| Literature DB >> 29693012 |
P Giampaolino1, N De Rosa2, I Morra2, A Bertrando2, A Di Spiezio Sardo1, B Zizolfi2, C Ferrara2, L Della Corte2, G Bifulco2.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Cesarean scar pregnancy (CSP) is a rare condition that occurs when the pregnancy implants in a cesarean scar. An early diagnosis and a proper management are fundamental to prevent maternal complications. We review and discuss the different treatment employed in our unit to reduce morbidity, preserve fertility, and predict possible complications.Entities:
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2018 PMID: 29693012 PMCID: PMC5859871 DOI: 10.1155/2018/6486407
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Biomed Res Int Impact factor: 3.411
Clinical patient's data in relation to treatment modality.
| EM ( | HSC ( | MTX ii and D&S ( | UAE and D&S ( | UAE and Surg. ( |
| |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Gestational age (wks) | 6 ± 0,82 | 6,8 ± 0,84 | 7,21 ± 0,63 | 8,0 ± 1,73 | 10,17 ± 1,17 | ≤0.001 |
| Women age (y) | 34,5 ± 3,11 | 32,6 ± 4,93 | 32,68 ± 3,92 | 34,55 ± 2,62 | 35,67 ± 1,75 | 0.31 |
| previous CDs (no.) | 1,25 ± 0,50 | 1,4 ± 0,55 | 1,68 ± 0,58 | 2,64 ± 0,71 | 3,5 ± 0,55 | ≤0.001 |
| Myometrial thickness | 3,78 ± 0,33 | 3,36 ± 0,35 | 3,07 ± 0,63 | 1,96 ± 0,99 | 1,08 ± 0.50 | ≤0.001 |
| Rich vascular pattern§ | 0 | 0 | 19 (100) | 11 (100) | 6 (100) | ≤0.001 |
| BhCG (mIU/mL) | 5890,5 ± 1284,15 | 9756 ± 3286,50 | 11790 ± 4904,67 | 49976,54 ± 686636,34 | 16909,83 ± 48712,1 | ≤0.001 |
| Complication§ | 1 (25) | 0 | 0 | 9 (81,8) | 0 | ≤0.001 |
EM: expectant management; HSC: hysteroscopic resection; MTH ii: methotrexate intramuscular injection; D&S: dilatation and suction; UAE: uterine artery embolization; Surg: surgery. Data are shown as mean ± SD; statistical analysis performed by one-way analysis of variance. §Data are shown as no. (percentage); statistical analysis performed by χ2 test.
Figure 1Flow chart of patients: class risk, treatment modality, and postoperative complications. According to ultrasound findings that focused on myometrial thickness and presence of a vascular pattern of the cesarean section scar, we stratified patients into tree risk classes: class 1: myometrial thickness ≤ 2 and high vascular pattern; class 2: myometrial thickness > 2 and high vascular pattern; class 3: myometrial thickness > 2 and normal vascular pattern. W: weeks of gestation at diagnosis; UAE: uterine artery embolization; D&S: dilatation and suction; MTX ii: methotrexate intramuscular injection; HSC: hysteroscopic resection; EM: Expectant Management; Surg: surgery (laparotomic edge excision or hysterectomy).
Complications after treatment of cesarean scar pregnancy.
| Complications | No complications |
| |
|---|---|---|---|
| Gestational age (wks) | 7.5 ± 1.43 | 7.69 ± 1.60 | 0.56 |
| Women age (y) | 34.7 ± 2.71 | 33.4 ± 3.70 | 0.31 |
| previous CDs (no.) | 2.70 ± 0.82 | 1.91 ± 0.92 | 0.019 |
| Myometrial thickness | 1.94 ± 1.12 | 2.8 ± 0.97 | 0.018 |
| Rich vascular pattern§ | 9 (90) | 27 (77) | 0.37 |
| BhCG (mIU/mL) | 35034 ± 52750 | 42434 ± 67085 | 0.75 |
| Treatment§ | ≤0.001 | ||
| EM | 1 (10) | 3 (8.6) | |
| HSC | 0 | 5 (14.3) | |
| MTX + D&S | 0 | 19 (54.3) | |
| UAE + D&S | 9 (90) | 2 (5.7) | |
| UAE + SURG | 0 | 6 (17.1) | |
| Risk Class§ | 0.03 | ||
| 1 | 6 (60.0) | 6 (17.1) | |
| 2 | 3 (30.0) | 21 (60.0) | |
| 3 | 1 (10.0) | 8 (22.9) |
EM: expectant management; HSC: hysteroscopic resection; MTH ii: methotrexate intramuscular injection; D&S: dilatation and suction; UAE: uterine artery embolization; Surg: surgery. Data are shown as mean ± SD; statistical analysis performed by Student's t-test for unpaired data; §Data are shown as no. (percentage); statistical analysis performed by χ2 test.
Figure 2Receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve analysis of risk factors for treatment complications. (a) The AUCs for number of cesarean deliveries (CDs) and treatment modalities; (b) myometrial thickness; (c) risk class.
Figure 3Receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve analysis of risk factors for primary treatment complications. (a) For number of cesarean deliveries, a cutoff of 3 was the preferable indicator. (b) A 2 mm cutoff was the preferable myometrial thickness indicator. (c) The UAE + D&S was the major indicator of treatment complication occurrence. (d) Considering risk class the cutoff value was risk class = 1. (e) When the four cutoff variables were also compared the UAE & DS was the risk factor with the higher AUC.
Logistic regression models for factors predicting treatment complications.
| Factor | Number of women | Univariate |
|
|---|---|---|---|
| OR (95% CI) | |||
| Previous CDs ≥ 3 | 28 |
| 0.25 |
| Previous CDs < 3 | 62 | ||
|
| |||
| Myometrial thickness ≤ 2 | 24 |
| 0.53 |
| Myometrial thickness > 2 | 66 | ||
|
| |||
| Risk class = 1 | 24 |
| 0.53 |
| Risk class = 2 and 3 | 66 | ||
|
| |||
| UAE + D&S | 22 |
| ≤0.001 |
| Other treatment | 68 | ||
CD: cesarean deliveries; UAE + D&S: uterine artery embolization and dilatation and suction; OR: odds ratio; CI: confidence interval.