Triaging women with pregnancy of unknown location using two-step protocol including M6 model: clinical implementation study.


Journal

Ultrasound in obstetrics & gynecology : the official journal of the International Society of Ultrasound in Obstetrics and Gynecology
ISSN: 1469-0705
Titre abrégé: Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol
Pays: England
ID NLM: 9108340

Informations de publication

Date de publication:
01 2020
Historique:
received: 24 02 2019
revised: 19 07 2019
accepted: 26 07 2019
pubmed: 7 8 2019
medline: 26 8 2021
entrez: 7 8 2019
Statut: ppublish

Résumé

The M6 risk-prediction model was published as part of a two-step protocol using an initial progesterone level of ≤ 2 nmol/L to identify probable failing pregnancies (Step 1) followed by the M6 model (Step 2). The M6 model has been shown to have good triage performance for stratifying women with a pregnancy of unknown location (PUL) as being at low or high risk of harboring an ectopic pregnancy (EP). This study validated the triage performance of the two-step protocol in clinical practice by evaluating the number of protocol-related adverse events and how effectively patients were triaged. This was a prospective multicenter interventional study of 3272 women with a PUL, carried out between January 2015 and January 2017 in four district general hospitals and four university teaching hospitals in the UK. The final pregnancy outcome was defined as: a failed PUL (FPUL), an intrauterine pregnancy (IUP) or an EP (including persistent PUL (PPUL)). FPUL and IUP were grouped as low-risk and EP/PPUL as high-risk PUL. Serum progesterone and human chorionic gonadotropin (hCG) levels were measured at presentation in all patients. If the initial progesterone level was ≤ 2 nmol/L, patients were discharged and were asked to have a follow-up urine pregnancy test in 2 weeks to confirm a negative result. If the progesterone level was > 2 nmol/L or a measurement had not been taken, hCG level was measured again at 48 h and results were entered into the M6 model. Patients were managed according to the outcome predicted by the protocol. Those classified as 'low risk, probable FPUL' were advised to perform a urine pregnancy test in 2 weeks and those classified as 'low risk, probable IUP' were invited for a scan a week later. When a woman with a PUL was classified as high risk (i.e. risk of EP ≥ 5%) she was reviewed clinically within 48 h. One center used a progesterone cut-off of ≤ 10 nmol/L and its data were analyzed separately. If the recommended management protocol was not adhered to, this was recorded as a protocol deviation and classified as: unscheduled visit for clinician reason, unscheduled visit for patient reason or incorrect timing of blood test or ultrasound scan. The classifications outlined in the UK Good Clinical Practice (GCP) guidelines were used to evaluate the incidence of adverse events. Data were analyzed using descriptive statistics. Of the 3272 women with a PUL, 2625 were included in the final analysis (317 met the exclusion criteria or were lost to follow-up, while 330 were evaluated using a progesterone cut-off of ≤ 10 nmol/L). Initial progesterone results were available for 2392 (91.1%) patients. In Step 1, 407 (15.5%) patients were classified as low risk (progesterone ≤ 2 nmol/L), of whom seven (1.7%) were ultimately diagnosed with an EP. In 279 of the remaining 2218 women with a PUL, the M6 model was not applied owing to protocol deviation or because the outcome was already known (usually on the basis of an ultrasound scan) before a second hCG reading was taken; of these patients, 30 were diagnosed with an EP. In Step 2, 1038 women with a PUL were classified as low risk, of whom eight (0.8%) had a final outcome of EP. Of 901 women classified as high risk at Step 2, 275 (30.5%) had an EP. Therefore, 275/320 (85.9%) EPs were correctly classified as high risk. Overall, 1445/2625 PUL (55.0%) were classified as low risk, of which 15 (1.0%) were EP. None of these cases resulted in a ruptured EP or significant clinical harm. Sixty-two women participating in the study had an adverse event, but no woman had a serious adverse event as defined in the UK GCP guidelines. This study has shown that the two-step protocol incorporating the M6 model effectively triaged the majority of women with a PUL as being at low risk of an EP, minimizing the follow-up required for these patients after just two visits. There were few misclassified EPs and none of these women came to significant clinical harm or suffered a serious adverse clinical event. The two-step protocol incorporating the M6 model is an effective and clinically safe way of rationalizing the management of women with a PUL. Copyright © 2019 ISUOG. Published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd.

Identifiants

pubmed: 31385381
doi: 10.1002/uog.20420
doi:

Types de publication

Journal Article Multicenter Study Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't

Langues

eng

Sous-ensembles de citation

IM

Pagination

105-114

Subventions

Organisme : Internal Funds KU Leuven
ID : C24/15/037
Organisme : NIHR Biomedical Research Centre based at Imperial College Healthcare NHS Trust and Imperial College London
Organisme : NIHR CLAHRC NWL (Collaboration for Leadership in Applied Health Research & Care, North West London grant RDIP033)
Organisme : Research Foundation - Flanders (FWO)
ID : G0B4716N

Informations de copyright

Copyright © 2019 ISUOG. Published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd.

Références

Kirk E, Condous G, Van Calster B, Van Huffel S, Timmerman D, Bourne T. Rationalizing the follow-up of pregnancies of unknown location. Hum Reprod 2007; 22: 1744-1750.
Kirk E, Condous G, Bourne T. Pregnancies of unknown location. Best Pract Res Clin Obstet Gynaecol 2009; 23: 493-499.
Kirk E, Bottomley C, Bourne T. Diagnosing ectopic pregnancy and current concepts in the management of pregnancy of unknown location. Hum Reprod Update 2014; 20: 250-261.
Hahlin M, Thorburn J, Bryman I. The expectant management of early pregnancies of uncertain site. Hum Reprod 1995; 10: 1223-1227.
Banerjee S, Aslam N, Zosmer N, Woelfer B, Jurkovic D. The expectant management of women with early pregnancy of unknown location. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 1999; 14: 231-236.
van Mello NM, Mol F, Opmeer BC, Ankum WM, Barnhart K, Coomarasamy A, Mol BW, van der Veen F, Hajenius PJ. Diagnostic value of serum hCG on the outcome of pregnancy of unknown location: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Hum Reprod Update 2012; 18: 603-617.
Cordina M, Schramm-Gajraj K, Ross JA, Lautman K, Jurkovic D. Introduction of a single visit protocol in the management of selected patients with pregnancy of unknown location: a prospective study. BJOG 2011; 118: 693-697.
Condous G, Okaro E, Khalid A, Lu C, Van Huffel S, Timmerman D, Bourne T. A prospective evaluation of a single-visit strategy to manage pregnancies of unknown location. Hum Reprod 2005; 20: 1398-1403.
Condous G, Lu C, Van Huffel SV, Timmerman D, Bourne T. Human chorionic gonadotrophin and progesterone levels in pregnancies of unknown location. Int J Gynaecol Obstet 2004; 86: 351-357.
Condous G, Van Calster B, Kirk E, Haider Z, Timmerman D, Van Huffel S, Bourne T. Prediction of ectopic pregnancy in women with a pregnancy of unknown location. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 2007; 29: 680-687.
Van Calster B, Abdallah Y, Guha S, Kirk E, Van Hoorde K, Condous G, Preisler J, Hoo W, Stalder C, Bottomley C, Timmerman D, Bourne T. Rationalizing the management of pregnancies of unknown location: temporal and external validation of a risk prediction model on 1962 pregnancies. Hum Reprod 2013; 28: 609-616.
Bobdiwala S, Guha S, Van Calster B, Ayim F, Mitchell-Jones N, Al-Memar M, Mitchell H, Stalder C, Bottomley C, Kothari A, Timmerman D, Bourne T. The clinical performance of the M4 decision support model to triage women with a pregnancy of unknown location as at low or high risk of complications. Hum Reprod 2016; 31: 1425-1435.
Van Calster B, Bobdiwala S, Guha S, Van Hoorde K, Al-Memar M, Harvey R, Farren J, Kirk E, Condous G, Sur S, Stalder C, Timmerman D, Bourne T. Managing pregnancy of unknown location based on initial serum progesterone and serial serum hCG levels: development and validation of a two-step triage protocol. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 2016; 48: 642-649.
Bobdiwala S, Al-Memar M, Farren J, Bourne §T. Factors to consider in pregnancy of unknown location. Womens Health (Lond) 2017; 13: 27-33.
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 2014; 29: 938-945.
Bobdiwala S, Saso S, Verbakel JY, Al-Memar M, Van Calster B, Timmerman D, Bourne T. Diagnostic protocols for the management of pregnancy of unknown location: a systematic review and meta-analysis. BJOG 2019; 126: 190-198.
Condous G, Okaro E, Khalid A, Lu C, Van Huffel S, Timmerman D, Bourne T. The accuracy of transvaginal ultrasonography for the diagnosis of ectopic pregnancy prior to surgery. Hum Reprod 2005; 20: 1404-1409.
Kirk E, Daemen A, Papageorghiou AT, Bottomley C, Condous G, De Moor B, Timmerman D, Bourne T. Why are some ectopic pregnancies characterized as pregnancies of unknown location at the initial transvaginal ultrasound examination? Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand 2008; 87: 1150-1154.
Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency (MHRA). The Good Clinical Practice Guide. The Stationery Office: London, UK, 2014.
Yao M, Tulandi T. Current status of surgical and nonsurgical management of ectopic pregnancy. Fertil Steril 1997; 67: 421-433.

Auteurs

S Bobdiwala (S)

Tommy's National Centre for Miscarriage Research, Queen Charlotte's & Chelsea Hospital, Imperial College London, London, UK.

E Christodoulou (E)

KU Leuven, Department of Development & Regeneration, Leuven, Belgium.

J Farren (J)

St Marys' Hospital, London, UK.

N Mitchell-Jones (N)

Chelsea and Westminster NHS Foundation Trust, London, UK.

C Kyriacou (C)

Tommy's National Centre for Miscarriage Research, Queen Charlotte's & Chelsea Hospital, Imperial College London, London, UK.

M Al-Memar (M)

Tommy's National Centre for Miscarriage Research, Queen Charlotte's & Chelsea Hospital, Imperial College London, London, UK.

F Ayim (F)

Hillingdon Hospital, London, UK.

B Chohan (B)

Wexham Park Hospital, Slough, UK.

E Kirk (E)

Royal Free NHS Foundation Trust, London, UK.

O Abughazza (O)

Royal Surrey County Hospital, Guildford, UK.

B Guruwadahyarhalli (B)

Chelsea and Westminster NHS Foundation Trust, London, UK.

S Guha (S)

Chelsea and Westminster NHS Foundation Trust, London, UK.

V Vathanan (V)

Wexham Park Hospital, Slough, UK.

C Bottomley (C)

Chelsea and Westminster NHS Foundation Trust, London, UK.

D Gould (D)

St Marys' Hospital, London, UK.

C Stalder (C)

Tommy's National Centre for Miscarriage Research, Queen Charlotte's & Chelsea Hospital, Imperial College London, London, UK.

D Timmerman (D)

KU Leuven, Department of Development & Regeneration, Leuven, Belgium.
University Hospital Leuven, Leuven, Belgium.

B van Calster (B)

KU Leuven, Department of Development & Regeneration, Leuven, Belgium.
Leiden University Medical Centre, Leiden, The Netherlands.

T Bourne (T)

Tommy's National Centre for Miscarriage Research, Queen Charlotte's & Chelsea Hospital, Imperial College London, London, UK.
KU Leuven, Department of Development & Regeneration, Leuven, Belgium.
University Hospital Leuven, Leuven, Belgium.

Articles similaires

[Redispensing of expensive oral anticancer medicines: a practical application].

Lisanne N van Merendonk, Kübra Akgöl, Bastiaan Nuijen
1.00
Humans Antineoplastic Agents Administration, Oral Drug Costs Counterfeit Drugs

Smoking Cessation and Incident Cardiovascular Disease.

Jun Hwan Cho, Seung Yong Shin, Hoseob Kim et al.
1.00
Humans Male Smoking Cessation Cardiovascular Diseases Female
Humans United States Aged Cross-Sectional Studies Medicare Part C
1.00
Humans Yoga Low Back Pain Female Male

Classifications MeSH