Management and reproductive counseling in cervical, caesarean scar and interstitial ectopic pregnancies over 11 years: identifying the need for a modern management algorithm. Issue 4 (4th November 2019)

• Record Type: Journal Article
• Authors: Shah, Jaimin S; Nasab, Susan; Papanna, Ramesha; Chen, Han-Yang; Promecene, Pamela; Berens, Pamela; Johnson, Anthony; Bhalwal, Asha
• Is Part Of: Human reproduction open. Issue 4(2019)
• Publication Date: 2019-11-04
• Subjects: ectopic pregnancy -- reproductive decision making -- non-tubal pregnancy -- implantation -- female tract; Human reproduction -- Periodicals; 612.6
• DOI: 10.1093/hropen/hoz028
• Languages: English
• ISSNs: 2399-3529

Abstract

Abstract: STUDY QUESTION: Do management strategies (treatment type and order), including provision of reproductive counseling, differ in patients with non-tubal pregnancies? SUMMARY ANSWER: Medical and surgical treatment strategies varied widely for each type of non-tubal pregnancy and reproductive counseling in this patient population is lacking. WHAT IS KNOWN ALREADY: Owing to the rarity of non-tubal pregnancies, there is no consensus regarding treatment strategies or protocol. Furthermore, there is limited data on how patients with a non-tubal pregnancy are counseled about future fertility. STUDY DESIGN, SIZE, DURATION: This is a descriptive retrospective study. Data were collected from January 2006 to December 2017. A total of 50 patients were included in the study. PARTICIPANTS/MATERIALS, SETTING, METHODS: Patients with an ultrasound diagnosis of a non-tubal ectopic pregnancy (e.g. cervical ectopic pregnancy [CEP], Caesarean scar pregnancy [CSP] or interstitial ectopic pregnancy [IEP]) were included. This study was performed at a university-based institution tertiary referral center. Demographic and clinical characteristics, treatment type and order, reproductive counseling and outcomes were collected. Descriptive statistics were used for analyses. MAIN RESULTS AND THE ROLE OF CHANCE: Of the 50 patients identified, 13 were CEP (26%), 8 were CSP (16%) and 29 were IEP (58%). Patients with a CSP had a higher parity (median = 3, P = 0.02) and number of prior Caesarean deliveries (mean = 2.1, P < 0.001). A total of 66% (23/35) of patients expressed a desire for future fertility prior to treatment and only 56% (28/50) of patients received reproductive counseling according to the electronic medical records. Among all non-tubal pregnancies, there were variations in the type and the order of treatments that patients received. LIMITATIONS, REASONS FOR CAUTION: This study was performed in a tertiary referral center therefore the management strategy could have been influenced by the prior interventions and patient response. The descriptive retrospective design precluded any assumption of causation. WIDER IMPLICATIONS OF THE FINDINGS: The management for non-tubal pregnancies has wide variations. Reproductive counseling in this patient population is lacking. The findings highlight the need for the development of a treatment algorithm and a reproductive counseling protocol for each non-tubal pregnancy to better standardize treatment strategy. STUDY FUNDING/COMPETING INTEREST(S): There was no funding for this study. The authors have no conflict of interest to report.