Rationalizing the management of pregnancies of unknown location: Diagnostic accuracy of human chorionic gonadotropin ratio‐based decision tree compared with the risk prediction model M4. (18th November 2019)

• Record Type: Journal Article
• Authors: Nadim, Batool; Leonardi, Mathew; Infante, Fernando; Lattouf, Ihab; Reid, Shannon; Condous, George
• Is Part Of: Acta obstetricia et gynecologica Scandinavica. Volume 99:Number 3(2020)
• Page Start: 381
• Page End: 390
• Publication Date: 2019-11-18
• Subjects: chorionic gonadotropin -- diagnostic accuracy -- ectopic pregnancy -- miscarriage -- pregnancy of unknown location -- resource allocation; Gynecology -- Periodicals; Pregnancy -- Periodicals; Obstetrics -- Periodicals; 618.05
• DOI: 10.1111/aogs.13752
• Languages: English
• ISSNs: 0001-6349

Abstract

Abstract: Introduction: The objective was to compare the diagnostic accuracy of the decision tree analysis prediction model P1, which incorporates the human chorionic gonadotropin (hCG) ratio (hCG 48 hours/hCG 0 hour), and risk prediction model M4 in the management of women with pregnancy of unknown location (PUL). Material and methods: A retrospective diagnostic accuracy study was performed on PUL data collected between August 2011 and September 2018. Women with a PUL were prospectively managed according to the P1 prediction model, which utilizes the hCG ratio and, if necessary, a day (D) 7 hCG. We compared the performance of P1 with the M4 model, a logistic regression mathematical model using initial hCG and hCG ratio, to classify PULs as low risk (failed PUL [failed] or intrauterine pregnancy) or high risk (ectopic pregnancy or persistent PUL). The reference standard was defined as the final PUL outcome. Results: Transvaginal ultrasound was done in 3847 consecutive women for early pregnancy complications, 437 (11.3%) of whom were classified as PUL. Final analysis comprised 413 cases with complete data. Final PUL clinical outcomes were: 247 (59.8%) failed PUL, 94 (22.7%) intrauterine pregnancy, 49 (11.8%) ectopic pregnancy and 23 (5.5%) persistent PUL. The sensitivity of P1 and M4 in predicting high‐risk PUL were 81.9% (95% confidence interval [CI] 71.1‐90.0) and 80.6% (95% CI 69.5‐88.9), respectively. The specificities were 74.5% (95% CI 69.5‐79.1) and 75.6% (95% CI 70.7‐80.1), respectively. Conclusions: P1 and M4 performed similarly with respect to diagnostic accuracy in predicting PUL outcome. P1 needs to be externally validated.