Fertility and reproductive outcome after tubal ectopic pregnancy: comparison among methotrexate, surgery and expectant management.
Ectopic pregnancy
Fertility
Methotrexate
Pregnancy outcome
Salpingectomy
Journal
Archives of gynecology and obstetrics
ISSN: 1432-0711
Titre abrégé: Arch Gynecol Obstet
Pays: Germany
ID NLM: 8710213
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
01 2021
01 2021
Historique:
received:
04
04
2020
accepted:
13
08
2020
pubmed:
28
8
2020
medline:
23
2
2021
entrez:
28
8
2020
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
To compare fertility and reproductive outcome after surgical, medical, and expectant management for tubal ectopic pregnancy (EP). 133 of 228 patients, who were managed between January 2012 and December 2017 for a tubal EP, tried to conceive immediately after treatment: 86 out of 173 (49.7%) underwent surgical treatment; 38 (21.9%) were treated with methotrexate (MTX), and 49 (28.3%) had expectant management. Clinical data were retrieved by medical records, fertility outcomes were obtained by phone follow-up. The cumulative incidence (CI) of intrauterine clinical pregnancy (CP), miscarriage, live birth (LB), and recurrent EP, and the time between treatment and first intrauterine CP were compared between women treated with MTX, surgery and expectant management. The CI of intrauterine CP starting from 12 months after the EP was 65.3% for the expectant management, 55.3% for the MTX group, and 39.5% for surgery (p = 0.012). Post-hoc analysis showed expectant management having higher intrauterine CP and LB, and shorter time between treatment and first intrauterine CP compared to surgery (p < 0.05). The CI of recurrent EP was comparable between the 3 groups. The analysis stratified per βhCG cut-off of 1745 mUI/mL and EP mass cut-off of 25 mm reported consistent results. Women successfully managed by expectation appear to have better reproductive outcomes compared to women who underwent surgery, with the shortest time to achieve a subsequent intrauterine CP. Therefore, if safely applicable the expectant management should be considered in the case of tubal EP. The fact that the chosen treatment was primarily guided by the βhCG value and EP mass diameter based on the protocol, which is intrinsically related to the characteristics of the EP, represents the main limitation of the present study. Indeed, we cannot completely exclude that the observed differences between treatments are related to the EP itself instead of the treatment.
Identifiants
pubmed: 32852572
doi: 10.1007/s00404-020-05749-2
pii: 10.1007/s00404-020-05749-2
pmc: PMC7854461
doi:
Substances chimiques
Methotrexate
YL5FZ2Y5U1
Types de publication
Comparative Study
Journal Article
Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
259-268Références
Fertil Steril. 1997 Dec;68(6):1043-6
pubmed: 9418694
Hum Reprod Update. 2008 Jul-Aug;14(4):309-19
pubmed: 18522946
Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2014 Aug;211(2):128.e1-5
pubmed: 24657132
QJM. 1999 Oct;92(10):551-63
pubmed: 10627876
Lancet. 2014 Apr 26;383(9927):1483-1489
pubmed: 24499812
Clin Exp Obstet Gynecol. 2011;38(1):67-70
pubmed: 21485731
Int J Surg. 2017 Dec;48:59-63
pubmed: 28951291
Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2017 Feb;49(2):171-176
pubmed: 27731538
Hum Reprod. 2013 Jan;28(1):60-7
pubmed: 23081873
Minim Invasive Ther Allied Technol. 2019 Dec;28(6):359-362
pubmed: 30514139
Arch Gynecol Obstet. 2009 Apr;279(4):443-53
pubmed: 18665380
BJOG. 2000 Jun;107(6):714-21
pubmed: 10847225
Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol. 1996 May;66(1):1-2
pubmed: 8735750
Fertil Steril. 2018 Oct;110(5):925-931.e1
pubmed: 30316439
Ir J Med Sci. 2017 May;186(2):387-392
pubmed: 26895299
J Fam Plann Reprod Health Care. 2011 Oct;37(4):231-40
pubmed: 21727242
BMJ Open. 2015 Sep 08;5(9):e007339
pubmed: 26351180
Ginekol Pol. 2013 Dec;84(12):1030-5
pubmed: 24505950
Hum Reprod. 1991 Nov;6(10):1474-7
pubmed: 1770147
Fertil Steril. 1998 Sep;70(3):518-22
pubmed: 9757882
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2007 Jan 24;(1):CD000324
pubmed: 17253448
Hum Reprod. 2013 May;28(5):1247-53
pubmed: 23482340
J Pediatr Adolesc Gynecol. 2011 Oct;24(5):251-5
pubmed: 21715197
Obstet Gynecol. 1991 May;77(5):754-7
pubmed: 2014091
BMJ. 2000 Apr 1;320(7239):916-9
pubmed: 10742003
Fertil Steril. 2011 Mar 1;95(3):1159-60
pubmed: 21067718
Int J Gynaecol Obstet. 2012 Feb;116(2):101-4
pubmed: 22093497
Hum Reprod. 2006 Dec;21(12):3132-6
pubmed: 16931804
Fertil Steril. 2012 Nov;98(5):1271-6.e1-3
pubmed: 22818285
J Reprod Med. 2000 Oct;45(10):803-7
pubmed: 11077627
Int J Reprod Biomed. 2018 Jan;16(1):31-34
pubmed: 29675485
J Obstet Gynaecol Res. 2016 Mar;42(3):286-90
pubmed: 26694788