Judging Urgency in 343 Ectopic Pregnancies Prior to Surgery – The Importance of Transvaginal Sonographic Diagnosis of Intraabdominal Free Blood

 

 Permissions and Reprints

Abstract

Objectives Assessing urgency in ectopic pregnancies (ECP) remains controversial since the disorder covers a large clinical spectrum. Severe conditions such as acute abdomen or hemodynamic instability are mostly related to intra-abdominal blood loss diagnosed as free fluid (FF) on transvaginal sonography (TVS). The aims of the current study were to investigate the value of FF and to assess other potentially predictive parameters for judging urgency.

Methods Retrospective cohort analysis on prospectively collected cases of proven ECP (n = 343). Demographics, clinical and laboratory parameters, and findings on TVS and laparoscopy (LSC) were extracted from the digital patient file. FF on TVS and free blood (FB) in LSC were evaluated. Low urgency was defined as FB (LSC) < 100 ml and high urgency as FB (LSC) ≥ 300 ml. The best subset of variables for the prediction of FB was selected and predictors of urgency were evaluated using receiver operator characteristic (ROC) curves.

Results Clinical symptoms, age, β-HCG, hemoglobin (HB) preoperative, and FF were examined in multivariate analysis for the cutoff values of 100 ml and 300 ml. FF was the only independent predictor for low and high urgency; HB preoperative was only significant for high urgency offering marginal improvement. ROC analysis revealed FF as an excellent discriminatory parameter for defining low (AUC 0.837, 95% CI 0.794–0.879) and high urgency (AUC 0.902, 95 % CI 0.860–0.945).

Conclusion Single assessment of FF on TVS is most valuable for judging urgency. However, the exact cutoff values for a low- and high-risk situation must still be defined.

Zusammenfassung

Ziele Die Beurteilung der Dringlichkeit bei ektopen Schwangerschaften ist aufgrund des breiten klinischen Spektrums schwierig. Schwere Verläufe (akutes Abdomen oder hämodynamische Instabilität) sind meist mit intraabdominalem Blutverlust verbunden, welcher als freie Flüssigkeit (FF) mittels transvaginaler Sonografie (TVS) diagnostiziert werden kann. Ziel der vorliegenden Studie war es, den diagnostischen Wert der FF sowie andere potenziell prädiktive Parameter für die Beurteilung der Dringlichkeit zu untersuchen.

Methode Retrospektive Kohortenanalyse von prospektiv erhobenen Fällen (n=343) mit nachgewiesener ektopen Schwangerschaft. Demografische Daten, Klinik, Laborparameter, sonografische und Befunde der Laparoskopie (LSC) wurden einbezogen. Die Bewertung von FF in der TVS und freiem Blut (FB) in der LSC erfolgte anhand des Bildmaterials. FB < 100ml wurde als wenig- und ≥ 300ml als hochdringlich definiert. Die besten Variablen für die Vorhersage von FB wurden bestimmt und ihre Prädiktion der Dringlichkeit mittels ROC-Kurven bewertet.

Ergebnisse Klinik, Alter, β-HCG, präoperatives Hämoglobin (HB) und FF wurden in einer multivariaten Analyse für die Cut-off-Werte 100ml und 300ml untersucht. Zur Bestimmung geringer (AUC 0,837, 95% CI 0,794–0,879) und hoher Dringlichkeit (AUC 0,902, 95% CI 0,860–0,945) war FF ein hervorragend diskriminierender Parameter; das HB erbrachte nur eine marginale Verbesserung der Vorhersagekraft und nur für hohe Dringlichkeit.

Schlussfolgerungen FF ist für die Beurteilung der Dringlichkeit am wertvollsten, wobei die genauen Grenzwerte für eine Niedrigrisiko- oder Hochrisikosituation festzulegen bleiben.

Publication History

Received: 15 February 2022

Accepted after revision: 19 October 2022

Article published online:
19 January 2023

© 2023. Thieme. All rights reserved.

Georg Thieme Verlag KG
Rüdigerstraße 14, 70469 Stuttgart, Germany

• References

• 1 Condous G, Okaro E, Khalid A. et al. The accuracy of transvaginal ultrasonography for the diagnosis of ectopic pregnancy prior to surgery. Hum Reprod 2005; 20: 1404-1409
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 2 Jurkovic D, Mavrelos D. Catch me if you scan: ultrasound diagnosis of ectopic pregnancy. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 2007; 30: 1-7
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 3 Casikar I, Reid S, Condous G. Ectopic pregnancy: Ultrasound diagnosis in modern management. Clin Obstet Gynecol 2012; 55: 402-409
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 4 Kirk E, Bottomley C, Bourne T. Diagnosing ectopic pregnancy and current concepts in the management of pregnancy of unknown location. Hum Reprod Update 2014; 20: 250-261
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 5 Dooley WM, Chaggar P, De Braud LV. et al. Effect of morphological type of extrauterine ectopic pregnancy on accuracy of preoperative ultrasound diagnosis. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 2019; 54: 538-544
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 6 Pape J, Bajka A, Strutas D. et al. The predictive value of decisive and soft ultrasound criteria for ectopic pregnancy identification in 321 preoperative cases. Ultraschall in Med 2021; DOI: 10.1055/a-1487-5030.
  Article in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 7 Elson J, Tailor A, Banerjee S. et al. Expectant management of tubal ectopic pregnancy: prediction of successful outcome using decision tree analysis. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 2004; 23: 552-556
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 8 Mol BW, Hajenius PJ, Engelsbel S. et al. Can noninvasive diagnostic tools predict tubal rupture or active bleeding in patients with tubal pregnancy?. Fertil Steril 1999; 71: 167-173
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 9 Bignardi T, Condous G. Does tubal ectopic pregnancy with hemoperitoneum always require surgery?. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 2009; 33: 711-715
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 10 Mavrelos D, Nicks H, Jamil A. et al. Efficacy and safety of a clinical protocol for expectant management of selected women diagnosed with a tubal ectopic pregnancy. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 2013; 42: 102-107
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 11 Lipscomb GH, McCord ML, Stovall TG. et al. Predictors of success of methotrexate treatment in women with tubal ectopic pregnancies. N Engl J Med 1999; 341: 1974-1978
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 12 Rajah K, Goodhart V, Zamora KP. et al. How to measure size of tubal ectopic pregnancy on ultrasound. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 2018; 52: 103-109
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 13 AAFP. 2020 Accessed February 15, 2021 at: https://www.aafp.org/afp/2020/0515/p599.html
  PubMed
• 14 ACOG. Practice Bulletin 191: Tubal ectopic pregnancy. 2018 Accessed February 15, 2021 at: https://journals.lww.com/greenjournal/Fulltext/2018/02000/ACOG_Practice_Bulletin_No__191__Tubal_Ectopic.38.aspx
  PubMedGoogle Scholar
• 15 NICE. Accessed February 15, 2021 at: https://www.nice.org.uk/guidance/ng126/chapter/recommendations
  PubMed
• 16 RCOG. Accessed February 15, 2021 at: https://www.rcog.org.uk/en/guidelines-research-services/guidelines/gtg21/
  PubMed
• 17 UpToDate. Accessed February 15, 2021 at: https://www.uptodate.com/contents/ectopic-pregnancy-clinical-manifestations-and-diagnosis
  PubMedGoogle Scholar
• 18 Yefet E, Yossef A, Suleiman A. et al. Hemoglobin drop following postpartum hemorrhage. Sci Rep 2020; 10 (01) 21546 DOI: 10.1038/s41598-020-77799-0.
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 19 Fauconnier A, Mabrouk A, Salomon LJ. et al. Ultrasound assessment of haemoperitoneum in ectopic pregnancy: derivation of a prediction model. World J Emerg Surg 2007; 2: 23 DOI: 10.1186/1749-7922-2-23.
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 20 Popowski T, Huchon C, Toret-Labeeuw F. et al. Hemoperitoneum assessment in ectopic pregnancy. Int J Obstet Gyn 2012; 116: 97-100
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 21 Frates MC, Brown DL, Doubilet PM. et al. Tubal rupture in patients with ectopic pregnancy: diagnosis with transvaginal US. Radiology 1994; 191: 769-772
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 22 Frates MC, Doubilet PM, Peters HE. et al. Adnexal sonographic findings in ectopic pregnancy and their correlation with tubal rupture and human chorionic gonadotropin levels. J Ultrasound Med 2014; 33: 697-703
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 23 Baqué P, Iannelli A, Dausse F. et al. A new method to approach exact hemoperitoneum volume in a splenic trauma model using ultrasonography. Surg Radiol Anat 2005; 27: 149-253
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 24 Lubner M, Menias C, Rucker C. et al. Blood in the belly: CT findings of hemoperitoneum. Radiographics 2007; 27 (01) 109-125
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 25 Sickler GK, Chen PC, Dubinsky TJ. et al. Free echogenic pelvic fluid: correlation with hemoperitoneum. J Ultrasound Med 1998; 17: 431-435
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 26 Abrams BJ, Sukumvanich P, Seibel R. et al. Ultrasound for the detection of Intraperitoneal Fluid : The role of Trendelenburg positioning. AM J Emerg Med 1999; 17: 117-120
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 27 Salomon LJ, Nassar M, Bernard JP. et al. A score-based method to improve the quality of emergency gynaecological ultrasound examination. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol 2009; 143: 116-120
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar

• Supplementary Material