Literature DB >> 25315383

Effectiveness of expectant management versus methotrexate in tubal ectopic pregnancy: a double-blind randomized trial.

Priscila Matthiesen Silva1, Edward Araujo Júnior, Gustavo Nardini Cecchino, Julio Elito Júnior, Luiz Camano.   

Abstract

PURPOSE: To compare the effectiveness of expectant management versus methotrexate in selected cases of tubal ectopic pregnancy.
METHODS: A double-blind randomized trial included 23 selected patients with a confirmed diagnosis of tubal pregnancy who met the inclusion criteria (hemodynamic stability, initial serum β-hCG concentration <2,000 mIU/mL, declining titers of β-hCG 48 h prior to treatment, visible tubal pregnancy on transvaginal ultrasound, a tubal mass <5.0 cm and fertility desire). The patients were divided into two groups: 10 patients in the methotrexate group (MTX 50 mg/m(2) administered as a single intramuscular dose) and 13 patients in the placebo group (saline solution administered in a single intramuscular dose). Quantitative variables were expressed as means ± standard deviations and compared by Student's t test or Mann-Whitney test. Dichotomous variables (success/treatment failure) were presented as proportions and compared by the Fisher exact test.
RESULTS: Successful treatment with negative titers of β-hCG occurred in 9 cases (90.0%) of the methotrexate group and in 12 (92.3%) of the placebo group (p > 0.999). The β-hCG values became undetectable at 22 ± 15.4 days in the methotrexate group and 20.6 ± 8.4 days in the placebo group (p = 0.80).
CONCLUSION: This study showed no statistically significant difference between the treatment with methotrexate and placebo, with similar success rates and similar time interval for β-hCG to become undetectable.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2014        PMID: 25315383     DOI: 10.1007/s00404-014-3513-0

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Arch Gynecol Obstet        ISSN: 0932-0067            Impact factor:   2.344


  6 in total

Review 1.  Efficacy and safety of expectant management in the treatment of tubal ectopic pregnancy: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Authors:  G E Colombo; M Leonardi; M Armour; H Di Somma; T Dinh; F da Silva Costa; L Wong; S Armour; G Condous
Journal:  Hum Reprod Open       Date:  2020-10-25

2.  A Clinical Experience of Ectopic Pregnancies with Initial Free Intraperitoneal Fluid.

Authors:  Mehmet Akif Sargin; Murat Yassa; Bilge Dogan Taymur; Ayhan Çelik; Sibel Aydin; Emrah Orhan; Niyazi Tug
Journal:  J Clin Diagn Res       Date:  2016-08-01

3.  Ectopic Pregnancy: Risk Factors, Clinical Presentation and Management.

Authors:  G Geovin Ranji; G Usha Rani; Sri Varshini
Journal:  J Obstet Gynaecol India       Date:  2017-11-18

4.  Setting priorities in the conventional approaches in managing ectopic pregnancy; is it time to reform? A teaching hospital experience.

Authors:  Kamil M Fram; Shawqi Saleh; Fidaa Thikerallah; Farah Fram; Rand Fram; Hadeel Rawahneh; Mai Khrais; Tamara Darwish
Journal:  Prz Menopauzalny       Date:  2020-01-15

5.  Non-surgical management of tubal ectopic pregnancy: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

Authors:  Chao Xiao; Qingquan Shi; Qijun Cheng; Jianli Xu
Journal:  Medicine (Baltimore)       Date:  2021-12-17       Impact factor: 1.817

6.  Effect of an Active vs Expectant Management Strategy on Successful Resolution of Pregnancy Among Patients With a Persisting Pregnancy of Unknown Location: The ACT or NOT Randomized Clinical Trial.

Authors:  Kurt T Barnhart; Karl R Hansen; Mary D Stephenson; Rebecca Usadi; Anne Z Steiner; Marcelle I Cedars; Emily S Jungheim; Kathleen M Hoeger; Stephen A Krawetz; Benjie Mills; Meredith Alston; Christos Coutifaris; Suneeta Senapati; Sarita Sonalkar; Michael P Diamond; Robert A Wild; Mitchell Rosen; Mary D Sammel; Nanette Santoro; Esther Eisenberg; Hao Huang; Heping Zhang
Journal:  JAMA       Date:  2021-08-03       Impact factor: 56.272

  6 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.