can range from 2.2% to 11.4% of users from the first year to the 10th year. The TCuTemplate:Nbsp380A may have lower rates of expulsion than other models, and the frameless copper IUD has a similar rate of expulsion to models with frames.<ref>Template:Cite journal</ref><ref name="Kane2010">Template:Cite journal</ref> Expulsion is more likely with immediate or early postpartum or post-abortal placement.<ref name=":10" /><ref name="Averbach et al 2020">Template:Cite journal</ref> In the postpartum period, expulsion is less likely when the device is placed less than tenTemplate:Nbspminutes after the placenta is delivered, or when inserted after a cesarean delivery.<ref name=":3" /> Unusual vaginal discharge, cramping or pain, spotting between periods, postcoital (after sex) spotting, pain during intercourse (dyspareunia), or the absence or lengthening of the strings can be signs of a possible expulsion.<ref name="Dean 2011" /> As with intentional removal, the device is immediately ineffective after expulsion. If an IUD with copper is inserted after an expulsion has occurred, the risk of re-expulsion has been estimated in one study to be approximately one third of cases after one year.<ref>Template:Cite journal</ref> Magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) may cause dislocation of a copper IUD, and it is therefore recommended to check the location of the IUD both before and after MRI.<ref name="Berger-KulemannEinspieler2013">Template:Cite journal</ref>
Perforation of the device through the uterine wall typically occurs at the time of placement, though it may occur spontaneously during the period of use. Estimates of the rate of perforation vary from 1.1 per 1000 to 1 per 3000 copper IUD insertions.<ref name="Good2010" /><ref name=":2" /> Perforation may be slightly more common in people using the copper IUD while breastfeeding.<ref>Template:Cite journal</ref>
Due to its inflammatory mechanism of action, a copper IUD that has completely perforated typically requires surgical removal due to the formation of dense adhesions around the device. A device embedded in the uterine wall may be removed hysteroscopically or surgically.<ref name="Good2010" /><ref name=":3" />
The insertion of a copper IUD poses a transient risk of pelvic inflammatory disease (PID) for 21Template:Nbspdays, though this is almost always in the setting of undiagnosed gonorrhea or chlamydia infection at the time of insertion. This occurs in less than 1 in 100 insertions. Beyond this time frame there is no increased risk of PID associated with copper IUD use.<ref name=":3" /><ref name="Moh2006" /><ref name=":2" /><ref name="USAID">{{#invoke:citation/CS1|citation |CitationClass=web }} By the United States Agency for International Development (USAID). Retrieved on February 14, 2010</ref><ref name="Dean 2011" /> Postpartum insertion of a copper IUD is not associated with increased risk of infection, provided that the delivery was not complicated by an infection such as chorioamnionitis.<ref name=":3" />
Side effectsEdit
The most common side effects reported with use of the copper IUD are increased menstrual bleeding and menstrual cramps, both of which may remit after 3–6 months of use. Less frequently, intermenstrual bleeding may occur, especially in the first 3–6 months of use.<ref name=":2" /><ref name="Dean 2011" /><ref>Template:Cite journal</ref> The increase in menstrual blood volume varies in different studies but is reported to be as low as 20% and as high as 55%; however, there is no evidence for a concomitant change in ferritin, hemoglobin, or hematocrit.<ref name="Good2010" /><ref name=":2" />
Menorrhagia (increased menstrual bleeding) and dysmenorrhea (painful menstrual bleeding) are typically treated with NSAID medications including naproxen, ibuprofen, and mefenamic acid.<ref>Template:Cite journal</ref><ref name=":3" />
Contraceptive failureEdit
The absolute risk of ectopic pregnancy with IUD use is lower than with no contraception due to the dramatically decreased rate of pregnancy overall. However, when pregnancy does occur with a copper IUD in place, a higher percentage of those pregnancies are ectopic, from 3% to 6%, a two to sixfold increase. This corresponds to an absolute rate of ectopic pregnancy in copper IUD users of 0.2–0.4 per 1000 person-years, compared to 3 per 1000 person-years in the population using no contraception.<ref name=":4" /><ref name=":2" /><ref name="Good2010" />
If a pregnancy continues with the IUD in place, there is an increased risk of complications including preterm delivery, chorioamnionitis, and spontaneous abortion. If the IUD is removed, these risks are lower, especially the risks of bleeding and miscarriage; the rate of miscarriage approaches that of the general population depending on study population.<ref name=":4">Template:Cite journal</ref><ref name="Good2010" /><ref name=":2" />
Overall failure rates with the copper IUD are low, and are mainly dependent on the surface area of copper in the device. After 12 years of continuous use, the TCuTemplate:Nbsp380A device has a cumulative pregnancy rate of 1.7%.<ref name="Good2010" /> The TCu 380A is more effective than the MLCu375, MLCu350, TCu220, and TCu200. The TCu 380S is more effective than the TCu 380A.<ref>Template:Cite journal</ref> The frameless device has similar failure rates to conventional devices.<ref name=":9" />
ContraindicationsEdit
The copper IUD is considered safe and effective during lactation and in those who have never been pregnant. In the World Health Organization (WHO) Medical Eligibility Criteria for Contraceptive Use, category 3 contraindications (risk typically outweighs benefit) and category 4 contraindications (unacceptable health risk) are listed for the copper IUD. Category 3 contraindications include untreated HIV/AIDS, recent and recurrent exposure to gonorrhea or chlamydia without adequate treatment, benign gestational trophoblastic disease, and ovarian cancer. Category 4 contraindications besides pregnancy and active genital tract infections (e.g. pelvic tuberculosis, sexually transmitted infections, endometritis) include malignant gestational trophoblastic disease, abnormal uterine bleeding, active cervical cancer, Wilson's disease, and active endometrial cancer. HIV infection is not itself a contraindication, as long as it is treated. There are no known drug interactions between the copper IUD and anti-retroviral medications.<ref name=":3">Template:Cite book</ref><ref>Template:Cite journal</ref><ref name="WHOMEC">Template:Cite book</ref>
Device descriptionEdit
There are various of models of copper IUDs available around the world. Most copper devices consist of a plastic (polyethylene) core that is wrapped in a copper wire.<ref name="Kulier2008">Template:Cite journal</ref> Many of the devices have a T-shape similar to the hormonal IUD. However, there are "frameless" copper IUDs available as well, the most popular of which is marketed as GyneFix. Early copper IUDs had copper around only the vertical stem, but more recent models have copper sleeves wrapped around the horizontal arms as well, increasing copper surface area and thereby effectiveness.<ref name=":7">{{#invoke:citation/CS1|citation |CitationClass=web }}</ref><ref name="Sivin1979">Template:Cite journal</ref>
InsertionEdit
A copper IUD can be inserted at any phase of the menstrual cycle, as long as pregnancy can be reliably excluded. It may be inserted in the immediate postpartum period (shortly after delivery of the placenta), and after an induced medical, surgical, or spontaneous abortion provided a genital tract infection can be reliably excluded.<ref name="Averbach et al 2020"/><ref name=":2" /><ref>Template:Cite journal</ref><ref name=":8" /><ref name=":10">Template:Cite journal</ref> NSAIDs taken prior to the procedure and use of local anesthesia are recommended to reduce pain at the time of insertion.<ref name="Treiman 1995" /><ref name="CJRM2008">Template:Cite journal</ref><ref name="Moh2006">Template:Cite journal</ref>
TypesEdit
Many different types of copper IUDs are currently manufactured worldwide, but availability varies by country.
| IUD | Type | Width
(mm) |
Length (mm) | Copper (mm2) | Life (years) | Manufacturer | Distinguishing characteristics | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Gyneplus Cu 380 | T-shaped | 380 | 5 | Dispo.Cont. | ||||
| Multiload Cu375 (MLCu375) | U-shaped | citation | CitationClass=web
}}</ref> |
35 | 375 | 5 | Multilan | |
| Multiload Cu250 (MLCu250) | U-shaped | 250 | 3 | Multilan | ||||
| Multi-Safe 375 | U-shaped | 19.5<ref name=":1" /> | 32.5 | 375 | 5 | Mona Lisa N.V. | ||
| Multi-Safe 375 Short Loop | U-shaped | 19,5 | 29,4 | 375 | 5 | Mona Lisa N.V. | ||
| Load 375 | U-shaped | 19.5<ref name=":1" /> | 32.5 | 375 | 5 | 7-MED Industrie | ||
| Nova-T 380 | T-shaped (plain) | citation | CitationClass=web
}}</ref> |
32 | 380 | 5 | Bayer | |
| Neo-Safe T 380 | T-shaped (plain) | citation | CitationClass=web
}}</ref> |
32 | 380 | 5 | Mona Lisa N.V. | |
| Neo-Safe T 380 Mini | T-shaped (plain) | citation | CitationClass=web
}}</ref> |
30 | 380 | 5 | Mona Lisa N.V. | |
| UT 380 | T-shaped (plain) | 32<ref name=":1" /> | 32 | 380 | 5 | Laboratoire CCD | ||
| UT 380 Short | T-shaped (plain) | 32<ref name=":1" /> | 28.4 | 380 | 5 | Laboratoire CCD | ||
| Flexi-T 300 | T-shaped (plain) | citation | CitationClass=web
}}</ref> |
29 | 300 | 5 | Prosan | |
| Flexi-T + 300 | T-shaped (plain) | 28<ref name=":0" /> | 32 | 300 | 5 | Prosan | Wider arms than Flexi-T 300 | |
| T-safe CU 380A | T-shaped (banded) | 31.8<ref name=":1" /> | 35.8 | 380 | 10 | Mona Lisa N.V. | ||
| T-safe CU 380A QL | T-shaped (banded) | 31.8<ref name=":1" /> | 35.8 | 380 | 10 | Mona Lisa N.V. | ||
| Flexi-T + 380 | T-shaped (banded) | 28<ref name=":0" /> | 32 | 380 | 5 | Prosan | ||
| TT 380 Slimline | T-shaped (banded) | 31.8<ref name=":1" /> | 35.8 | 380 | 10 | 7-MED Industrie | ||
| TT 380 Mini | T-shaped (banded) | 23.2<ref name=":1" /> | 29.5 | 380 | 5 | 7-MED Industrie | ||
| Paragard | T-shaped (banded) | citation | CitationClass=web
}}</ref> |
36 | 380 | 10 | Duramed | Only copper IUD approved by the US FDATemplate:Citation needed |
| Gynefix 330 | Frameless | 2.2<ref name=":1" /> | 30 | 330 | 5 | Contrel | Only frameless IUD brand availableTemplate:Citation needed | |
| Gynefix 200 | Frameless | 200 | 5 | Contrel | Only frameless IUD brand availableTemplate:Citation needed | |||
| IUB SCu300A/B | Spherical (3D) | 300 | 5 | OCON | Nitinol alloy cored frame. Brand name is Ballerine. | |||
| SMB TCu 380A | T-shaped (banded) | citation | CitationClass=web
}}</ref> |
36 | 380 | 10 | SMB corp | WHO UNFPA Prequalified IUD Manufacturer |
| Protect TCu 380A | T-shaped (banded) | 380 | 12 | SMB corp | WHO UNFPA Prequalified IUD Manufacturer | |||
| Protect Multi-arm Cu 375 standard | U-shaped | 375 | 5 | SMB corp | WHO UNFPA Prequalified IUD Manufacturer | |||
| Protect Multi-arm Cu 375 short | U-shaped | 375 | 5 | SMB corp | WHO UNFPA Prequalified IUD Manufacturer |
Frameless IUDsEdit
The frameless IUD eliminates the use of the frame that gives conventional IUDs their signature T-shape. This change in design was made to reduce discomfort and expulsion risk associated with prior IUDs; without a solid frame, the frameless IUD should mold to the shape of the uterus. It may reduce expulsion and discontinuation rates compared to framed copper IUDs.<ref>Template:Cite journal</ref>
Gynefix is the only frameless IUD brand currently available. It consists of hollow copper tubes on a polypropylene thread. It is inserted through the cervix with a special applicator that anchors the thread to the fundus (top) of the uterus; the thread is then cut with a tail hanging outside of the cervix, similar to framed IUDs, or looped back into the cervical canal for patient comfort. When this tail is pulled, the anchor is released and the device can be removed. This requires more force than removing a T-shaped IUD, but results in comparable discomfort at the time of removal.<ref>Template:Cite journal</ref>
Mechanism of actionEdit
The copper IUD's primary mechanism of action is to prevent fertilization.<ref name=":2" /><ref name="Dean 2011" /><ref name="Ortiz 2007">Template:Cite journal p. S28:</ref><ref name="Speroff 2011a">Template:Cite book p. 246:</ref><ref name="Jensen 2012">Template:Cite book p. 259:</ref> Copper causes a localized inflammatory response, which is spermicidal and causes the endometrium to be inhospitable.<ref name=":2" /><ref name="Dean 2011" /><ref name=":3" /><ref name="Ortiz 2007" />
Spermatozoa entering the uterine cavity and cervical mucus are consumed by local phagocytes, and are also directly killed by copper ions and lysosome contents. Presence of copper ions disrupts sperm motility, rendering fertilization improbable.<ref name="Good2010" />
Although not a primary mechanism of action, copper may disrupt embryonic implantation,<ref name=":2" /><ref name="ESHRE 2008">Template:Cite journal p. 199:</ref> especially when used for emergency contraception.<ref name="Speroff 2011b">Template:Cite book p. 157:<templatestyles src="Template:Blockquote/styles.css" />
Emergency postcoital contraception
Other methods
Another method of emergency contraception is the insertion of a copper IUD, anytime during the preovulatory phase of the menstrual cycle and up to 5 days after ovulation. The failure rate (in a small number of studies) is very low, 0.1%.34,35 This method definitely prevents implantation, but it is not suitable for women who are not candidates for intrauterine contraception, e.g., multiple sexual partners or a rape victim. The use of a copper IUD for emergency contraception is expensive, but not if it is retained as an ongoing method of contraception.{{#if:|{{#if:|}}— {{#if:|, in }}Template:Comma separated entries}}
{{#invoke:Check for unknown parameters|check|unknown=Template:Main other|preview=Page using Template:Blockquote with unknown parameter "_VALUE_"|ignoreblank=y| 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | author | by | char | character | cite | class | content | multiline | personquoted | publication | quote | quotesource | quotetext | sign | source | style | text | title | ts }}</ref><ref name="Trussell 2011">Template:Cite book</ref> However, if implantation occurs, there is no evidence that copper affects subsequent development of a pregnancy or causes embryonic failure.<ref name=":2" /><ref name="Ortiz 2007" /> Therefore, the copper IUD is considered to be a true contraceptive and not an abortifacient.<ref name=":2" /><ref name="Dean 2011" />
UsageEdit
Globally, the IUD is the most widely used method of reversible birth control. Template:As of, 161Template:Nbspmillion people used IUDs worldwide (including both non-hormonal and hormonal IUDs). Template:As of, IUDs were the most popular method of contraception in fourteen countries, mostly in Central and East Asia.<ref name=":6">Template:Cite report</ref>
In Europe, Template:As of, copper IUD prevalence ranged from under 5% in the United Kingdom, Germany, and Austria to over 10% in Denmark and the Baltic States.<ref name="IUDAttitudes">{{#invoke:citation/CS1|citation |CitationClass=web }}</ref>
HistoryEdit
Precursors to IUDs were first reported in the early 1900s. Developed from stem or wishbone pessaries, which were made of firm rubber or metal and had an anchor in the cervix, the stem on these devices extended into the uterine cavity. They were associated with high rates of genital tract infection, especially gonorrhea, and were not widely adopted.<ref name=":5">Template:Cite journal</ref>
The first intrauterine device to be contained entirely within the uterus was described in a German publication in 1909 by Richard Richter, who reported a ring-shaped device made of silk sutures with two ends protruding from the external os of the cervix for removal. A similar design was reported by Karl Pust, who wound the free ends of the suture tightly and attached them to a glass disc, which covered the external os. Ersatz versions were made using silk suture wrapped into a ring and embedded in a gelatin capsule, which was inserted into the uterus, where the gelatin dissolved.<ref name=":5" />
In 1929, Ernst Gräfenberg of Germany published a report on an IUD made of silk sutures (Gräfenberg's ring), initially with a small amount of silver wire attached for visualization on x-ray, and then completely covered in silver wire. Because the silver was absorbed systemically and deposited in other tissues, causing a discoloration known as argyria, the device was then recreated with an alloy of copper, nickel, and zinc (then called German silver, also known as nickel silver). It was widely used in the UK and the Commonwealth, but discouraged from use in the US and Europe due to the perceived risk of infection, cancer, and inefficacy.<ref>Template:Cite journal</ref><ref name=":5" />
In 1934, Japanese physician Tenrei Ōta developed a variation of Gräfenberg's ring that contained a supportive structure in the center. The addition of this central disc lowered the IUD's expulsion rate and increased the surface area. Though his research was hampered by the fascist government's stance against contraception and his need to spend time in hiding, after World War II he returned to the development of IUDs. Gold and silver, which had been used by Gräfenberg, were in very short supply in post-war Japan, which led Ōta to other metals, silk, and nylon. By the end of the 1950s, there were 32 different frame shapes used in Japan, and larger studies showed no connection between these devices and development of endometrial cancer, which had been a theoretical concern due to the inflammatory properties of metals in the uterus. Ōta's devices were used in Japan until the 1980s.<ref>{{#invoke:citation/CS1|citation |CitationClass=web }}</ref><ref name=":5" />
The first plastic device was developed by Lazar Margulies and first trialed in 1959; it was made of a polyethylene ring filled with a radiopaque solution. The appearance gave rise to the colloquial term "coil", which persists despite the change in appearance of modern IUDs. Due to its size (6 mm), the cervix had to be dilated prior to insertion, it was poorly tolerated, and the device was prone to expulsion. Margulies modified it to add a beaded tail in 1962.<ref name=":7" /><ref name=":5" />
The Lippes Loop, a slightly smaller plastic device with a monofilament tail, was introduced in 1962 and gained in popularity over the Margulies device.<ref name="slides">{{#invoke:citation/CS1|citation |CitationClass=web }}</ref>
Stainless steel was introduced as an alternative to the copper-nickel-zinc alloy in the 1960s and 70s,<ref name=":5" /> and was subsequently widely used in China because of low manufacturing costs. The Chinese government banned production of steel IUDs in 1993 due to high failure rates (up to 10% per year).<ref name="Treiman 1995" /><ref>Template:Cite journal</ref>
American obstetrician Howard Tatum conceived the plastic T-shaped IUD in 1967,<ref name=":32">Template:Cite journal</ref> but its high failure rate (approximately 18%) made it nonviable.<ref name=":5" /><ref>{{#invoke:citation/CS1|citation |CitationClass=web }}</ref> Shortly thereafter Jaime Zipper, a Chilean doctor, discovered that the nickel silver alloy had spermicidal properties due to its copper percentage, and added a copper sheath to the plastic T, bringing the failure rate to approximately 1%.<ref name=":5" /><ref name="slides" /><ref>{{#invoke:citation/CS1|citation |CitationClass=web }} (Has pictures of many IUD designs, both historic and modern.)</ref> It was found that copper-containing devices could be made in smaller sizes without compromising effectiveness, resulting in fewer side effects such as pain and bleeding.<ref name="Treiman 1995" /> T-shaped devices had lower rates of expulsion due to their greater similarity to the shape of the uterus.<ref name="salem 2006">Template:Cite journal</ref>
Tatum developed many different models of the copper IUD. He created the TCuTemplate:Nbsp220Template:NbspC, which had copper collars as opposed to a copper filament, which prevented metal loss and increased the lifespan of the device. Second generation copper-T IUDs were also introduced in the 1970s. These devices had higher surface areas of copper, and for the first time consistently achieved effectiveness rates of greater than 99%.<ref name="Treiman 1995" /> The final model developed by Tatum, the TCuTemplate:Nbsp380A, was approved by the US FDA in 1984 and is the most recommended model today.<ref name=Kulier2008 /><ref name="Corbett">{{#invoke:citation/CS1|citation |CitationClass=web }}</ref>