TUBAL ECTOPIC PREGNANCY AND THE DETERMINANTS OF ITS DIFFERENT TREATMENT OPTIONS

Main Article Content

Rukhsana Karim
Bushra Rauf

Abstract

Objective: To find out the determinants affecting the different management options of tubal ectopic pregnancy.


Methodology: This cross sectional study was carried out in the Unit A of the department of obstetrics and gynecol­ogy, Hayatabad Medical Complex, Peshawar from December 2014 to March 2018. All the patients admitted with clinical/ultrasound diagnosis of tubal ectopic pregnancy were included in the study through convenient sampling technique after informed consent. Patients having other early pregnancy problems which would mimic tubal ec­topic pregnancy and those having any medical contraindications to Methotrexate were excluded. A pre-designed performa was used to collect the data, which was analyzed using SPSS v.22.0.


Results: The mean age of the sample (n=78) was 27.0±7.8 years. Maximum patients were multigravida (n=41, 52.6%), followed by primigravida (n=25, 32.0%). In treatment modalities, maximum of the cases (n=43, 55.1%) were managed medically via methotrexate with success rate of 93.0%, while 18 (23.1%) cases were managed conservatively with success rate of 83.3%, and 17 (21.8%) of the cases were managed surgically with 100% suc­cess rate. The maximum size of adnexal mass was found to be as 8.6×7, 10×7, and 8×6 in three management options, i.e., conservative, medical and surgical respectively, while in the same categories, maximum Beta-Human Chorionic Gonadotropin (B-hCG) level was found to be as 978, 43220, and 29844 mIU/ml respectively.


Conclusion: Hemodynamic instability and rising B-hCG were the core determinants in the management of tubal ectopic pregnancy. The size of the adnexal mass and the initial B-hCG did not affect the management.

Article Details

How to Cite
1.
Karim R, Rauf B. TUBAL ECTOPIC PREGNANCY AND THE DETERMINANTS OF ITS DIFFERENT TREATMENT OPTIONS. J Postgrad Med Inst [Internet]. 2021 Mar. 31 [cited 2021 Nov. 27];35(1):26-9. Available from: https://jpmi.org.pk/index.php/jpmi/article/view/2702
Section
Original Article

References

Marion LL, Meeks GR. Ectopic preg¬nancy: History, incidence, epidemiolo¬gy, and risk factors. Clin Obstet Gyne¬col. 2012;55(2):376-86. https://doi. org/10.1097/GRF.0b013e3182516d7b.

Creanga AA, Shapiro-Mendoza CK, Bish CL, Zane S, Berg CJ, Callaghan WM. Trends in ectopic pregnancy mortality in the United States: 1980–2007. Obstet Gynecol. 2011;117:837-43. https://doi. org/10.1097/AOG.0b013e3182113c10.

Bottomley C, Bourne T. Diagnosing ec¬topic pregnancy and current concepts in the management of pregnancy of unknown location. Hum Reprod Up¬date. 2014;20:250-61. https://doi. org/10.1093/humupd/dmt047.

D’Hooghe T, Tomassetti C. Surgery for ec¬topic pregnancy: making the right choice. Lancet. 2014;383:1444-5. https://doi. org/10.1016/S0140-6736(14)60129-X.

Seeber BE, Sammel MD, Guo W, Zhou L, Hummel A, Barnhart KT. Application of redefined human chorionic gonado¬tropin curves for the diagnosis of wom¬en at risk for ectopic pregnancy. Fer¬til Steril. 2006;86:454-9. https://doi. org/10.1016/j.fertnstert.2005.12.056.

Condous G. Kirk E, Van Calster B, van Huffel S, Timmerman D, Bourne T. Failing pregnancies of unknown location: a pro¬spective evaluation of the human chorionic gnadotrophin ratio. BJOG. 2006;113:521- 7. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1471- 0528.2006.00924.x.

Panelli DM, Phillip CH, Brady PC. Inci¬dence, diagnosis and management of tubal and nontubal ectopic pregnancies: a review. Fertil Res Pract. 2015;1:15-34. https://doi.org/ 10.1186/s40738-015- 0008-z.

Ali R, Afzal U. Ectopic pregnancy; medi¬cal management. Professional Med J. 2012;19(2):242-5.

Inal ZO, Inal HA. Comparison of four methods of treating ectopic pregnancy. A retrospective cohort study. Geburtsh Frauenheilk. 2018;78:70-7. https://doi. org/10.1055/s-0043-122151.

Elson J, Tailor A, Banerjee S, Salim R, Hillaby K, Jurkovic D. Expectant man¬agement of tubal ectopic pregnancy: prediction of successful outcome using decision tree analysis. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2004;23:552-6. https://doi. org/10.1002/uog.1061.

Korhonen J, Stenman UH, Ylostalo P. Serum human chorionic gonadotrophin dynamics during spontaneous resolu-tion of ectopic pregnancy. Fertil Steril. 1994;61:632-6. https://doi.org/10.1016/ s0015-0282(16)56638-2.

Natale A, Busacca M, Candiani M, Gruft L, Izzo S, Felicetta I, et al. Human cho¬rionic gonadotropin patterns after a single dose of methotrexate for ectopic pregnancy. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol. 2002;100:227-30. https://doi. org/10.1016/s0301-2115(01)00480-8.

Kirk E, Condous G, van Calster B, van Huffle S, Timmerman D, Bourne T. Rationalizing the follow up of pregnancies of unknown location. Hum Reprod. 2007;22:1744- 50. https://doi.org/10.1093/humrep/ dem073.

Shaikh NB, Shaikh S, Shaikh F. A clinical study of ectopic pregnancy. J Ayub Med Coll Abbottabad. 2014;26(2):178-81.

Barnart KT, Gsman G, Ashby R, Sammel M. The medical management of ectopic preg¬nancy: a meta-analysis comparing ‘single dose’ and ‘multidose’ regimens. Obstet Gynecol. 2003;101:778-84. https://doi. org/10.1016/s0029-7844(02)03158-7.

Jurkovic D, Memtsa M, Sawyer E, Don¬aldson ANA, Jamila A, Schramm K, et al. Single-dose systemic methotrexate vs expectant management for treatment of tubal ectopic pregnancy: a placebo-con¬trolled randomized trial. Ultrasound Ob¬stet Gynecol. 2017;49:171-6. https://doi. org/10.1002/uog.17329.

Practice Committee of the American So¬ciety for Reproductive Medicine. Medical treatment of ectopic pregnancy a commit¬tee opinion. Fertil Steril. 2013;100:638- 64. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fertnstert.2013.06.013.

Jaspan D, Giraldo-Isaza M, Dandolu V, Cohen AW. Compliance with methotrex¬ate therapy for presumed ectopic preg¬nancy in an inner-city population. Fertil Steril. 2010;94:1122-4. https://doi. org/10.1016/j.fertnstert.2009.10.032.

Most read articles by the same author(s)

1 2 > >>