Catherine A Sewell1, Geoffrey W Cundiff. 1. Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Thomas Jefferson University, Philadelphia, Pa 19107, USA. catherine.sewell@mail.tju.edu
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to determine the burden of tubal pregnancy in Maryland in hospitalized patients and to elicit treatment trends. STUDY DESIGN: Patients who were admitted with tubal pregnancy from January 1, 1994, through March 31, 1999, were identified with the use of the Maryland Health Service Cost Review Commission discharge database. Combining this with census data, we calculated the incidence. Cases were then stratified by demographics, presentation, and surgeon volume. Outcome measures included type of medical treatment,conservative (salpingostomy or salpingotomy) or extirpative operation (salpingectomy, salpingo-oophorectomy, oophorectomy, hysterectomy), length of stay, charges, and disposition. The treatment groups were compared with the use of t tests and linear regression, and associations between demographics and type of operation were analyzed with logistic regression. RESULTS: The database included 3729 cases, which yielded an annual incidence of 5.2 per 10,000 women aged 15 to 45 years. Subjects averaged 29.6 years old and were predominantly African American(52.6%) and white (43.3%). Most of the women (67.8%) were seen in the emergency department and were treated surgically (90.7%). Conservative operation was performed in 18.1% of the women; extirpative operation was performed in 81.9% of the women. Significant predictors for extirpative operation were emergency department admission (odds ratio, 1.44; 95% CI, 1.18-1.75), increasing age (odds ratio, 1.07; 95% CI, 1.06-1.09), African American race (odds ratio, 1.87; 95% CI, 1.51-2.31), higher surgeon volume (odds ratio, 1.28; 95% CI, 1.04-1.57), and market area. Length of stay and total charges were higher for the extirpative group(P <.0001). The study lacked the power to detect differences in outcomes for other nonwhite races (5% power), laparoscopy versus laparotomy (15% power), or operating room charges (14% power). CONCLUSION: These data are limited to hospitalized patients and probably underestimate the true incidence of tubal pregnancy. Most patients underwent extirpative operation. Acuity of presentation and increasing age were appropriate predictors of this group. However, physician volume and black race were also predictors. This may be due to differences in the prevalence of disease, unmeasured clinical factors, patient and physician preferences for treatment, barriers that delayed care, or other socioeconomic factors.
OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to determine the burden of tubal pregnancy in Maryland in hospitalized patients and to elicit treatment trends. STUDY DESIGN:Patients who were admitted with tubal pregnancy from January 1, 1994, through March 31, 1999, were identified with the use of the Maryland Health Service Cost Review Commission discharge database. Combining this with census data, we calculated the incidence. Cases were then stratified by demographics, presentation, and surgeon volume. Outcome measures included type of medical treatment,conservative (salpingostomy or salpingotomy) or extirpative operation (salpingectomy, salpingo-oophorectomy, oophorectomy, hysterectomy), length of stay, charges, and disposition. The treatment groups were compared with the use of t tests and linear regression, and associations between demographics and type of operation were analyzed with logistic regression. RESULTS: The database included 3729 cases, which yielded an annual incidence of 5.2 per 10,000 women aged 15 to 45 years. Subjects averaged 29.6 years old and were predominantly African American(52.6%) and white (43.3%). Most of the women (67.8%) were seen in the emergency department and were treated surgically (90.7%). Conservative operation was performed in 18.1% of the women; extirpative operation was performed in 81.9% of the women. Significant predictors for extirpative operation were emergency department admission (odds ratio, 1.44; 95% CI, 1.18-1.75), increasing age (odds ratio, 1.07; 95% CI, 1.06-1.09), African American race (odds ratio, 1.87; 95% CI, 1.51-2.31), higher surgeon volume (odds ratio, 1.28; 95% CI, 1.04-1.57), and market area. Length of stay and total charges were higher for the extirpative group(P <.0001). The study lacked the power to detect differences in outcomes for other nonwhite races (5% power), laparoscopy versus laparotomy (15% power), or operating room charges (14% power). CONCLUSION: These data are limited to hospitalized patients and probably underestimate the true incidence of tubal pregnancy. Most patients underwent extirpative operation. Acuity of presentation and increasing age were appropriate predictors of this group. However, physician volume and black race were also predictors. This may be due to differences in the prevalence of disease, unmeasured clinical factors, patient and physician preferences for treatment, barriers that delayed care, or other socioeconomic factors.