Shabnam Bobdiwala and Tom Bourne
© Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2015 T. Tulandi (ed.), Ectopic Pregnancy,
DOI 10.1007/978-3-319-11140-7_3 S. Bobdiwala () · T. Bourne
Queen Charlotte and Chelsea Hospital, Imperial College London, Du Cane Rd., London W12 0HS, UK
e-mail: [email protected] T. Bourne
e-mail: [email protected]
Case Study
A 28-year-old woman was referred to the emergency department by her family practitioner after presenting with a 4-day history of left iliac fossa discomfort. The urinary pregnancy test was positive.
She stated that her last menstrual period (LMP) was 6 weeks ago.
She had a past history of chlamydia infection. Transvaginal ultra- sonography revealed a hypoechoic area within the uterine cavity measuring 4.3 mm in maximum diameter. This was interpreted as a pseudosac (Fig. 3.1). The patient was tender in the left iliac fossa during the scan, and the left ovary was not clearly visualized. On presentation, the serum hCG was 1600 mIU/mL, and 48 h later had increased to 2200 mIU/mL. The patient’s pain settled over this time period. It was felt that these findings were consistent with an ectopic pregnancy (EP) and methotrexate was given.
My Management
A. I agree with the management above
B. I would proceed to laparoscopy as the hCG is high C. I would repeat the transvaginal ultrasound scan D. I would carry out uterine curettage
E. I would repeat the serum hCG
Diagnosis and Assessment
A patient presenting with risk factors for EP (e.g. previous pelvic infection) should heighten suspicion. The greatest risk factor for an EP is tubal damage, which usually occurs after tubal surgery or fol- lowing a pelvic infection, particularly with Chlamydia trachomatis.
Others include smoking and conception following assisted repro- duction. However, it must be remembered that most EPs occur in women who do not have any risk factors [1]. Dating a pregnancy by LMP is helpful but not necessarily an accurate predictor of what
Fig. 3.1 An early intrauterine gestation sac misclassified as a pseudosac
3 Pregnancy of Unknown Location 21
to expect to see on an ultrasound scan [2]. A significant proportion of women are unsure of their dates or have irregular cycles. Fur- thermore, we know there are clinically relevant variations in the ovulation–implantation interval [3].
Transvaginal ultrasonography is the best imaging modality for investigating problems in early pregnancy, with > 70 % of EPs vi- sualized at presentation and > 90 % before surgery using this ap- proach [4]. The majority (60 %) of EPs will be identified as a small homogeneous mass (blob sign, Fig. 3.2) rather than the classically described ring or ‘bagel’ sign [5]. The concept of a ‘pseudosac’ is to some extent outdated and relates to a misinterpretation of the ul- trasound findings. A round or oval fluid-filled hypoechogenic col- lection in the uterus in a woman with a positive pregnancy test is more likely to be an early intrauterine gestation sac and should not be cited as evidence for the presence of an EP [6]. Great care should also be taken when performing a scan in women when the uterus is axial or in the presence of fibroids. Both can make it difficult to identify an early intrauterine gestation sac.
The case presented had a pregnancy of unknown location (PUL), not a confirmed EP. The correct management would have been to repeat the transvaginal ultrasound scan at an interval to see if the
Fig. 3.2 A homogeneous mass or ‘blob sign’—the commonest ultrasound fea- ture of an ectopic pregnancy
hypoechogenic area in the endometrial cavity could be definitively identified as an intrauterine pregnancy, or an EP mass visualized before considering methotrexate.
The modern management of PUL is based on assigning risk (low risk: failing PUL and viable intrauterine; high risk: EP) rather than locating the pregnancy. Such risk assessment may be carried using the hCG ratio (hCG at 48 h/hCG at 0 h), although we have recently shown the mathematical prediction model ‘M4’ based on the initial hCG and hCG ratio is effective in this context and out- performs single measurements of progesterone and the hCG ratio alone [7]. This model can be downloaded from: http://homes.esat.
kuleuven.be/~biomed/M4PUL/M4triage.htm.
When considering methotrexate administration, it is important to exclude a viable intrauterine pregnancy. Methotrexate can be safely given when an EP has been definitively visualized. How- ever, as most EPs are seen as a homogenous mass [5], false posi- tive test results are possible. Accordingly, waiting 48 hours and reviewing the hCG ratio prior to methotrexate administration can significantly reduce the risk of inadvertent termination. A serum hCG rise of < 35 % is highly unlikely to be associated with a viable intrauterine pregnancy [8]. In this case, the rise in serum hCG of 37.5 % should have alerted the clinical team that the presence of a viable intrauterine pregnancy is potentially possible. A further safe- guard prior to methotrexate administration is to ensure a clinician who has specific expertise in early pregnancy imaging has repeated the ultrasound scan.
Historically, it was felt that a viable pregnancy would result in a doubling of serum hCG levels, a failing pregnancy, a halving of serum hCG levels and an EP, a ‘suboptimal rise’ in serum hCG after 48 hours. This does not, however, necessarily aid the clinician in determining the location of the pregnancy as EPs may demon- strate a ‘doubling’ or ‘halving’ of the serum hCG. In contrast, 8 % of viable intrauterine pregnancies have been found to demonstrate a ‘suboptimal rise’ in hCG levels, as seen in this case [8]. In any event, management is based on risk assessment. If the serum hCG is falling, the pregnancy will fall into the low-risk category irre- spective of whether it is in the uterine cavity.
3 Pregnancy of Unknown Location 23
Management
In a woman with a PUL and a serum hCG of > 2000 mIU/mL, the most likely diagnosis is not an EP but a non-viable intrauterine pregnancy. Similarly, a viable intrauterine cannot be entirely ex- cluded when the serum hCG is > 2000 mIU/mL [1]. Accordingly, methotrexate should not be given solely on the basis of there be- ing a PUL with an initial hCG above this level [2]. In the event of a stable visualized EP, it is sensible to delay decisions about treatment until a second serum hCG result is available 48 hours later. Information given by the hCG ratio will allow the clinician to know if a viable intrauterine pregnancy is a possibility. In the event that the hCG level is falling, expectant management may also be an option, thus avoiding medical intervention altogether. Giving methotrexate as a first line treatment without taking these precau- tions may be hazardous.
The consequences of missing the diagnosis of a wanted intra- uterine pregnancy are potentially far greater than delaying the diag- nosis of an EP in a haemodynamically stable patient. The absolute serum hCG level does not predict the likelihood of rupture [9], and most patients who are haemodynamically stable can be safely man- aged either expectantly or medically.
In relation to uterine curettage, current evidence suggests that there is a limited role for uterine curettage as a diagnostic tool in women who are classified as having a PUL [10]. The concern is that there may be inadvertent termination of wanted pregnancies.
It is important to be aware that the rise in hCG that is incompatible with a possible intrauterine pregnancy may be as low as ≤ 15 % over 48 h [10]. This is a different context to using uterine curet- tage in the small cohort of women classified as having a ‘persistent PUL’, where serum hCG levels persistently fail to decline (over
≥ 3 serial serum hCG measurements). Using uterine curettage in this circumstance to confirm the absence of chorionic villi within the uterine cavity before giving methotrexate is reasonable. How- ever, false negatives can occur; for example, chorionic villi are not detected by histopathology in 20 % of curettage specimens from elective termination of pregnancy.
Outcome
The patient received a single dose of intramuscular methotrexate (50 mg/m2 body surface). Subsequent ultrasonography 14 days lat- er demonstrated an intrauterine gestation sac with a yolk sac. Both ovaries were seen and appeared normal with no adnexal masses.
The pregnancy was followed up for the next 4 weeks and ultimately miscarried. The patient took legal action against the gynaecologist and the hospital.
Clinical Pearls/Pitfalls
• Most EPs are in women who have no risk factors.
• Dating a pregnancy by the last menstrual period is not an accu- rate predictor of ultrasound findings.
• A round or oval fluid-filled collection in the uterus is more like- ly to be an early intrauterine gestation sac than a pseudosac.
• A suboptimal rise in the serum hCG level is not diagnostic of an
• A serum hCG level of EP. > 2000 mIU/mL should not be used as an indication of the presence of an EP. It is more likely to represent an intrauterine pregnancy and does not exclude viability.
• Most EPs (> 70 % on initial presentation and > 90 % before final treatment) should be visualized on transvaginal ultrasonography.
Most EPs (60 %) are seen as homogenous masses or ‘blobs’.
• The management of PUL is based on assigning risk and not nec- essarily locating the pregnancy.
• In the event of a stable EP, it is sensible to repeat the hCG after 48 hours before considering treatment.
• If the hCG ratio does not exclude a viable intrauterine pregnan- cy, a repeat ultrasound scan may be carried out to ensure there is certainty about the diagnosis.
• If the hCG is declining, expectant management may be chosen, avoiding the need for methotrexate.
• The serum hCG level does not predict the likelihood of rupture of an EP.
3 Pregnancy of Unknown Location 25
• There is a limited role for uterine curettage as a diagnostic tool in women with a PUL.
• Uterine curettage is reasonable prior to management with meth- otrexate in patients classified with a ‘persistent PUL’.
Acknowledgment Tom Bourne is supported by the NIHR Biomedical Research Center based at Imperial College Healthcare NHS Trust and Imperial College London. The views expressed are those of the author(s) and not neces- sarily those of the NHS, the NIHR or the Department of Health.
References
1. Kirk E, Bottomley C, Bourne T. Diagnosing ectopic pregnancy and current concepts in the management of pregnancy of unknown location. Hum Re- prod Update. 2014;20(2):250–61.
2. Doubilet PM, Benson CB, Bourne T, Blaivas M. Society of Radiologists in Ultrasound Multispecialty Panel on Early First Trimester Diagnosis of Miscarriage and Exclusion of a Viable Intrauterine Pregnancy, Barnhart KT, Benacerraf BR, Brown DL, Filly RA, Fox JC, Goldstein SR, Kend- all JL, Lyons EA, Porter MB, Pretorius DH, Timor-Tritsch IE. Diagnostic criteria for nonviable pregnancy early in the first trimester. N Engl J Med.
2013;369(15):1443–51. doi:10.1056/NEJMra1302417.
3. Mahendru AA, Daemen A, Everett TR, Wilkinson IB, McEniery CM, Ab- dallah Y, Timmerman D, Bourne T, Lees CC. Impact of ovulation and im- plantation timing on first-trimester crown-rump length and gestational age.
Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2012;40(6):630–5. doi:10.1002/uog.12277.
4. Kirk E, Papageorghiou AT, Condous G, Tan L, Bora S, Bourne T. The di- agnostic effectiveness of an initial transvaginal scan in detecting ectopic pregnancy. Hum Reprod. 2007;22(11):2824–8. (Epub 2007 Sep 13).
5. Brown DL, Doubilet PM. Transvaginal sonography for diagnosing ectopic pregnancy: positivity criteria and performance characteristics. J Ultrasound Med. 1994;13(4):259–66.
6. Barnhart K, van Mello NM, Bourne T, et al. Pregnancy of unknown lo- cation: a consensus statement of nomenclature, definitions, and outcome.
Fertil Steril. 2011;95:857–66.
7. Guha S, Ayim F, Ludlow J, Sayasneh A, Condous G, Kirk E, Stalder C, Timmerman D, Bourne T, Van Calster B. Triaging pregnancies of unknown location: the performance of protocols based on single serum progesterone or repeated serum hCG levels. Hum Reprod. In press 2014.
8. Seeber BE. What serial hCG can tell you, and cannot tell you, about an early pregnancy. Fertil Steril. 2012;98(5):1074–7. doi:10.1016/j.fertn- stert.2012.09.014. (Epub 2012 Sep 29). Review.
9. Galstyan K, Kurzel R. Serum beta-hCG titers do not predict ruptured ec- topic pregnancy. Int J Fertil Women Med. 2006;51:14–6.
10. Condous G, Kirk E, Lu C, Van Calster B, Van Huffel S, Timmerman D, Bourne T. There is no role for uterine curettage in the contemporary di- agnostic workup of women with a pregnancy of unknown location. Hum Reprod. 2006;21(10):2706–10. (Epub 2006 Jun 21).
27